ACW Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Because there is a huge difference between a coverup involving a few people and a coverup involving thousands. People fall into these conspiracy theories by backward reasoning. They ASSUME that there is a coverup and then they actively look for evidence to support their theory. They think they are being sceptical, but actually they are being more gullible than anyone else. If they really were sceptical, they would question the motives and methods of the anti-establishment people just as much as they question the motives and methods of the establishment. Quoted for truth. Maybe the "establishment" isn't always honest, but like Trudeau and his ilk have the purest of intentions and aren't in it to make money? :halo::no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 This is what don't get.Why is it, with the almost daily or weekly reports of corruption and scandal, in both the corporate and government sectors of our society, that people have such a difficult time believing that MAYBE there is corruption in our medical system, directly or indirectly ? I can't speak to what happens in the clinic, but I can say it's not likely that the vaccine maker was up to something here. I am head of a Quality Assurance department at a vaccine company. In this role, I have independence. I cannot be pressured into approving anything, and the same goes for all my people. There are extensive federal and corporate whistleblowing protections that would make it worth my while to blow the whistle, even if it would end my career (i.e. I'd be taken care of financially). Pharma, biotech, etc., all MUST, by law, have self-policing systems. Additionally, inspections from FDA, Qualified Persons (Europe) and other similar regulatory oversight bodies ensure there is plenty of transparency, and that decisions are made on data, with patient safety as the primary concern. Sure I've encountered unscrupulous people in this industry, but I've been doing this for 15 years and can count them on one hand. In all my experience I've seen data falsification 3 times. Each instance resulted in immediate termination, exclusion of affected data, and a full documented explanation of the incident. You're not just making widgets in this industry. You're making products that can kill people if they're made incorrectly. It's pretty serious and we don't tolerate bull**** or evil-doers. And when I get home at the end of the day I want to be able to gulp my aspirin and Tums without wondering if it was made safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Trudeau and his ilk have the purest of intentions and aren't in it to make money? Yeah ... why bother with all that hard work and expensive professional medical training when you can just make bull**** claims on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yeah ... why bother with all that hard work and expensive professional medical training when you can just make bull**** claims on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yeah ... why bother with all that hard work and expensive professional medical training when you can just make bull**** claims on the internet. The worst part is people actually listen to this :cuss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yeah ... why bother with all that hard work and expensive professional medical training when you can just make bull**** claims on the internet. Alternative Medicine has nothing to do with the internet. In fact, "alternative medicine" existed LONG BEFORE the internet. To take it a step further, "alternative medicine" existed long before pharmaceutical drugs. Sure, anyone can make "bull **** claims on the internet". Absolutely. But does that mean that ALL alternative medicine is bad ? Absolutely not. The internet just happens to make it easy for anyone who wishes to take advantage of people under the guise of "alternative medicine" to give TRUE alternative medicine a bad name. Using your logic, one could say that "Since I got ripped off by a company on the internet, that ALL merchants are scammers." Silly, isn't it ? :no: Kaos, I agree. Alternative medicine is :bsflag Quoted for truth. Well-said.Secrets "they" don't want you to know? My foot. The worst part is people actually listen to this ACW buddy, please do some more research than this. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 ACW buddy, please do some more research than this. ^^From sites like Trudeau's?:no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10fttall Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you need help researching alternative medicine, I'd like to direct you to your nearest horse barn. You can start looking on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Alternative Medicine has nothing to do with the internet. No it doesn't. But both the are the home to many charlatans and crooks. I was responding to your comments suggesting that some the world's professional medical community couldn't be trusted. This is very strange when you are willing to believe in a proven fraud and criminal like Trudeau. And I wasn't attacking alternative medicine. Alternative medicine that actually works is known as ... medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 No it doesn't. But both the are the home to many charlatans and crooks.I was responding to your comments suggesting that some the world's professional medical community couldn't be trusted. And those comments have nothing to do with internet claims, either. Or books by Trudeau. Which is why I suggested people do more research. I'm referring to the fact that the C.D.C's head panel consists of only about a dozen individuals. And virtually everything that the healthcare industry does : from health insurance companies, to medical practitioners, to pharmaceutical companies, hinges, to a large degree, on the standards written by the those dozen or so individuals. So, all it takes is a few conflicts of interest to arise within that dozen, to spoil virtually the entire industry. So...YES, corruption on a small scale, can lead to large-scale implications. I have had a LOT of contact with the medical profession and I have met nurses and doctors who have been in the medical field up to 35 years, who have told me they have very little faith in a large amount of doctors or the majority of their so-called conventional medical treatment. This was off the record, of course. So it's not something you are going to hear in your everyday living or direct contact at your doctor's/nurse's office. Don't misunderstand - there are a lot of very good doctors out there. Just not as many as you would believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 And those comments have nothing to do with internet claims, either. Or books by Trudeau. Which is why I suggested people do more research. I'm referring to the fact that the C.D.C's head panel consists of only about a dozen individuals. And virtually everything that the healthcare industry does : from health insurance companies, to medical practitioners, to pharmaceutical companies, hinges, to a large degree, on the standards written by the those dozen or so individuals. So, all it takes is a few conflicts of interest to arise within that dozen, to spoil virtually the entire industry. So...YES, corruption on a small scale, can lead to large-scale implications. I have had a LOT of contact with the medical profession and I have met nurses and doctors who have been in the medical field up to 35 years, who have told me they have very little faith in a large amount of doctors or the majority of their so-called conventional medical treatment. This was off the record, of course. So it's not something you are going to hear in your everyday living or direct contact at your doctor's/nurse's office. Don't misunderstand - there are a lot of very good doctors