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: 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.

Did you miss the fact that the list is 12 years old?
It would be intersting to see up to date figures.
Especially the ones for cancer as mortality rates have dropped by nearly 20% in the last decade alone.

But ignore the facts as I know it upsets your belief system.

As for suppressing a cure...so no-one in the higher echelons of big pharma have ever died of cancer or had close family die of it have they?
No oncologists or their families have ever died of it have they?
And they've just let that happen ever though they know there's a cure right?

And the pharma company discovering the cure wouldn't become the richest and most powerful company in the world overnight would they?
(Even though cancer is over 250 different diseases and it's likely there won't be a single cure for all of them although they're getting pretty good with some. How many kids die of leukaemia these days compared to even 2- years ago?)

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that drugs haven't saved millions of lives.
You keep on dodging that don't you?

Like I said, you've not really thought this through (rationally) have you?

a reply to: Pardon?

The GSK 2015 report lists roughly 30 new oncology drugs being trialed or introduced this year alone: www.gsk.com... which suggests a lot of improvements.

Medicines, sadly, cannot be magicked out of thin air. It takes billions of pounds and decades of research to come up with effective ones.

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: 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.

Did you miss the fact that the list is 12 years old?
It would be intersting to see up to date figures.
Especially the ones for cancer as mortality rates have dropped by nearly 20% in the last decade alone.

But ignore the facts as I know it upsets your belief system.

As for suppressing a cure...so no-one in the higher echelons of big pharma have ever died of cancer or had close family die of it have they?
No oncologists or their families have ever died of it have they?
And they've just let that happen ever though they know there's a cure right?

And the pharma company discovering the cure wouldn't become the richest and most powerful company in the world overnight would they?
(Even though cancer is over 250 different diseases and it's likely there won't be a single cure for all of them although they're getting pretty good with some. How many kids die of leukaemia these days compared to even 2- years ago?)

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that drugs haven't saved millions of lives.
You keep on dodging that don't you?

Like I said, you've not really thought this through (rationally) have you?

"Why beta-blockers don’t save lives - Heart drugs given to millions don’t do anything"
douglassreport.com...

"Cholesterol drugs don’t save lives"
www.realadvantagenutrients.com...

"Prostate Drug Cuts Cancer but Doesn’t Save Lives"
www.peoplespharmacy.com...

"They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry are false. Poison kills indiscriminately - always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment. That's right... chemotherapy will actually boost cancer growth and cancer treatment is the leading cause of secondary cancers."
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Sorry but none of those sources are credible or scientific - I'm not having a go at you personally, it's just when people post medical myths, either pro or anti medicine, I feel a duty to let the person and other know it's rubbish in the interests of their own health.

Natural remedies are great for things like the common cold (I always have onion syrup and loads of garlic over medicines to get rid of mine) but for things that pose a risk to life, people should be liaising with people who are actually qualified to comment on the subject.

originally posted by: bastion
Sorry but none of those sources are credible or scientific - I'm not having a go at you personally, it's just when people post medical myths, either pro or anti medicine, I feel a duty to let the person and other know it's rubbish in the interests of their own health.

Natural remedies are great for things like the common cold (I always have onion syrup and loads of garlic over medicines to get rid of mine) but for things that pose a risk to life, people should be liaising with people who are actually qualified to comment on the subject.

You're saying my sources aren't credible where 'scientific' sources are?

"A fascinating article in The Atlantic, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David Freedman, profiles Dr. John Ioannidis, who says that as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. "
ahrp.org...

originally posted by: UnBreakable


"Why beta-blockers don’t save lives - Heart drugs given to millions don’t do anything"
douglassreport.com...

"Cholesterol drugs don’t save lives"
www.realadvantagenutrients.com...

"Prostate Drug Cuts Cancer but Doesn’t Save Lives"
www.peoplespharmacy.com...

"They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry are false. Poison kills indiscriminately - always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment. That's right... chemotherapy will actually boost cancer growth and cancer treatment is the leading cause of secondary cancers."
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Yep, beta-blockers are useful for helping to lower blood pressure but aren't cardio-protective in CHD.
That was suspected for quite a while prior to the registry study which id why the guidelines were updated to exclude them way before it came out and make it more selective for when they're prescribed.
They're actually really good for patients with hypertension who have renal problems so whilst they may not protect the heart, they certainly protect the kidneys.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I don't know much about the cholesterol drug and your link doesn't show any citations so I can't really check the facts there.
I'm surprised you posted that one as what he wrote can't be verified from it.

The link about the prostate drug seems to be a very skewed way of looking at the results.
This seems more comprehensive and doesn't cherry-pick.
www.cancer.gov...

And the last link is quite sparse with their citations (some of them just lead to opinions rather than actual facts, what's the point in that? Oh yes, they hope no-one actually clicks them) and the meme in the middle is pretty sensationalist and quite wrong.
One line they forgot to put in is that if cancer is left untreated, you will die an agonising and horrible death.
They always miss that one out.

So, still no real evidence from you to back up your statement.
Do you have any more?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: bastion
Sorry but none of those sources are credible or scientific - I'm not having a go at you personally, it's just when people post medical myths, either pro or anti medicine, I feel a duty to let the person and other know it's rubbish in the interests of their own health.

Natural remedies are great for things like the common cold (I always have onion syrup and loads of garlic over medicines to get rid of mine) but for things that pose a risk to life, people should be liaising with people who are actually qualified to comment on the subject.

You're saying my sources aren't credible where 'scientific' sources are?

"A fascinating article in The Atlantic, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David Freedman, profiles Dr. John Ioannidis, who says that as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. "
ahrp.org...

That's why it's important to fact-check and cross-reference.
Don't just believe what fits how you think.