Freedomain Radio

Statistics were from a ListServ a former professor of mine manages. He's an infectious disease expert at a major hospital. I trust any data he provides. I'm pretty sure he references *his* source for the data in his e-mail. I'll see if I can dig it out.

A Black Box warning DOES NOT mean that a drug is soon going to be taken off the market. Many drugs have been around for years with Black Box warnings. Fluoroquinolones are drugs of choice for a variety of severe infections, so I doubt they'll be going anywhere any time soon. There are risks with nearly all treatments. You have to weigh the potential for side effects with the potential consequences of NOT treating.

I had a guy come in last night who had been bitten by a stray dog here in Shanghai. He was debating whether he should get the rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin or not because his wife and some other old ladies said they read something about it being "contaminated" on an alternative medicine site. Well, there's no way I can prove that it is absolutely and completely safe, but if you contract rabies, you have something like a 99.9% chance of dying... sooo uhhh... take the medicine.

Regarding Omamacare in the movies, except for the cop-role in this flick, I've never seen a better dramatization of the dynamic at work...

The Glass House: The Good Mother (in 10 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQp4YzGK3k

aelephant:

Fluoroquinolones are drugs of choice for a variety of severe infections, so I doubt they'll be going anywhere any time soon. There are risks with nearly all treatments. You have to weigh the potential for side effects with the potential consequences of NOT treating.

Certainly. In many cases, you have no choice - take the drugs or die. However, there are a few issues with that.

1) Few doctor's know the risks of the medications they prescribe because health education sucks, even at doctorate-level. The reason for this is simple - the state wants money, and they regulate the organizations that manage healthcare in this country. Their goal isn't actually "cure" the individual, it's to make money, and as a prerequisite to that, treat patients. They are not concerned with the individual, they are concerned with statistics. That 99% success rate on Cipro seems great, until you're the 1%.

Since things are calculated based on statistics, the doctor's don't actually need to know what the medications they prescribe do (according to the state), they just need to know what to prescribe for what symptoms, and "treat" as many patients as they possibly can - they literally have a quota that is ultimately determined by the state.

So, if a doctor doesn't know what these prescriptions do, how can the patient? "Informed medical consent" my ass =\

2) For some time, leeches were a "drug" of choice to deal with illness, as was exorcising demons. Did it help some people? Probably - at least, they thought it did. Was it the "best" choice? Definitely not. Drugs like Cipro can be viewed the same way... Particularly considering reason 1 above. Just because Cipro works, doesn't mean it's the "only" drug.

3) Worth noting... No gamble is worth your life. Unfortunately, considering 1 and 2, people aren't usually aware of what they're gambling for or with. Why? Because the state refuses to allow proper research and distribution of information on medicine - all they care about is money, and thus statistics. Even if 49% of people died on a drug, and 51% survived, if they could cover up the fact that the 49% died to said drug, they'd probably let it pass because it is "statistically successful." Hell, some extreme operations have worse than a 50% success rate, and they're legal.

Also, I've been to two major hospitals - John's Hopkins and Mayo - for my own medical issues. John's Hopkins had some success, but failed in the later stages. Mayo was a joke. My point is this - your professor may be an expert at a major hospital, but that doesn't mean anything in regard to reliability of information. Frankly, other than empirical evidence, no evidence is reliable. It's far too easy to misrepresent, manipulate, and even forge information.

Testudines:

If you don't mind a personal question, Simon, do you just use water on your hair, or what?

Correct, I just use water to clean my hair. Of course if my hair gets substantially soiled by something that won't wash out so easily I will use a mild soap. When this happens I again have to go through a few weeks of adjustment accompanied by dryness - this has only happened once or twice in a long time.

After several difficult months of withdrawing from shampoo (etc.) and in and out of unpleasant greasiness, my hair eventually reached a balance. Sometimes my hair gets a little dry, but this is usually followed at some point by a brief period of the scalp excreting some natural oils which when brushed through replenish the natural glow and body of the hair.

SimonF:

Testudines:

If you don't mind a personal question, Simon, do you just use water on your hair, or what?

Correct, I just use water to clean my hair. Of course if my hair gets substantially soiled by something that won't wash out so easily I will use a mild soap. When this happens I again have to go through a few weeks of adjustment accompanied by dryness - this has only happened once or twice in a long time.

After several difficult months of withdrawing from shampoo (etc.) and in and out of unpleasant greasiness, my hair eventually reached a balance. Sometimes my hair gets a little dry, but this is usually followed at some point by a brief period of the scalp excreting some natural oils which when brushed through replenish the natural glow and body of the hair.

To clean my hair, if it gets too greasy, I put about a teaspoon of borax in a glass of water. Borax is just a natural water softener and the grease slides off no problem. If you want a rinse, because a slightly acid scalp is supposed to be optimal, put a teaspoon of lemon juice in another glass of water - don't rinse it out, though, leave it in. I've been doing this for years and there are no side effects or any problems.

Another gem from the guys at Lef.org

http://youtu.be/m7LnzYztc1s

Erasmus:

Another gem from the guys at Lef.org

 http://youtu.be/m7LnzYztc1s

Worthy of a Stef video I think.

"The Cancer Report"

http://youtu.be/WnaBG177VIw

Mind = blown

If this stuff is true it is mindblowing.

Need to check the references though to make sure it's true.

But wow. just wow.

"Preindustrial death by cancer was 1 out of 25!, now it's 1 out of 4"

etc etc etc.

Here is a VERY VERY interesting article about the FDA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deirdre-imus/fda-another-government-re_b_130279.html  (part 2)

 cancer death increase = increased longevity

Stefan Molyneux:

 cancer death increase = increased longevity

Ah, now we know the cause of the cancer epidemic!