Penn and Teller lies about Autism to cover big pharma

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. I told a patient yesterday that I don't do vaccines. Guess what, my license is still intact--but don't let yet another person who actually is in medicine delude your paranoid fantasies.

First you said that doctors don't get paid per vaccine and that it would be illegal to do so, despite the fact that it's easily verifiable that they are being paid per vaccine and it's not illegal.

After not knowing that, you're expecting me to believe that you're a doctor? If you were a doctor you would have known about the money involved.

If you were a doctor not vaccinating you'd be struck off as soon as your seniors got wind of it. I'm calling you out as a liar, as your story does not add up.

You really are a piece of work, perhaps you should answer his earlier question regarding cancer. You are facing experienced professionals in two different fields that you have made wild unqualified statements about and you are floundering and fillibustering.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Of course we have the interesting result that autism has been declining in Georgia shortly after their removal of thimerosal.
www.ageofautism.com...

Thimerosal hasn't been used in any vaccine in the US since 2001. Yet, the incidence of autism has risen every year since then.

I believe it is you that is using bogus info here.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Sorry I don't trust the CDC or the UN or the AMA or big pharma, to give me the straight story on vaccines, when they have so much to gain by promoting it.

No problem. However, get your facts straight at least.

Harte

So you claim I have my facts wrong. Then you would have to assert that autism is still increasing in Georgia.

Not me - the Atlanta Journal-Constitution so asserts:
Georgia autism diagnosis rates rising faster than nation

That's from 2011, and yours is five years older.

Again, bogus information.

That is me saying that last part.

Harte

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. I told a patient yesterday that I don't do vaccines. Guess what, my license is still intact--but don't let yet another person who actually is in medicine delude your paranoid fantasies.

First you said that doctors don't get paid per vaccine and that it would be illegal to do so, despite the fact that it's easily verifiable that they are being paid per vaccine and it's not illegal.

After not knowing that, you're expecting me to believe that you're a doctor? If you were a doctor you would have known about the money involved.

If you were a doctor not vaccinating you'd be struck off as soon as your seniors got wind of it. I'm calling you out as a liar, as your story does not add up.

NO, you are quite incorrect. When a physician gets paid for a vaccination, they get paid for the service "inoculation, subcutaneous/intramuscular." It does not matter if it is a vaccination, what vaccination it is, or if it is in injection of something else such as toradol. Secondly, yes it is illegal for Norvartis to give kickbacks to doctors for using their vaccine, just as it is illelgal for drug manufactureres to give kickbacks for using any medications. And it's funny, you honestly think Novartis would pay someone if they used a Sanofi product? LOL.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that insurance reimbursement for vaccine administration is dropping and often does not cover the materiels cost of administering the vaccine. Physicians are not making profits from vaccinations.

"Struck off?" "My seniors?" LOL. Older doctors have absolutely nothing to do with my practice. The state medical board only pulls licenses due to crime and overt negligence. To think that they'd pull a license because you didn't vaccinate is utterly moronic. You haven't a clue how physicians are licensed and practice do you? You obviously do not realize it, but there are many, many MD's who integrate holistic and alternative medicines into their practices to meet a growing demand for alternative therapies and vaccinations are frequently neither offered nor requested.

Yes, I am a physician and I will, just as another professional in a related field (skalla)has already told you, you are incorrect on the very fundimental aspects of understanding how things work: either you are severely misinformed or you are lying.

reply to post by NavyDoc


To back up your statements I work with MDs (GPs in the UK) who use alternative therapies, homeopathy etc to treat elements of autistic spectrum disorders

ETA: this has reached comedic proportions now, were it not for the potentially tragic ramifications of people following your advice. However, your credibility has been clearly reduced to zero so hopefully no one will follow your dangerous advice. I'm gonna try stay away from this mess of nonsense now

Originally posted by skalla

You are facing experienced professionals in two different fields that you have made wild unqualified statements about and you are floundering and fillibustering.

