|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43989 Posts
On July 29 2017 09:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:00 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're advocating for people taking substances for health purposes that are entirely unregulated based upon "rational people would have known there were risks" to consuming supplements.
At the very least that's bypassing the FDA. i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west. insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed. And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate. lol amphetamine just "restoring body chemistry." lets just talk about "getting high" because thats what hydroxycut was used for. i mean the supplement aisle is for getting high right? this is why conversations like this with people who dont understand chemistry is pointless Umm yes, ADHD drugs (which is what you seem to be referring to in your misplaced comment about prescribing to kids like candy) work by trying to restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain. That's how they work, changing the brain chemistry, increasing dopamine levels because the person's reward center isn't functioning as "normal". Seems you don't understand the chemistry.
This. Not that I expected much from him after "natural plant extracts".
|
On July 28 2017 07:55 On_Slaught wrote:A bill attacking his buddy Putin AND limiting presidential power? Will he still try and veto despite the overwhelming votes? Poll: Will Trump sign or veto the bill?Veto (15) 71% Sign (6) 29% 21 total votes Your vote: Will Trump sign or veto the bill? (Vote): Sign
(Vote): Veto
BBC reporting he will sign it, fyi. Not even he is stupid enough to fight this with those vote totals.
|
what people who complain about the "russia hysteria" seem to have missed is that the hysteria obviously forces Trump to sign all of this stuff if he doesn't intend to look like a Russian stooge
|
On July 29 2017 13:40 Nyxisto wrote:
what people who complain about the "russia hysteria" seem to have missed is that the hysteria obviously forces Trump to sign all of this stuff if he doesn't intend to look like a Russian stooge
Well he still fires people who look into him and warns people not to look at Russia ties, so he's not very good at appearing innocent.
|
On July 29 2017 11:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 29 2017 09:00 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
i shouldnt have to repeat this but i am asking for STRICTER controls. I want the bottle to contain what it says it contains. right now its the wild fucking west.
insofar as you think adults shouldnt be allowed to take plant extracts if they want to, i think thats nuts. bodily autonomy We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves. As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed. And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate. lol amphetamine just "restoring body chemistry." lets just talk about "getting high" because thats what hydroxycut was used for. i mean the supplement aisle is for getting high right? this is why conversations like this with people who dont understand chemistry is pointless Umm yes, ADHD drugs (which is what you seem to be referring to in your misplaced comment about prescribing to kids like candy) work by trying to restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain. That's how they work, changing the brain chemistry, increasing dopamine levels because the person's reward center isn't functioning as "normal". Seems you don't understand the chemistry. This. Not that I expected much from him after "natural plant extracts".
sorry no. they directly act on the brain as exogeneous chemicals so they dont "restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain" whatever the fuck that means.
in other words you cant "restore" something that 1) you have no history of and no chemical data of 2) that is necessarily idiosyncratic. like its odd that you would even post this while putting quotation marks around "normal."
or you are going to tell me that methamphetamine isnt a restoration but adderall is.
|
On July 29 2017 13:40 Nyxisto wrote:
what people who complain about the "russia hysteria" seem to have missed is that the hysteria obviously forces Trump to sign all of this stuff if he doesn't intend to look like a Russian stooge
He shouldn't have fired Comey and allegedly said those things to the Russians while they were in the oval office if he didn't want to look like a Russian stooge... There's lots of things he could have done differently. I'd still expect him to sign it for the same reasons you do, but it doesn't seem like he's very affected by how he will be perceived in these matters.
|
On July 29 2017 14:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 11:45 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 09:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 29 2017 09:00 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:31 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 08:16 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2017 08:06 IgnE wrote:On July 29 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote:On July 29 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
We've never allowed companies to avoid responsibility for what people do with their products before, not sure why you think we should start now. If you sell a dangerous product you can't hide behind "bodily autonomy" and insist that if one of your customers gets hurt then clearly they made a deliberate choice to exercise their autonomy through hurting themselves.
