Why do mass shooters always share the same hair styles and crazed zombie stares?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Prescription drugs.

Nearly.
The abuse of prescription and/or illegal drugs.
The abuse part is the important bit.

Legally prescribed and correctly applied pharmaceutical compounds kill 100k/year in the US alone. Trusting Dr.s and Pharma is the abuse.

Eh? They save tens of millions of lives per year. While no drug is safe, blanket fear-mongering is far worse.

This is a uniquely US thing, trying to pin it on a universal issue or single issue such as prescribed drugs is likely to be as accurate as the clearly false 'all serial killers have the same hair' claims.

First off, the article did not claim ALL serial killers have the same hair. It did point out the one exception, while most of the last mass killers had the similar 'bowl cut', intimating the hairstyle COULD BE a sign of a mental anti-social disorder. It clearly stated not all those with bowl cuts are killers, but most of the mass shooters had similar haircuts. Second, prescription drugs don't SAVE tens of millions of lives a year, they just treat for the short term. I guess you equate facts as 'fear-mongering'.

Insulin saves tens of millions of lives every year.
That's just one drug.

I guess you equate fear-mongering as "facts".

Artificially produced pharmaceutical insulin treats, and in the process temporarily saves, not cures, millions of lives each year. A safer, vastly cheaper, natural cure is cinnamon. Of course, big pharma doesn't tell you about that, they can't make billions from a penny plant.

So it saves lives then?
You said they didn't then you said they do.
Which is it?

Would you care to share how cinnamon cures diabetes?
And how long has this been known about as I'm sure the millions of people who died as a result of starvation diets before insulin was available would have liked to have known this.
I'm sure my 81 year-old insulin dependant Dad would like to know too.

Your last sentence is straight from conspiracy 101.
Where do you think pharma derive drugs from?
Digoxin, aspirin, opiates etc etc etc? All from plants.
If there was something in cinnamon which cured diabetes it could be extracted and sold couldn't it?

You've not put much thought into this have you?

You're obviously a shill for big pharma because you either work or have worked for them in some capacity, so I'll provide a link that shows cinnamon is a safer, natural alternative to the artificial pharm produced insulin with adverse side affects. I'm sure you will automatically dispute though because it doesn't fit your agenda. And there is something in cinnamon which cures diabetes and the pharms won't address it though because they wouldn't make any money off it. And yes, I have put thought into this. And just to placate you, I took a source from the Mayo Clinic rather than a natural/alternative sight which I'm sure you would yell is biased. Of course they tout cinnamon only be used as a 'supplement' to regular pharma treatment. But they are admitting cinnamon has a place. It amazes me they term natural remedies which have been around for thousands of years as 'alternative medicine' yet artificially produced ingredients that have only been around for @ 100 years as 'mainstream'.

"Whether cinnamon can lower blood sugar is a topic of debate — but recent research suggests that cinnamon may be helpful as a supplement to regular diabetes treatment in people with type 2 diabetes."
www.mayoclinic.org...

You've used the shill card, that's very poor debating...


As for cinnamon, you will see from the studies you've referenced that it only works in the short-term and a Cochrane review actually shows that it offers no benefit to diabetes I or II.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
So your reference shows that it not too good.

It's nowhere as near as effective as insulin either.
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

And it's still a treatment.
Not a cure.
I won't be asking my Dad to swap his insulin for it regardless of what your "natural health" sites say.

Natural remedies that work are called medicine.
Those that don't are called "alternative medicine".

a reply to: UnBreakable

Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Ceylon Cinamon is already a raw product that goes into a lot of medicines, the ingredient that provides the benefits, Eugenol and Cinnameldehyde are isolated and extracted into oils so people don't have to eat several grams of the raw product as eating raw cinnamon would kill them in six weeks from toxicity overdose or risk death from choking trying to eat that amount.

Edit: What Pardon? says is right - if someone switched from insulin to cinnamon they'd be dead pretty soon. 'Complementary' means it offers no benefit but doesn't interfere with actual medicine.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I was pondering this just yesterday, it's an interesting phenomenon. Is there a factory in China mass producing these people?

I suppose these are a series of traits that people with this kind of mental illness all share and the physical ones are always the most immediately obvious.