You claim to be an 'experienced professional' yet if you were it wouldn't make any difference. It's easy to find doctors who are against MMR and also easy to find one who believes MMR is fine. Doctors are indoctrinated by Big Pharma, some are smart enough to think for themselves, while others just parrot their indoctrination.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

To back up your statements I work with MDs (GPs in the UK) who use alternative therapies, homeopathy etc to treat elements of autistic spectrum disorders

So do you believe there's no link between MMR and Autism?

reply to post by Rubinstein

at present, i believe not - i will review links from other posters here as said earlier in the thread, i'm interested afterall, though doubtful that it will stand up to examination - not that this will have any bearing. however i dont think i would ever give anything you said any weight from this point forwards. you have comprehensively destroyed you own chances of credibility. i'm done here.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

at present, i believe not - i will review links from other posters here as said earlier in the thread, i'm interested afterall, though doubtful that it will stand up to examination - not that this will have any bearing. however i dont think i would ever give anything you said any weight from this point forwards. you have comprehensively destroyed you own chances of credibility. i'm done here.

Yet Dr Peter Fletcher the former Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health who's had access to thousands of documents which are not being made public, says that there's "Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children," and that "steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world...There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."

So why would you be "doubtful that it will stand up to examination"?

Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true'
www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by Antigod


First, I wasn't aware that you were the format/grammar police. Your advice is duly noted and ignored. Secondly, I notice that your response is to ignore facts that are sourced. Which is very ironic as you so eagerly point out that you listen to both sides and that I have not. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't I arguing the anti-vaccine side? Wouldn't that be one of the two sides in this debate? Thirdly, it would appear that you are prone to making quite dramatic assertions of fact that you in no way, shape or form, could possibly have proven. Please tell me how you can know how much research I have conducted? In point of fact continuing with that vein, how do you know what research I have conducted? Fourthly, if you are referring to the MMR vaccinations death and adverse reaction rates, I would say that they are included in my data, as the MMR is a vaccine. You are aware of that, right? So how about you grow up, act like and adult and either refute the data that I presented or keeping your teeth together.

Originally posted by maddog3n8
reply to post by Harte

 

Please read my earlier posts. You were just told that they took it out, which BTW was actually in 1999. However, there are links of bold face proof that thimerasol is still in use. And these are the CDC's and FDA's documents, not mine. I suggest you get your facts straight.

edit on 25-3-2013 by maddog3n8 because: (no reason given)

According to your FDA documents, Thimerosol is present in a couple of flu vaccines, each of which has a thimerosol-free version.

So, this accounts for one out of every 88 newborns being autistic? What, are they all getting these flu shots, and not the other, mercury free ones?

Well, this is a conspiracy site, I suppose.

I wonder, has anyone looked to see why nobody was getting autism at these rates in the forties and fifties, when people were rushing to every new vaccine (with their memories of polio and whooping cough deaths?)

Again, my boy is autistic. Does anyone here really believe that I haven't looked into this?

Harte

notice that your response is to ignore facts that are sourced

reply to post by maddog3n8


No, I'm not ignoring the 'facts' that you posted. It's just that I've been directed to the same 'proofs' over and over so many times by different cranks that I'm quite familiar with them. I have two comments.

You obviously aren't familiar with any genuine research if you are posting that stuff. Anyone who believes anything from vactruth must have had at least a partial lobotomy. I've been to it and sites similar sites before. It worries me that you think that stuff is credible.

You ignore all the information that disagrees with you.

Do you want the eighteen studies that show there's been no real increase in autism? I can dig up most of them.

How about the info from the measles epidemics where the kids died. The Netherlands, USA, Ireland...

Netherlands outbreak:
www.cdc.gov...

By February 4, 2000, 2961 measles cases, including three measles-related deaths, had been reported by 35 MHSs to the national registry. This report summarizes the investigation of the measles outbreak in the Netherlands, which indicated that measles can be a severe disease among unvaccinated populations in the Netherlands.

Do bear in mind this was an outbreak in a group that had zero vaccines of any kind due to religious belief. Three kids died (it's way more serious in young children than adults). IN fact a couple of years ago I calculated that the mortality in the children was 1/300 from data from three epidemics. It was highest in the USA as I recall.

I'd also like to point out that Measles...

Acute encephalitis, which frequently results in permanent brain damage, occurs in approximately 1 of every 1000 cases, Death, predominately due to respiratory and neurological complications, occurs in 1 to 2 of every 1000 cases reported in the United States.