As for "plant extracts", chemicals are chemicals. Slapping a "ALL NATURAL" sticker on the side of the bottle doesn't change the contents, it shouldn't change the legality. Indeed. If i buy something in a store, and use it the way it i am supposed to, it should not kill me. If there is the danger that it might kill me, it should definitively tell me so, very clearly. If i use it in some incredibly stupid way that it was never thought to be used as (like eating batteries or something like that), and then get killed by it, that is obviously a different situation. And i am very often amazed by the very persistent idea that if something is "natural" (whatever that even means), it can not be dangerous, and is actually good for you. Belladonna is natural. Fly Amanita is natural. Poison dart frogs are natural. Rattlesnakes are all natural. Death cap is natural. Anthrax is all natural too. as i mentioned earlier this disrespect for biochemistry is largely a product of marketing and regulatory regimes produced by a pharmaceutical/medical complex designed to sell chemical "cures" to an uncriticial public. I think you misunderstood my point about chemicals. I'm well aware that everything we consume is made of chemicals and I'm certainly not one of the crowd that insists that chemicals are bad and that I only eat natural things without chemicals. My point was simply that distinguishing between the right to put natural things in your body and synthetic things in your body is absurd. You seemed to suggest that plant extracts should be allowed as a unique category, I was responding to that. well my point is that we prescribe amphetamines to children like candy and used to let everyone buy pseudo until it atartes being used to make meth, but we need to totally ban ephedra for knowing adults. lets compare the death rate on ephedra to legally prescribed amphetamines. lets consider that one is an unpatented plant extract and the other is a patented salt formulation. That essentially amounts to "if we allow children with a medical need to use drugs to restore their body chemistry to normalcy then how come adults can't use it to get high". I mean, do I really need to address why prescribed drug use is different from drug abuse? And if doctors are abusing their prescribing privileges that doesn't invalid the concept of prescriptions, it means it should be fixed. And anyway, I don't especially object to adults getting high. I'm not saying ban everything, I'm saying ban the shit that really will fuck you up and cover the other stuff with warning labels as appropriate. lol amphetamine just "restoring body chemistry." lets just talk about "getting high" because thats what hydroxycut was used for. i mean the supplement aisle is for getting high right? this is why conversations like this with people who dont understand chemistry is pointless Umm yes, ADHD drugs (which is what you seem to be referring to in your misplaced comment about prescribing to kids like candy) work by trying to restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain. That's how they work, changing the brain chemistry, increasing dopamine levels because the person's reward center isn't functioning as "normal". Seems you don't understand the chemistry. This. Not that I expected much from him after "natural plant extracts". sorry no. they directly act on the brain as exogeneous chemicals so they dont "restore a balance of chemicals in the patients brain" whatever the fuck that means. in other words you cant "restore" something that 1) you have no history of and no chemical data of 2) that is necessarily idiosyncratic. like its odd that you would even post this while putting quotation marks around "normal." or you are going to tell me that methamphetamine isnt a restoration but adderall is.
If you know that healthy individuals usually have [factor/hormone/small-molecule] within [some range], and that the factor going outside that range is found to cause [undesirable symptom], then yes, you absolutely can correct the situation by applying [some drug] to restore healthy levels of the factor.
It does not matter that the drug may be artificially synthesised, so long as it has been shown to be safe, nor does it matter that the person's usual levels may have never been within that range.
Now, if you want to argue that there's some specific deficiency in the literature supporting ADHD drugs, then please go ahead. My understanding is that they're fairly sound, if probably overprescribed.
However, challenging the general principle - which you seem to be doing - is tinfoil hat territory. A large chunk of modern medicine works in this way, and has produced very clear and repeatable outcomes.
|
On July 29 2017 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2017 08:50 Doodsmack wrote:
This is About the level of substance Trump has to him.
They really could, but they are so petty and in the pocket of insurance companies they wouldn't. They could get some Republicans too. Except for that rule about needed a majority of the majority party agreeing to even bring a bill to the floor to discuss. But you know, details.
You know that's not actually a rule right?
This would be after 2018 where a competent Democratic party took control of both chambers anyway though. But they wont run on actually making it happen any time soon so they will likely lose (somehow to one of the worst political parties in the industrialized world). Such is the state of American politics.
On the FDA
I'm not positive about ADHD meds (besides there's no doubt there's too many positive diagnosis), but I know the research on SSRI's and children/adolescents is woefully inadequate.
In fact doctors were/are basically experimenting on kids prescribing them SSRI's not approved by the FDA for children.
|
The literature being inadequate in children isn't really the FDA's fault (there are now a variety of methods incentivizing trials in children and adolescents). Moreso that finding enough parents willing to consent their children to be randomized to a drug with efficacy evidence for adults or nothing at all in the context of debilitating conditions like depression is extremely difficult, and if you try to do it before adult approval finding parents willing to consent to randomize children to drugs that may not work in anyone or placebo is even harder.