out there. Just not as many as you would believe. What authority do you think the CDC has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 What authority do you think the CDC has? They define and determine the "acceptable and appropriate" protocol for treating disease and illness. And if their protocol is not followed - it can potentially and ultimately lead to the doctor losing his license. They have tremendous influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 They define and determine the "acceptable and appropriate" protocol for treating disease and illness.And if their protocol is not followed - it can potentially and ultimately lead to the doctor losing his license. They have tremendous influence. The CDC can't take somebody's medical liscense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 The CDC can't take somebody's medical liscense. Not by themselves. But they can heavily influence the state's Medical Examining Board to do so, due to pressure by insurance companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Is there anywhere to get an update on this story. I would like to see the witch hunt continue. Look what the press did to that couple that crashed the White House. If they don't go after her, they are really missing out on some good TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Not by themselves. But they can heavily influence the state's Medical Examining Board to do so, due to pressure by insurance companies. So now the CDC is exerting pressure on a Medical Examining Board, which itself is made of doctors, via insurance companies. And why would an insurance compay care what the CDC has to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm referring to the fact that the C.D.C's head panel consists of only about a dozen individuals. And virtually everything that the healthcare industry does : from health insurance companies, to medical practitioners, to pharmaceutical companies, hinges, to a large degree, on the standards written by the those dozen or so individuals. So, all it takes is a few conflicts of interest to arise within that dozen, to spoil virtually the entire industry. I am not aware of CDC setting requirements for the pharma industry. Did they write 21 CFR Parts that apply to us, or the ICH guidelines? <rhetorical question> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Villi Phanatic Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Sorry if I offended. Maybe I should have said "in my opinion" or " as far as I'm concerned" because as far as I'm concerned anyone that practices alternative medicine is a nut job. In my opinion if it were real medicine and actually worked they would call it practicing medicine and it wouldnt be a subculture all by itself. I'd venture to guess that many if not most Western medical doctors incorporate elements of "alternative medicine" into their practices nowadays. Are the usage of probiotics when taking ABX considered an "alternative treatment"? Is a neurologist recommending taking CoQ10 for prevention of headaches practicing alternative medicine? How about the recommendation of saw palmetto my pops' Western medical doctor made (forget what for)? Or for that matter, what about typical medicinal treatments approved for helping with certain diseases being used for other diseases for which there hasn't been much if any studying of efficacy conducted? If the above isn't alternative medicine, then where is the distinction made? Many alternative medicines and treatments have been studied quite thoroughly for safety and efficacy for specific usages and as much, if not more so than some of the above. I personally (and I'm mostly thinking on the fly here) am going away from assigning labels to treatment modalities such as alternative or conventional and am just examining each treatment and the available data on it for what it is. There are plenty of flaws with the drug approval process and contrastly plenty of research on some alternative treatments that this is ideally what doctors should do (time-permitting and whatnot, but that's another discussion altogether) and what some indeed do do. Many MDs and others in the medical field incorporating elements of "alternative medicine" into their practices are far from nut jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Many MDs and others in the medical field incorporating elements of "alternative medicine" into their practices are far from nut jobs. I agree! Vaccination was once an alternative medical practice. Things change and what's not commonly accepted right now might be before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 As has been stated before, 'alternative medicine' that actually works is simply called 'medicine'. People turn to alternatives when what they are getting isn't working, so often it's a failing of conventional medicine. Our GPs seem too quick to prescribe drugs or surgery for conditions that can be addressed through diet and exercise. Probably because they don't think their patients will adhere to diet and exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Wow I went all this time without getting a shot just because of this Me too, and it kept me from getting it for my kids. She caused a national panic.:mad: She no different than the ballon family. She should be thrown in jail. I can't believe how stupid she alloed herself to look with all the jerking around. What an idiot. Tin foil hat crowd?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I smell something*picture of fishies* Aquatic? Coral Reef-y? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Can't wait til SkinnedAussie shows up, to tell us how fake it is Let me watch the video first, then I'll get back to ya. Besides, it couldn't be any more fake than Meryl Streep's effort with 'A Dingo's got me baby!'. EDIT - Now that I've watched, I'm not entirely convinced it isn't actually Meryl Streep. The 'fake' accent is more British than Aussie, but there's definitely something suspect about the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Villi Phanatic Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 As has been stated before, 'alternative medicine' that actually works is simply called 'medicine'.People turn to alternatives when what they are getting isn't working, so often it's a failing of conventional medicine. Our GPs seem too quick to prescribe drugs or surgery for conditions that can be addressed through diet and exercise. Probably because they don't think their patients will adhere to diet and exercise. Well, I agree and disagree with you. Alternative medicine that works is still frequently referred to as alternative medicine with a negative connotation attached to it. In this thread, there are some clear sentiments questioning the practice of alternative medicine and those involved in it and I was just trying to indicate that some elements of Western medical doctors' practices are just as alternative in nature. As for the rest of your post, I somewhat agree. Doctors do indeed too quickly prescribe drugs for conditions, which often can be otherwise addressed to varying degrees through diet and exercise (hell, the AAP now recommends cholesterol meds to children under 10). But, there are also many instances in which doctors prescribe drugs to alleviate symptoms (that can't simply be addressed through diet/exercise) without really trying to identify and consequently address the cause of these symptoms. And way too often, switching from one Rx to another Rx, changing dosage, etc. is the major involvement of the doctor-patient relationship in lieu of the doctor trying to identify the cause(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Knew this broad was full of **** when the story first came out. Can't walk but can run perfectly fine? Get the **** outta here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.