The stats here include adults in the mortality, which is why it seems less lethal here. Do bear in mind that measles is endemic, and nearly everyone will catch it as a child in an unvaccinated population. This would mean a population of 300 million would have 1 million children die from measles. About the same number would have a lifetime brain injury from it.

reply to post by Harte


Harte, I did read where you had an autistic child. I am also sure that you have done quite a bit of research, as any sane parent would for their child. Further, while it would be relevant to hear your own observations about your child; I would infer from the lack of said information that you are rightly not disclosing that for personal reasons and I support that approach. However, whether or not you have an autistic child has no bearing to the argument.

Contrary to what other posters and you have inferred, when approaching my evidence, I started my research like any scientist, creating a problem statement using null hypothesis testing. That being, "Can Mercury or Aluminum cause Autism or Autism like symptoms". As the research that I presented illustrates, which I believe quite fairly, needs to be reviewed in total and analyzed in context; the answer to that question is yes. If the answer was no, then my hypothesis would be invalid. Further, this was developed from conducting Root Cause Analysis using the 5 Why's methodology.

Next came the supporting problem statements which allowed for me to form these conclusions were: "Can Mercury or Aluminum pass the placenta and blood/brain barriers","Are Mercury and Aluminum bio-accumulating", and "Do Vaccines given to pregnant woman and their children contain Mercury or Aluminum". Again, the supporting evidence all suggest yes to these questions.

As to your questions on the comparison of vaccine usage and Autism both past and present, I would submit there are a number of factors that you may account for the disparity. To put this in context, let me outline a couple of things. First, my Father and Mother were born in 1913 and 1924 respectively. Of the six children my Parents had, two died; one was still-born and one died in 1949 of bacterial meningitis at 6 months old. The vaccine for which did not come out until 1978 en.wikipedia.org... .

My Great Grandmother, Grandmother, Mother, and two of my Aunts all worked as nurses at the State Metal Hospital and Public Hospital at one time or another from 40's until the early 80's. They saw a great deal of patients w/autism or encephaly as these were was the places where the sent them to live for the rest of their lives. In the Midwest or at least in Illinois where I was born and raised, Public Hospitals nor Doctors were not as common as they are now. In fact, outside of big towns, most counties would only have one hospital for the whole county. So many people would have to drive 2-3 hours, using gravel roads, that in the winter could extend that travel time even more, to get medical care. Which of course makes the opposite true as Doctors up until the mid to late 60's made House Calls and is also when clinics became more prevalent. I would readily agree that most of this is obviously circumstantial evidence as it is derived by third person and anecdotal comments, it bears reference to how things were done.

However, when you are looking at the history of the recommended shots by decade www.chop.edu... you see a very clear increase in the number of vaccinations. Taken into context with the now public perception of mandatory vaccinations, better availability and usage of health care, increase push for pregnant women to get flu shots and other vaccinations, and as always personal tolerances; I would submit that trying to find a corollary between Autism rates vs vaccinations between the past and present is an apples to oranges comparison.

In order to accomplish the answer to your questions, testing would have to be done, to find what is the threshold were mercury or aluminum starts to have visible effects on humans, find out by decade how many of those with autism or encepholy were vaccinated to include frequency, dosage, type, and ingredients, data mine by region the environmental sources for heavy metal, etc....the list goes on and on.

To me you either did not read my evidence or you don't wish to factor it into the equation. I would submit the reason that you do not want to consider this is that the alternative answer is so repugnant that it is easier to believe.

*sigh* Penn and Teller are not being paid by the pharmaceutical industry.

There are other explanations for autism beside the chemicals in the vaccines one.

For example, a far more compelling explanation, based on research in lab mice shows that noise pollution might be the culprit, and not vaccines.

It's well known that children who live near airports have lower IQs than other children. This led one researcher to conduct experiments on mice by flooding them with audio stimuli in the early stages of development to see what happened. Lo and Behold, the same impairment in the frontal lobe hypothesized to exist in autism (which impairs ones social abilities, functions primarily localized in the pre-frontal cortex) developed in the mice.

The theory is this: during early development, the brain releases something called BDNF (brain derived neurotrophic factor), which initiates other processes in neurological development. However, if the brain is overwhelmed with too much stimuli, BDNF can be prematurely closed, leading to cognitive impairments later on.

Do some research before you jump to conclusions

reply to post by Antigod

No, I'm not ignoring the 'facts' that you posted. It's just that I've been directed to the same 'proofs' over and over so many times by different cranks that I'm quite familiar with them. I have two comments.