As a result, if doctors want to treat children for pretty much anything they have to rely on observational evidence or itsy bitsy trials, each of which have their own (large) problems. Especially when a large number of trials or observational studies that show positive nonsignificant effects are called "null findings."
You could try to kill off-label prescribing, but that would gut treatments for a large number of conditions and leave children basically untreatable until folks sacrificed their children to science.
Edit: Basically, while I hate the current "we're not advertising off-label teehee" environment that gets companies a slap on the wrist and that needs modified, the large-scale change alternatives feel even less palatable.
|
I'm not sure it is the right idea but does not the state have the care of most people in foster care? That is something like 400 000 children that could be used responsibly for trials if they have the diseases. The risk is that we go back to lobotomy level of experiments since nobody can speak for them.
|
Apologies lots of tweets inc
One more on a different topic jfc :
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 29 2017 22:57 Yurie wrote:
I'm not sure it is the right idea but does not the state have the care of most people in foster care? That is something like 400 000 children that could be used responsibly for trials if they have the diseases. The risk is that we go back to lobotomy level of experiments since nobody can speak for them.
If they have a disease and there is an existing treatment that would be appropriate for them there is absolutely no reason for using them as test subjects. If there is no existing treatment then sure, experimental treatment may be okay on a case by case basis. But foster care makes no difference in either case. The best interests of the child governs. If anything the state has a stronger duty to protect. That was the heart of the recent case in the UK.
|
|
|
On July 30 2017 00:03 RealityIsKing wrote:Man got a point.
What is it?
|
On July 30 2017 00:03 RealityIsKing wrote:Man got a point.
Feel free to spell it out, because i'm not seeing it.
|
i seriously wonder... did noone tell him? At least after let's say the first or second tweet?
|
On July 30 2017 00:20 Toadesstern wrote:i seriously wonder... did noone tell him? At least after let's say the first or second tweet?
Nah. I don't think anyone wants to try and explain to a narcissist how the senate works, and that the "complete great healthcare" only needed 51 votes because of a "loophole". It also couldn't be filibustered for the same reason, so, well..
I dunno. He doesn't have a point, because it literally wouldn't have changed anything. Someone saying "man has a point" seems to be in the same category, clueless as to what happened, and more importantly, why it happened.
But then you couldn't really blame democrats for it.
edit: i'd also love the end of filibustering, and a simple majority. That'd be great in the next election cycle if republicans suddenly have pretty much no say in anything, and the country goes full Bernie Sanders. :D
|
I also love the repeated "8 democrats" line. It is not 8 democrats. It is 48 democrats doing that. 8 democrats alone would do nothing. 48 democrats, aka nearly half the people in there, do have some power with the filibuster rules. The only way to arrive at 8 is some really weird maths.
Not that that would have changed anything in regard to the healthcare stuff. I assume that is the reason for Trumps ranting. The problem with healthcare is that the reps don't have any plan they can get their own party behind, because they have promised multiple completely contradictory things that can not be fulfilled at the same time.
|
On July 30 2017 00:39 Simberto wrote:
I also love the repeated "8 democrats" line. It is not 8 democrats. It is 48 democrats doing that. 8 democrats alone would do nothing. 48 democrats, aka nearly half the people in there, do have some power with the filibuster rules. The only way to arrive at 8 is some really weird maths.
Not that that would have changed anything in regard to the healthcare stuff. I assume that is the reason for Trumps ranting. The problem with healthcare is that the reps don't have any plan they can get their own party behind, because they have promised multiple completely contradictory things that can not be fulfilled at the same time.
To be charitable, he might mean something like "8 Democrats have the power to break a filibuster" kind of like how "3 Republicans have the power to sink healthcare repeal." Or that in a sense the 8 most conservative Dems control the country (that's pretty unlikely though, since Trump just sees R's and D's with no gradient beyond how much they stroke his ego and doesn't seem to know what the VP does).
|
the worst part is that they didn't even need 51 votes... 50 votes would have been enough with pence breaking the tie if I understood it correctly?
The way I understand it he's asking to increase the threshold from 50+Pence to 51. So effectively asking to strip Pence of his right to break the tie? Maybe the man has a point after all 🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
