US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3601

On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote:
The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.

On April 14 2016 03:21 KwarK wrote:

I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.

On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:


I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.

On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:


I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.

On April 14 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:

To be perfectly honest, my impression of NDs is that they seem to be part nutritionist and mental health coach. Its a lot of yoga and steam baths. If you went in and said you had cancer, I am willing to bet they tell you to go to a doctor.

On April 14 2016 03:34 tenklavir wrote:
Having had cancer, while also having studied at great depth the computational biology and stochastic nature of cancer growth and development, I feel that I have a fairly unique perspective on this:

The double-blind study is our best hope of finding new treatments, and I believe the federal government should do whatever it can to stamp out alternative medicine claims and pseudoscientific nonsense. No one is arguing that people should not be able to treat themselves in whatever way they see fit, but any person/company who makes a claim that their method or product treats a disease should be legally required to back up that claim. How many cancer patients needlessly die because some quack told them to drink some diluted hydrogen peroxide to treat their breast cancer? It is an absolutely travesty.

E: Anyone interested in the maths I would encourage to read Wodarz and Komarova's "Computational Biology Of Cancer: Lecture Notes And Mathematical Modeling".

On April 14 2016 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
FDA approval doesn't go much past "it's safe" though

Should be a rule that all studies for a drug need to come out (not just the favorable ones) and an independent board of scientists should review the findings

On April 14 2016 04:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
FDA approval doesn't go much past "it's safe" though

Should be a rule that all studies for a drug need to come out (not just the favorable ones) and an independent board of scientists should review the findings

On April 14 2016 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:

getting FDA approval is not an easy thing tho, my brother works for a pharmaceutical and there is a whole lot of work that goes into that.

On April 14 2016 04:18 Ghostcom wrote:


If we are talking medical approval it also needs to be efficacious.

Though the tendency to laugh at Ted Cruz’s (admittedly laughable) legal efforts to deny Texans the ability to purchase “marital aids” – as they are often called in conservative circles – is an irresistible one, the case in which Cruz’s office compared the use of sex toys with “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy” and suggested that there is a state interest in “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation” (ie, a government interest in limiting masturbation and sex for pleasure) is no laughing matter.

What you have – besides the basis for a number of deeply satisfying giggle fits on the basis of his asserted hypocrisy – is a presidential candidate running on the platform of being a “constitutional conservative” interested in limited government who, not so long ago, argued before the courts that it was in the government’s interest to limit its citizens’ preferred methods of consensual sexual gratification, and who further argued that the sale of sex toys was akin to pimping.

This was not, let it be said, a simple semantic argument: at issue in the case were women like Joanne Webb, a 43-year-old mother of three children who was prosecuted by the state of Texas because, rather than marketing a vibrator as a funny novelty item no one would ever use, explained to two undercover cops how to use it to enhance their (fake) sex life as a married couple.

But beyond the Cruz connection, it’s interesting to note that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the randy masses in 2008 by asserting:

An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right.

That same court ruled in 2015 that Texas’s anti-abortion TRAP laws, designed to reduce the number of clinics at which Texas women can obtain legal abortion services, did not impose enough of an undue burden on enough women to justify throwing out the Texas law. The US supreme court heard arguments in that case in March and is expected to rule later this year.

On April 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh sorry to interrupt but this is too good:



source: www.theguardian.com

And the tweet of the century:

https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/720259227067920385