Well then, if you are so familiar with them you should easily be able to debunk the information that they are presenting; which I will point our again that you haven't. Your answer is too simply throw out wild accusations, cherry pick, use ad hominem, and go off topic:

You obviously aren't familiar with any genuine research if you are posting that stuff. Anyone who believes anything from vactruth must have had at least a partial lobotomy.

I do hand it to you, you were able to hit three of those in two sentences. That is a pretty good batting average if you ask me. As to the off topic:

You ignore all the information that disagrees with you.

Do you want the eighteen studies that show there's been no real increase in autism? I can dig up most of them.

How about the info from the measles epidemics where the kids died. The Netherlands, USA, Ireland...

Keeping your stats up, you went three for three there, so at least you're consistent. BTW, I have never said that I ignore data that disagrees w/mine. Again, the irony of that is that I would submit that you are doing the exact same thing!

I would be more than happy to read your 18 studies, so yes please would you post the links for them or if you have them on another thread point me to that thread. Thanks.

I am curious to see your how you believe a measles out break relates to mercury/aluminum in vaccines. Please advise.

Again I would ask that either refute the logic of my argument or debunk the evidence used to formulate my argument. I would also ask you to read what I wrote in response to Harte above.

Also you may want to look into this as it calls into question GMC handling of Dr. Wakefield initial study on vaccines and autism: www.bbc.co.uk...

And I think I will start a new thread with an RCA after researching these little gems :

www.thelocal.se... Sweden Affirms swine flu vaccine narcolepsy link

www.thelocal.se... Narcolepsy traced to specific vaccine batches

www.thelocal.se... Skane hardest hit by swine flu narcolepsy

reply to post by dontreally


*sigh* We have done our research. I ask that you look at the logic of my argument and the strength of the supporting evidence in my initial posting to this thread that starts on page 3 and the above comments to Harte and Antigod.

You ask people not to jump to conclusions yet your response in no way exonerates whether Penn and Teller are paid by big pharma. Or maybe you can explain how a study on loud noise decreases the IQ in fetuses relates to whether Penn and Teller are being paid by big pharma.

If anything I would argue that study you're citing was paid by big pharma, so that there would be a plausible answer to Autism that was related to big pharma; which shut down the debate about the mercury and aluminum in vaccines.

Neither you or I have any proof that that our statements. The irony of the people like you just can't be ignored, and these responses just write themselves!

reply to post by maddog3n8


I didn't say anything about iqs of refuses. Their iqs are impaired from infancy through early childhood.

And my statement about Penn and teller was based on simple probability. It is not reasonable to think that multimillionaire magicians care a lick about getting paid from pharmaceutical companies. To say that is utterly without basis.

People can actually hold beliefs without being the minions of some imagined evil. In fact, if you understood human nature better, you wouldn't be lending credence to such a ridiculous claim.

And as for your *surprise* other conspiracy, of research by independent scientists being commissioned by big pharmacy? Again you betray a knowledge of basic human nature. Besides the study being entirely consistent with what we know about the brain, or ear (such as the hairs in the cochlea), that when overwhelmed with too much stimuli, the electrical signals will actually cause neuron death in cells directly receiving the overstimulation from the cells in the ear, most scientists are sincerely interested in learning about the human brain; they aren't nearly as venal or pliable as you imagine. Again, this research conforms with what's Already known. It's also well known that noise pollution lowers a child's IQ. The same thing which causes the impairment in a child's IQ is responsible for autism. So why does autism only sometimes happen? For the same reason that only some people get Parkinson or alzheimers or a rare cancer: some gene in their system reacts to the situation of their environment differently from other people's genes, triggering the onset of disease.

This idea is how disease works. A particular gene sets it off. This is the basis of gene therapy, and the promises it could hold for future medicine.

Am I saying there isn't a component in vaccine which might be a contributory factor? No. In fact, it might be a host of separate things involved in the formation of autism. But to imagine that vaccines have been engineered just for this purpose is indefensible in the face of research which has shown the effect of noise pollution on BDNF in early development.

reply to post by dontreally

*sigh* Penn and Teller are not being paid by the pharmaceutical industry.

There are other explanations for autism beside the chemicals in the vaccines one.

First of all, as to my "surprise" conspiracy, I was making a rhetorical argument. I was pointing out the irony of your response and lack of evidence for your opinion.

