Wood Goblin wrote: Let me know if you want to know how they do that.

They can't. The journals can't fund their own studies. They either publish articles on the studies funded by big pharm or they publish no articles, lose their funding, and go out of business. Next you'll tell me that the manager of the TV factory in Shanghai tells Wal Mart what it will pay for their televisions.

clocker bob wrote:

Wood Goblin wrote: Let me know if you want to know how they do that.

They can't. The journals can't fund their own studies. They either publish articles on the studies funded by big pharm or they publish no articles, lose their funding, and go out of business. Next you'll tell me that the manager of the TV factory in Shanghai tells Wal Mart what it will pay for their televisions.

You know, I was happier this morning before I began discussing this stuff with you.

What do you do for a living, anyway? Because I'd like to lecture you about your job.

Wood Goblin wrote: You know, I was happier this morning before I began discussing this stuff with you.

Don't blame me. I know I'm irresistible, but...
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 089#430089

wood goblin friday june 1, 2007 in the autism thread wrote: And with that, I'm finished with this thread for good.

wood goblin wrote:What do you do for a living, anyway? Because I'd like to lecture you about your job.

I think Gramsci already started the 'lecture bob' thread.

Start a different thread. Title it: "There Is No Autism Epidemic And Vaccines Are All Safe".

You won't see me over there. You have my word.

clocker bob wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote: but wouldn't a low cost, reasonably safe treatment like the use of Vitamin C be encouraged by health insurance companies (which, by the way, I have no love for either) as a way to keep their costs down?

Whoa. Hold on. 'their costs'??? The cost of health insurance is the cost borne by the health insurance customer. They're our costs, and their profits. Their job is to sell us insurance, which is a loan: it allows us to be able to pay a big medical bill all at once, and in return for the coverage ( loan ), we pay them premiums which include interest. They let us pay slowly and they pay the hospitals quickly, and the difference between what they collect from us and what they pay the hospitals is their profit.

Where do you see the insurance company motive for cheap alternative medicine replacing corporate medicine? That breaks the circuit. The insurance companies have no interest in healthy people who get healthy cheaply without using corporate med, because that reduces rates. Insurance companies make the most money off people who suffer from long, protracted illnesses or catastrophic illnesses, like cancer, because an abundance of such people in society escalates the insurance rates for all of us. People that eat right and exercise and live without constant health care problems into old age are poison to health insurers and corporate med.

Come on, Mark. The insurance companies and the health care industry have two enemies:

Healthy people.

People who get healthy without buying their products.

What you are suggesting is sort of like suggesting that the banks would be happy if fellow citizens banded together into groups to share their savings and promote business using internally-generated money the way many Koreans do, reducing the demand for credit from the interest-charging banks.

Are you going to tell me next that the funeral home industry would back a secret potion that let people live forever?

Bob, I realize that "their costs" are passed onto us in the form of premiums. No fucking shit. I merely stated that if a safe, cheap, reasonable alternative treatment for cancer, in this case, specifically, IV vitamin C, was proved to be effective in treating cancer, then any insurance company would jump on it in a heartbeat, because "their costs", the money they pay out for treatment of cancer, would plummet. Hopefully, that would translate into lower premiums for people like you and me, although I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for this to happen. As I said, I am no big admirer of insurance companies, and I know they are more interested in making money, then in spending it or giving any of it back to you and me.

I guess I don't understand why you think a cheap effective alternative treatment wouldn't be in their interests also.

This country really needs a national health plan of some sort. One that includes many modes of treatment, not just ones form corporate medicine. The only caveat I have is that those treatments must be effective, and that the best treatment for a particular illness and circumstance be used, not necessarily just on some cost based criteria.

It's in the best interest of drug companies to make safe and effective drugs. I'm sure it doesn't help sales to have people dying or suffering serious side effects from a product.

It would be great if the entire health industry was not for profit.

Anyone interested in answering the question I asked before:
No question about it; drug companies can unduly influence studies. What do alternative health practitioners do to avoid biases and ulterior motives based on profit, etc?

Mark Hansen wrote:I merely stated that if a safe, cheap, reasonable alternative treatment for cancer, in this case, specifically, IV vitamin C, was proved to be effective in treating cancer, then any insurance company would jump on it in a heartbeat, because "their costs", the money they pay out for treatment of cancer, would plummet.

You're not getting it. They are not 'their costs'. They are 'our' costs. That is what insurance is. An agreement that the insurer will pay the insured's costs when the insured is faced with a lump sum medical bill that he cannot pay. Insurance is a loan, or more accurately, a mortgage. Do banks want the costs of homes to plummet, so they write smaller loans and collect less interest? Of course not. Do health insurers want people to find cheaper treatments, so they require smaller loans ( policies ) from the health insurer? Of course not. Your whole argument is like you think we live in a single payer taxdollar funded system, where there would be an incentive to make people healthy for less. We live in a profit-driven system, and therefore, rising health care costs and rising premiums are good news for the profit-based industry.

I'm amazed that you aren't seeing this.

mark hansen wrote:Hopefully, that would translate into lower premiums for people like you and me, although I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for this to happen.

