DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

There isn't a SINGLE Wikipedia that doesn't mention this. Apparently you and these doctors haven't heard of Wikipedia. Google one of the drugs. # it. I'll find you a link because you can't type Adderall Wiki into google.

Your doctors get their medical information off of Wikipedia? Do your nurses use WebMD too?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

My biggest problem with pharmaceuticals is that dtc or direct-to-consumer marketing is legal with them. If you want to jump down a deep rabbit hole, look up how dtc ads for pharmaceuticals are straight up banned in all but 2 countries. I'm of the opinion that fixing that one issue would fix TONS of problems with the pharmaceutical industry over-prescribing drugs.

The NEJM also did a study saying 1/3 of drug studies are false. 1/2 are purposely misleading and have conflicts of interest. They actually hire ghost writers to infiltrate the media.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah probably because your vocabulary.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

I took biomedical engineering for 4 years and now I'm becoming a physicist. I don't give 2 flying flips about studies that are based solely on behavior being given drugs.

Make sure to cruise through the "Contradiction" part of giving stimulants to kids to prevent them from being hyper. It's because drug users want it to stay.

The arguement is real though. Real ADD reacts to stimulants as sedatives. Do they even need either? No.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

There isn't a SINGLE Wikipedia that doesn't mention this. Apparently you and these doctors haven't heard of Wikipedia. Google one of the drugs. # it. I'll find you a link because you can't type Adderall Wiki into google.

Your doctors get their medical information off of Wikipedia? Do your nurses use WebMD too?

Wikidegree coming soon.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Yeah probably because your vocabulary.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

I took biomedical engineering for 4 years and now I'm becoming a physicist. I don't give 2 flying flips about studies that are based solely on behavior being given drugs.

Make sure the cruise through the "Contradiction" part of giving stimulants to kids to prevent them from being hyper. It's because drug users want it to stay.

The arguement is real though. Real ADD reacts to stimulants as sedatives.

I don't care what you say you are. There is no proof or even an incling of you having that knowledge. I do know no school in the world worth a damn allows Wikipedia as source.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. But these "studies" can't even explain why ADD happens to have this issue, it's propoganda, does it matter if they're the "good guys"? Too funny.

a reply to: luthier

The word receptor is in every ADD medication wikipedia, and the doctor says it's "mysterious". Does she not own a computer?

Probably because she doesn't even know the word receptor.

a reply to: luthier

I can believe this. There is a lot of competition in the drug market and the dtc ads are like gasoline to a fire with it. Without dtc ads, there would be less of a need to fudge numbers on a study. Not that certain greedy companies won't do it, but it wouldn't be a compelling thing to do.

Oh, one more thing. The pharmaceutical industry is moving away from medications and towards biotech. Custom made fixes to whats wrong with you. Tailored to the person and not to the majority population like drugs are.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

The word receptor is in every ADD medication wikipedia, and the doctor says it's "mysterious". Does she not own a computer?

Probably because she doesn't even know the word receptor.

That must be it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy wants me to be his enemy. It's whatever, I don't care he's ignorant. Big pharma is still the enemy here. It's just stupid doctors for the first time also. The ADD medication push when this receptor issue was very rare is proof. Then there is also CEM that treats it and they still prefer Stimulant and Sedative. He just thinks I'm a Pharma shill, and I'm laughing at how he's just a shill, even if it's for the good side.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I can believe this. There is a lot of competition in the drug market and the dtc ads are like gasoline to a fire with it. Without dtc ads, there would be less of a need to fudge numbers on a study. Not that certain greedy companies won't do it, but it wouldn't be a compelling thing to do.

Oh, one more thing. The pharmaceutical industry is moving away from medications and towards biotech. Custom made fixes to whats wrong with you. Tailored to the person and not to the majority population like drugs are.

Yeah my father in law is a pharmacist. Old school compounder. He talks about the DTC adds. I asked him if they really work. He said of course that's why they spend billions

a reply to: luthier

Plus how evil is it to let the television be your doctor for you? How many doctor's conversations go like this?
Doctor: I'm sorry Mr. Example, but you have XYZ disease and you will have to treat it the rest of your life.
Mr. Example: Really? Well I saw this ad on television for XYZ disease and it said I should ask my doctor for the widget drug to treat it.
Doctor: Ok...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

m.livescience.com...
www.economist.com...

It's not surprising people have some skepticism around treatments and seek alternative treatment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Plus how evil is it to let the television be your doctor for you? How many doctor's conversations go like this?
Doctor: I'm sorry Mr. Example, but you have XYZ disease and you will have to treat it the rest of your life.
Mr. Example: Really? Well I saw this ad on television for XYZ disease and it said I should ask my doctor for the widget drug to treat it.
Doctor: Ok...

The same can be said about his MMJ example verse coffee however.

Is it less likely to cause cancer? Yes.
Does smoking damage WAY more cells, the setup for cancer, than drinking coffee? Yes.

Conclusion: if you're a single cell organism don't drink coffee.
If you're a multicellular organism don't smoke, it doesn't matter WHAT you smoke.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Plus how evil is it to let the television be your doctor for you? How many doctor's conversations go like this?
Doctor: I'm sorry Mr. Example, but you have XYZ disease and you will have to treat it the rest of your life.
Mr. Example: Really? Well I saw this ad on television for XYZ disease and it said I should ask my doctor for the widget drug to treat it.
Doctor: Ok...

The same can be said about his MMJ example verse coffee however.

Is it less likely to cause cancer? Yes.
Does smoking damage WAY more cells, the setup for cancer, than drinking coffee? Yes.

Conclusion: if you're a single cell organism don't drink coffee.
If you're a multicellular organism don't smoke, it doesn't matter WHAT you smoke.

Give it a rest. You have an opinion. It seems to disregard clinical testing and reality. Can smoking damage your esophagus? Yeah. Does marijuana smoke have the ability to slow or stop tumor growth? Sure seems like it according to studies.

When physicists looked at atoms for the first time they certainly didn't think they would see vast regions of empty space.

Science doesn't just use common sense. Some things require much more than intuition to prove.

a reply to: luthier

0 reason for me to defend this truth. I smoke pot everyday.
Not going to stop me though.

It's simple: imagine Weed Cancer is a 6 sided dice, and Coffee is a 2 sided dice (this is not respective or accurate, just example).

Smoking rolls 1,000 dice. 1's cause cancer.
Drinking coffee rolls 10 dice. 1's are cancer.

So which is more likely to cause cancer?

a reply to: luthier

It's scary how the lure of profits and money can taint an altruistic industry like drug research.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

0 reason for me to defend this truth. I smoke pot everyday.
Not going to stop me though.

It's simple: imagine Weed Cancer is a 6 sided dice, and Coffee is a 2 sided dice (this is not respective or accurate, just example).

Smoking rolls 1,000 dice. 1's cause cancer.
Drinking coffee rolls 10 dice. 1's are cancer.

So which is more likely to cause cancer?

I don't agree with your assement.

I don't smoke pot.

a reply to: luthier

You don't agree smoking damages more cells than drinking liquid? Are you sure? Imagine rolling a 3 CURES cancer. Does this change anything?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

You don't agree smoking damages more cells than drinking liquid? Are you sure? Imagine rolling a 3 CURES cancer. Does this change anything?

No I don't.

Drinking liquid can be poison.