As to Penn and Teller specifically, did you read my comments on page 3 of the video? Did you even watch the video? Do you know Penn and Teller personally? Are you their CPA? Is it possible they have been asked to do the episode by the Execs of the cable channel? Are you the Cable Channel's CMA or Producer? Evidently not:

And my statement about Penn and teller was based on simple probability. It is not reasonable to think that multimillionaire magicians care a lick about getting paid from pharmaceutical companies. To say that is utterly without basis.

Really, rich people never do anything to get more money? That's why rich people don't gamble in the stockmarket, right? They don't gamble because they use insider trading and other contacts to know which and when stocks to buy and sell. But that would be illegal, so they're just gambling along with all us other poor schmucks and have the same risks respectively?

You don't like that example, look all of the many actors and musicians, who get paid lots of money to do something that they don't believe in because it makes them money.

People can actually hold beliefs without being the minions of some imagined evil. In fact, if you understood human nature better, you wouldn't be lending credence to such a ridiculous claim.

Contrary to your condescending conviction about your overwhelming knowledge in human behavior, you: 1) Don't know me and 2) Clearly know nothing about human nature and/or have deluded yourself into thinking that everyone is farting rainbows. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Have they stopped teaching it in college? Because last time I checked, money allows you to fill the higher functions self awareness and self esteem of the pyramid as well as food, shelter, and protection at the bottom of it. Or as what Freud called the Super-Ego and Id respectively. Or are they not teaching Freud in college as well?

Here is the bottom line. Neither you or I will know if they were. My hypothesis at least meets some semblance of a reasonable arguement, so I will stick w/Occham's Razor, when either hypothesis testing or doing an RCA and I will let you do your rainbow farting.

reply to post by maddog3n8

First of all, as to my "surprise" conspiracy, I was making a rhetorical argument. I was pointing out the irony of your response and lack of evidence for your opinion

And what irony did you find in my response?

Did you even watch the video? Do you know Penn and Teller personally? Are you their CPA? Is it possible they have been asked to do the episode by the Execs of the cable channel? Are you the Cable Channel's CMA or Producer? Evidently not

Have you ever heard of occams razor? The amount of assumptions you make without any evidence whatsoever is amazing. Seriously, occams razor is an accepted mode of thinking because it is considered the best conceptual mechanism we have to arrive at logical conclusions. You are butchering it.

You don't like that example, look all of the many actors and musicians, who get paid lots of money to do something that they don't believe in because it makes them money

I don't like that example because it again shows the lengths you'll go to defend your specious argument.

Whether or not Penn and teller "want more money" why even make the assumption? Does the far more simpler explanation, they don't agree, not suffice?

For example. I disagree with your line of reasoning; i have preferred an alternative explanation of noise pollution, a scourge unique to our highly industrialized civilization. Does that mean I too must be employed by the pharmaceutical companies? Or is it only celebrities who are subject your conspiratorial musings?

Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Have they stopped teaching it in college? Because last time I checked, money allows you to fill the higher functions self awareness and self esteem of the pyramid as well as food, shelter, and protection at the bottom of

Ok let's look at maslow hierarchy of needs. Let's see what's at the very top.

I'm posting from a tablet so I can post the picture. But at the very top lies meaning oriented ideas, which maslow called self actualization. Included with self actualization is: morality, creativity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts. In case the concept of the pyramid eludes you, those at the top are more primary and given greater ontological stock than those at the bottom. Money, which you mentioned, is a 4th tier need, second to the lowest. It may be most necessary to the maintenance of the animal body, but when these things are gotten, attention naturally shifts to other issues, or would you prefer to believe that unlike the majority of human beings, Penn and teller only care about money, and not so much about beliefs they may in fact hold? You assume they aren't in touch with their own intellectual interests, this despite the fact they they are both surprisingly educated.

Contrary to what you ignorantly imagine, normal people are motivated more by meaning than by money, especially people who are well off already. This in any case was Abraham Maslow's conclusion. Same with Viktor Frankl, Carl rogers, martin seligman.

It is amazing how immature you are. It takes you to ignore the research on noise pollution to maintain your contention that Penn and teller are working for the pharmaceutical execs. I don't know a thing about you, but I find that to be the hallmark of someone intellectually undeveloped(as maslow keenly noted): they can't accept information that forces them to modify their previous views.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Umm where is your evidence? All I read was conspiracy based paranoia.

You conspiracy nuts are deranged and never show any science behind anything you say. You just believe what some other fool dribbles on about and it is gold to you guys.