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: UnBreakable

Did you watch the video you asked me to link?

Watched the video, all forty-eight minutes. MrCati makes huge stretches linking Holmes's orange hair to ISIS orange prisoner jumpsuits to orange and the 666 connection. Also his soccer 16 jersey # and the letters in his name to coded future actions. Kudos to him none-the-less for his hard work on making those connections, interesting.

I really don't know about this stare. One question I have is how many of these photos were taken after they had gone out and killed? You can't expect most people to go out and murder, then have a-okay looking eyes. It's gotta be traumatizing for even the killers, except perhaps the true primary psychopaths among them. If any of you actually follow the literature on psychopathy, you'll realize most psychopaths don't kill, and most killers aren't psychopaths.

I've seen a lot of different kinds of eyes in people. It's not that good of an indication of anything. It's one marker to take into consideration. Body language tells you a lot, but focusing on just one part is not wise, and not what professionals do. Think of some of these Asperger's, or ADHD walking around. Some of them will have bizarre looking eyes, and yet they're just as they are. What you could do with the eyes is see deviations in particular people over time. If someone has a common look in their eyes, and that drastically changes the next day you see them, you know something is up.

I really don't see a lack of emotion in most of their eyes. There's one that does give me a bad vibe. A single one. The rest just look like they're freaked out about just killing someone. Were they mostly taken after arrest?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: UnBreakable

Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Ceylon Cinamon is already a raw product that goes into a lot of medicines, the ingredient that provides the benefits, Eugenol and Cinnameldehyde are isolated and extracted into oils so people don't have to eat several grams of the raw product as eating raw cinnamon would kill them in six weeks from toxicity overdose or risk death from choking trying to eat that amount.

Edit: What Pardon? says is right - if someone switched from insulin to cinnamon they'd be dead pretty soon. 'Complementary' means it offers no benefit but doesn't interfere with actual medicine.

Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Because they wouldn't make their billions of dollars if someone went out a spent a few dollars on as is. You made my point when you said a raw product goes into a lot of medicines. What's a few dollars turns out to be a big bucks after the pharms process and get FDA approval for their product. Toxicity? Let's talk about long term adverse effects of prescription drugs. I work with a woman who had type II diabetes, eschewed her prescribed medicine, and took a cinnamon regimen exclusively for four months. Went back to her primary, said her #s were normal and the meds must be working. She then told him she wasn't taking the meds he prescribed but strictly cinnamon. Of course he told her it was everything else but the cinnamon which worked.

From my own personal experience, the bowl cut is signs of either:

- Not caring about looks, lack of esthetics
- Getting hair cut by mother/father
- Problems of social acceptance
- No individuality, no definition of self during adolecence
- Low self esteem

Past 16 years old, I never met anyone with a bowl cut that didn't have personality issues.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: UnBreakable

Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Ceylon Cinamon is already a raw product that goes into a lot of medicines, the ingredient that provides the benefits, Eugenol and Cinnameldehyde are isolated and extracted into oils so people don't have to eat several grams of the raw product as eating raw cinnamon would kill them in six weeks from toxicity overdose or risk death from choking trying to eat that amount.

Edit: What Pardon? says is right - if someone switched from insulin to cinnamon they'd be dead pretty soon. 'Complementary' means it offers no benefit but doesn't interfere with actual medicine.

Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Because they wouldn't make their billions of dollars if someone went out a spent a few dollars on as is. You made my point when you said a raw product goes into a lot of medicines. What's a few dollars turns out to be a big bucks after the pharms process and get FDA approval for their product. Toxicity? Let's talk about long term adverse effects of prescription drugs. I work with a woman who had type II diabetes, eschewed her prescribed medicine, and took a cinnamon regimen exclusively for four months. Went back to her primary, said her #s were normal and the meds must be working. She then told him she wasn't taking the meds he prescribed but strictly cinnamon. Of course he told her it was everything else but the cinnamon which worked.

What type of cinnamon did she take?
What dose did she take?
How did she decide what dose to take did she base it on her BMI?
What other meds or therapies was she on previously and/or concurrently?
How did she decide that it was the cinnamon which worked and not dietary changes and/or exercise?
How has she determined that it is safe to use over a prolonged period of time (as there have been no studies showing it's safety in chronic use)?