Con men make a lot of money off the gullible.

Exactly. What I find "amusing" (infuriating actually) is the increase in preventable disease. As I've said before and will say again, I have experience with vaccines (PhD in Chemistry and Pharmaceutical manufacturing experience (about ten years) and an MSc in Biochemistry (bioinformatics)). These claims are amazingly banal. But in the end this IS a conspiracy site, and it contains people who believe all sorts of stuff. Hell I believe all sorts of stuff too since I am a neopagan, mind you that does not affect my or my future childrens health

reply to post by dontreally

And what irony did you find in my response?

Do you not remember what you said? Here is an insight for you, you wrote it and it's posted above. Maybe, just maybe. when you get done cherry picking useless points; you should go back in read it. Then you may might to go and re-read my response. I know all these facts are confusing, that if you can't remember what nonsense you have spewed, why should I be responsible for remembering for you?

Have you ever heard of occams razor? The amount of assumptions you make without any evidence whatsoever is amazing. Seriously, occams razor is an accepted mode of thinking because it is considered the best conceptual mechanism we have to arrive at logical conclusions. You are butchering it.

Ah yeah...because I referred to in my last post...you know the one that your cherry picking/playing semantical arguments with and quite badly I might add:

so I will stick w/Occham's Razor, when either hypothesis testing or doing an RCA and I will let you do your rainbow farting.

Actually I am very familiar with Occham's Razor it is also called the Principle of Parsimony. I learned it a long time ago as Freshmen in HS when I took Latin. William of Ockham was a 14th Century Franciscan monk and philosopher. There are two or three version that have been attributed to him, but I only memorized one, "multiplicandum non est ponenda sine neccesitate" Literal translation: "Do not multiply posits without necessity," A modern translation would be "When given two equal but opposing hypotheses, the simpler explanation is usually more accurate." or "KISS". It is what scientists use for hypothesis testing even today. I also use it as my definition of common sense. You on the other hand, clearly do not know what it is and again the irony of your statements are amusing.

I'm posting from a tablet so I can post the picture. But at the very top lies meaning oriented ideas, which maslow called self actualization. Included with self actualization is: morality, creativity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts. In case the concept of the pyramid eludes you, those at the top are more primary and given greater ontological stock than those at the bottom. Money, which you mentioned, is a 4th tier need, second to the lowest. It may be most necessary to the maintenance of the animal body, but when these things are gotten, attention naturally shifts to other issues, or would you prefer to believe that unlike the majority of human beings, Penn and teller only care about money, and not so much about beliefs they may in fact hold? You assume they aren't in touch with their own intellectual interests, this despite the fact they they are both surprisingly educated.

Well actually, I was doing it from memory and so I was right about self actualization and self-awareness. It looks like you had to look it up, to push your more semantics argument. My point, which actually was quite clear is that money is the vehicle for them to have both the top and the bottom of the pyramid which I find interesting inthat you didn't grab this part:

Really, rich people never do anything to get more money? That's why rich people don't gamble in the stockmarket, right? They don't gamble because they use insider trading and other contacts to know which and when stocks to buy and sell. But that would be illegal, so they're just gambling along with all us other poor schmucks and have the same risks respectively?

You wouldn't try and ignore statements or hypothesis would you? Your not trying to take me out of context are you? Your ADHD must be kicking in, so I know it's tough for you to stay focused but instead of using your sophomorish attempts at circular logic, semantics, and cherry picking how about you answer some of my questions? I answer yours, do I not. I will even help you out, the reason why you don't is that it would just point out how completely fatuous your statements really have been.

When you pull up Maslow again, does it say anything about greed? That is an emotion is it not? And what is the driving force behind greed? That was what I was eluding to...people equate money to power! The more money I have...the more powerful I am. Why do soccer moms need a SUV? Are they planning on going four wheeling after they drop off little Suzy at soccer practice? Why are there gold digger's? Again, you keep farting those rainbows.

Contrary to your condescending conviction about your overwhelming knowledge in human behavior, you: 1) Don't know me and 2) Clearly know nothing about human nature and/or have deluded yourself into thinking that everyone is farting rainbows. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Have they stopped teaching it in college? Because last time I checked, money allows you to fill the higher functions self awareness and self esteem of the pyramid as well as food, shelter, and protection at the bottom of it.