Type 2 diabetes can be very well controlled with diet & exercise without the need for drugs.
Were you aware of that?
Also seems a little coincidental that she was on it for 4 months, exactly what was mentioned in one of the studies in the link you posted...

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Prescription drugs.

Nearly.
The abuse of prescription and/or illegal drugs.
The abuse part is the important bit.

Legally prescribed and correctly applied pharmaceutical compounds kill 100k/year in the US alone. Trusting Dr.s and Pharma is the abuse.

Eh? They save tens of millions of lives per year. While no drug is safe, blanket fear-mongering is far worse.

This is a uniquely US thing, trying to pin it on a universal issue or single issue such as prescribed drugs is likely to be as accurate as the clearly false 'all serial killers have the same hair' claims.

First off, the article did not claim ALL serial killers have the same hair. It did point out the one exception, while most of the last mass killers had the similar 'bowl cut', intimating the hairstyle COULD BE a sign of a mental anti-social disorder. It clearly stated not all those with bowl cuts are killers, but most of the mass shooters had similar haircuts. Second, prescription drugs don't SAVE tens of millions of lives a year, they just treat for the short term. I guess you equate facts as 'fear-mongering'.

Insulin saves tens of millions of lives every year.
That's just one drug.

I guess you equate fear-mongering as "facts".

Artificially produced pharmaceutical insulin treats, and in the process temporarily saves, not cures, millions of lives each year. A safer, vastly cheaper, natural cure is cinnamon. Of course, big pharma doesn't tell you about that, they can't make billions from a penny plant.

So it saves lives then?
You said they didn't then you said they do.
Which is it?

Would you care to share how cinnamon cures diabetes?
And how long has this been known about as I'm sure the millions of people who died as a result of starvation diets before insulin was available would have liked to have known this.
I'm sure my 81 year-old insulin dependant Dad would like to know too.

Your last sentence is straight from conspiracy 101.
Where do you think pharma derive drugs from?
Digoxin, aspirin, opiates etc etc etc? All from plants.
If there was something in cinnamon which cured diabetes it could be extracted and sold couldn't it?

You've not put much thought into this have you?

You're obviously a shill for big pharma because you either work or have worked for them in some capacity, so I'll provide a link that shows cinnamon is a safer, natural alternative to the artificial pharm produced insulin with adverse side affects. I'm sure you will automatically dispute though because it doesn't fit your agenda. And there is something in cinnamon which cures diabetes and the pharms won't address it though because they wouldn't make any money off it. And yes, I have put thought into this. And just to placate you, I took a source from the Mayo Clinic rather than a natural/alternative sight which I'm sure you would yell is biased. Of course they tout cinnamon only be used as a 'supplement' to regular pharma treatment. But they are admitting cinnamon has a place. It amazes me they term natural remedies which have been around for thousands of years as 'alternative medicine' yet artificially produced ingredients that have only been around for @ 100 years as 'mainstream'.

"Whether cinnamon can lower blood sugar is a topic of debate — but recent research suggests that cinnamon may be helpful as a supplement to regular diabetes treatment in people with type 2 diabetes."
www.mayoclinic.org...

Natural remedies that work are called medicine.
Those that don't are called "alternative medicine".

So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

originally posted by: UnBreakable
She then told him she wasn't taking the meds he prescribed but strictly cinnamon. Of course he told her it was everything else but the cinnamon which worked.

Doctors hate people that self medicate and self diagnose. Most of the time, when I go to the doctors, I know what's my problem and know what's the solution but I need their damn prescription.

So now, I play the fool. I just say my sympthoms and I shut up about my diagnosis. If I don't, they will try to find any conclusion but my own and give me a hard time. I have had doctors made ridiculous claims for the sake of their ego.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

originally posted by: UnBreakable


Why would 'big pharma' be against it? Because they wouldn't make their billions of dollars if someone went out a spent a few dollars on as is. You made my point when you said a raw product goes into a lot of medicines. What's a few dollars turns out to be a big bucks after the pharms process and get FDA approval for their product.

That's because the process of discovering medicines that are safe and effective costs billions of dollars. The raw ingredient carries all the side effects listed on the medication and far more besides, the manufacturing process and testing process have removed as many of these side effects as possible so they only happen to 1 in 1 million people or similar so they can pass strict safety legislation.

Medicine is about looking at how nature has solved these problems, taking out all the nasty bits so we're only left with the good bits and everyone knows the risks involved and associated with them.

I'm not really way off on a conspiracy tangent, but something isn't computing about this guy, and it could just be that yeah, he really was quite INSANE, though I don't think anyone wants him to be, because they want to see him executed for his actions. (I do, I think most want him to be found guilty of racism and murder and executed, even folks that 2 days earlier said the death penalty was immoral.)

I don't get how a kid that isn't that smart, and that can't seem to get through the 9th grade, would have such a keen interest in world affairs that he'd wear these foreign patches probably few had heard of before this incident, or how he'd know to obscure his website by using a russian registrar.

Having worked mental health for a long time, psychosis often comes out as racism or religious fundamentalism and intolerance. It can get hard to separate them. That manifesto didn't seem all that disjointed though.

So was this guy learning disabled, seriously mentally ill, some sort of underachiever (though his vocabulary wasn't impressive...) Dunno, reports on the guy just don't make sense to me.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

Pharmaceuticals make the bulk of their money from chemotherapy drugs and push them as the only cure on a gullible public who fail to realize they only work 3% of the time.

"Patrick Swayze's death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: They know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine"
"The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancermore: www.naturalnews.com...

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

Pharmaceuticals make the bulk of their money from chemotherapy drugs and push them as the only cure on a gullible public who fail to realize they only work 3% of the time.

"Patrick Swayze's death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: They know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine"
"The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancermore: www.naturalnews.com...

Your first sentence is quoting a very tired and wrong piece of misinformation.
scienceblogs.com...


Your paragraph from that bastion of wrongness, would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously ill informed.
Oh I know, why don't people with cancer try something else other than therapies which have been tested?
Because they don't work, that's why.
An Oncologist's Tale

By the way, do you know if your repeat the word gullible enough times it sounds like you're saying oranges?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

Pharmaceuticals make the bulk of their money from chemotherapy drugs and push them as the only cure on a gullible public who fail to realize they only work 3% of the time.

"Patrick Swayze's death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: They know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine"
"The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancermore: www.naturalnews.com...

Your first sentence is quoting a very tired and wrong piece of misinformation.
scienceblogs.com...


Your paragraph from that bastion of wrongness, would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously ill informed.
Oh I know, why don't people with cancer try something else other than therapies which have been tested?
Because they don't work, that's why.
An Oncologist's Tale

By the way, do you know if your repeat the word gullible enough times it sounds like you're saying oranges?

Boy, you sure are over-protective of your agenda. I don't know where you find the time to post as head of pharmaceutical sales.

........what a joke. Proves my point.

"A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them."
www.tbyil.com...

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

Pharmaceuticals make the bulk of their money from chemotherapy drugs and push them as the only cure on a gullible public who fail to realize they only work 3% of the time.

"Patrick Swayze's death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: They know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine"
"The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancermore: www.naturalnews.com...

Your first sentence is quoting a very tired and wrong piece of misinformation.
scienceblogs.com...


Your paragraph from that bastion of wrongness, would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously ill informed.
Oh I know, why don't people with cancer try something else other than therapies which have been tested?
Because they don't work, that's why.
An Oncologist's Tale

By the way, do you know if your repeat the word gullible enough times it sounds like you're saying oranges?

Boy, you sure are over-protective of your agenda. I don't know where you find the time to post as head of pharmaceutical sales.

........what a joke. Proves my point.

"A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them."
www.tbyil.com...

Still pushing the shill gambit?
I suppose that's all you've got really as so far your argument has been pretty thin to say the least.

But to fill in the details that your post has missed, here's the efficacy rates for major drug therapies.
This doesn't take into account any interaction with other medications or whether indeed they're being used and/or taken properly. The higher the number, the higher the efficacy.
Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis)50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis50
Schizophrenia: 60

You also forgot to add that the article you referenced is 12 years old but that's not surprising really is it?
Here's the original.
www.independent.co.uk...

So the efficacy rates for several of those areas will be much higher now, science has progressed almost exponentially in the last decade in some of the areas.

So going back to your original statement, please show where drugs haven't saved millions of lives (even though you have already conceded they did).

And please get a tattoo somewhere prominent that states.
"IN CASE OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY PLEASE CALL A NATUROPATH".
Actually, best not do that...Even though your beliefs are based upon conspiracy I wouldn't wish harm on anyone.

Natural news isn't an anti-science website: rationalwiki.org...

For good info on the real crimes of Big Pharma it's far better to read Dr Ben Goldacre's Bad Science and Bad Pharma as they're written by a doctor who teaches people how to read scientific papers and exposes the trick companies like GSK try to pull during clinical trials to make the drugs appear more effective than they are.

As for cancer, chemo is a very tricky decision to make and not one I'm qualified to comment on - however my radiographer friends have told me it's good in most cancers but not worth it for things like Prostate Cancer as it happens mostly in elderly people and dying from it can be far more pleasant and take a lot longer than entering chemo at that stage in life.

EDIT: Expect alzheimer's efficacy to sky rocket in a couple of years as medication to reverse it has been trialled, it's just not publicly available yet but the guy who worked on it should be getting a noble prize this or next year /inside info.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: UnBreakable
So, I guess pharma produced chemotherapy must be an 'alternative medicine' since it doesn't work 97% of the time.
tv.greenmedinfo.com...

Sure it works!
It works because after, you'll be weaker and need mooooore prescriptions.

Don't you know that chemotherapy is the ONLY solution against cancer? Listen to lobbyists and the people that make profits when we are sick, how could they be wrong? :p

Pharmaceuticals make the bulk of their money from chemotherapy drugs and push them as the only cure on a gullible public who fail to realize they only work 3% of the time.

"Patrick Swayze's death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: They know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine"
"The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancermore: www.naturalnews.com...

Your first sentence is quoting a very tired and wrong piece of misinformation.
scienceblogs.com...


Your paragraph from that bastion of wrongness, would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously ill informed.
Oh I know, why don't people with cancer try something else other than therapies which have been tested?
Because they don't work, that's why.
An Oncologist's Tale

By the way, do you know if your repeat the word gullible enough times it sounds like you're saying oranges?

Boy, you sure are over-protective of your agenda. I don't know where you find the time to post as head of pharmaceutical sales.

........what a joke. Proves my point.

"A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them."
www.tbyil.com...

Still pushing the shill gambit?
I suppose that's all you've got really as so far your argument has been pretty thin to say the least.

But to fill in the details that your post has missed, here's the efficacy rates for major drug therapies.
This doesn't take into account any interaction with other medications or whether indeed they're being used and/or taken properly. The higher the number, the higher the efficacy.
Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis)50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis50
Schizophrenia: 60

You also forgot to add that the article you referenced is 12 years old but that's not surprising really is it?
Here's the original.
www.independent.co.uk...

So the efficacy rates for several of those areas will be much higher now, science has progressed almost exponentially in the last decade in some of the areas.

So going back to your original statement, please show where drugs haven't saved millions of lives (even though you have already conceded they did).

And please get a tattoo somewhere prominent that states.
"IN CASE OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY PLEASE CALL A NATUROPATH".
Actually, best not do that...Even though your beliefs are based upon conspiracy I wouldn't wish harm on anyone.

Wow! An efficacy rate of 25 (the lowest in that list) for oncology which tens billions of dollars are collected by cancer charities and federal funds for research hospitals. You don't think they're suppressing that for fear of putting oncologists out of work or causing pharm companies billions to lose their biggest money-maker chemo drugs, do you? No it couldn't be. It would be beyond comprehension that a company would be so corrupt as to put profits ahead of the public good. And yes, I'm still pushing the shill gambit. And of course in an emergency they want you to contact your doctor. Because if you die, they'll lose one of their cash flows.

All papers including that report are public domain. Anyone can read them, analyse them and make up their own minds.

If they wanted to suppress it, holding an international press conference and printing it in national newspapers wouldn't be the best way to do that, don't you agree?