And why are lower premiums good news for anyone but you or me? Did Exxon buy you a hybrid car this morning so you can stop buying their gas?

mark hansen wrote:I guess I don't understand why you think a cheap effective alternative treatment wouldn't be in their interests also.

Mark, they are in the business of selling health care and the insurance to pay for it, that's why! Damn... I know you know what capitalism is. It must be the concept of treatment that is making you think that corporate medicine has your interests at heart, and is always doing what it takes to lower health care costs. Think of it as a product. If you held the exclusive license to sell donuts that cost $12 a dozen in Chicago, would you expect Donuts, Inc. to welcome with open arms the woman who bakes donuts in her kitchen and sells them to her friends for $2 a dozen?

Control of the marketplace and the cost structure is why they won't eagerly sell you cheap alternative treatments- you're aware of the battle to buy meds from Canada, right? Doesn't that current event tell you a lot more about who big pharm is looking out for than some fantasy you have about the insurance companies and their friends in corporate medicine getting together to give you Vitamin C for your cancer? If health insurers are on your side, why can't you get cheaper Canadian pills covered by your US insurer??

Christ, Mark. They're in it for the money.

newberry wrote: What do alternative health practitioners do to avoid biases and ulterior motives based on profit, etc?

It's all buyer beware, buyer do research, buyer be smart. The whole world is. We can't trust the regulatory agencies to be straight with us, or the journals, or the media.

The point is: there is no need to spend equal time scrutinizing both corporate medicine and alternative medicine. If you have a grudge against alternative medicine, go for it, but you are advocating that we should worry equally about McDonald's and an organic farmer with ten acres. The impact of McDonald's on society dwarfs anything that the organic farmer could do.

You want to ride the fence on this, that's your business.

clocker bob wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:I merely stated that if a safe, cheap, reasonable alternative treatment for cancer, in this case, specifically, IV vitamin C, was proved to be effective in treating cancer, then any insurance company would jump on it in a heartbeat, because "their costs", the money they pay out for treatment of cancer, would plummet.

You're not getting it. They are not 'their costs'. They are 'our' costs. That is what insurance is. An agreement that the insurer will pay the insured's costs when the insured is faced with a lump sum medical bill that he cannot pay. Insurance is a loan, or more accurately, a mortgage. Do banks want the costs of homes to plummet, so they write smaller loans and collect less interest? Of course not. Do health insurers want people to find cheaper treatments, so they require smaller loans ( policies ) from the health insurer? Of course not. Your whole argument is like you think we live in a single payer taxdollar funded system, where there would be an incentive to make people healthy for less. We live in a profit-driven system, and therefore, rising health care costs and rising premiums are good news for the profit-based industry.

I'm amazed that you aren't seeing this.

mark hansen wrote:Hopefully, that would translate into lower premiums for people like you and me, although I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for this to happen.

And why are lower premiums good news for anyone but you or me? Did Exxon buy you a hybrid car this morning so you can stop buying their gas?

mark hansen wrote:I guess I don't understand why you think a cheap effective alternative treatment wouldn't be in their interests also.

Mark, they are in the business of selling health care and the insurance to pay for it, that's why! Damn... I know you know what capitalism is. It must be the concept of treatment that is making you think that corporate medicine has your interests at heart, and is always doing what it takes to lower health care costs. Think of it as a product. If you held the exclusive license to sell donuts that cost $12 a dozen in Chicago, would you expect Donuts, Inc. to welcome with open arms the woman who bakes donuts in her kitchen and sells them to her friends for $2 a dozen?

Control of the marketplace and the cost structure is why they won't eagerly sell you cheap alternative treatments- you're aware of the battle to buy meds from Canada, right? Doesn't that current event tell you a lot more about who big pharm is looking out for than some fantasy you have about the insurance companies and their friends in corporate medicine getting together to give you Vitamin C for your cancer? If health insurers are on your side, why can't you get cheaper Canadian pills covered by your US insurer??

Christ, Mark. They're in it for the money.

Bob, you have selectively quoted and misrepresented what I said. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you, partly because I think that is what you really want, but it is really unnecessary and annoying. I know you know and understand what I said in my previous post, unless of course you selectively only read parts of it.

For one example didn't I say, near the end of my post, that insurance companies are more interested in making money then in giving it back to you and me?

Sometimes you are such an ass Bob. I don't think one thing I have said contradicts what you have said, except I don't put things in black and white terms the way you do.

Bob, I've said this before: you bring up interesting and provocative things in your posts, but your manner and the way you treat people who haven't, in any way, attacked you or the basic substance of your posts, is truly sad.

I have no grudge against alternative medicine--sometimes it works well. But I'm against a double-standard. I've noticed that some people are very skeptical and critical of Western medicine, and point out how clinical trials can be corrupted, and doctors are often biased. But when it comes to "alternative medicine," I've noticed that some folks put on their rose colored glasses and forget about their skepticism and critical thinking skills.

As I've said on this forum ad nauseum, I'm for any treatment that is proven to be safe and effective, whether it's Eastern or Western, traditional or alternative, old or new, synthetic or natural. I'm not against alternative medicine. I'm against double standards.

We all want the same thing: safe and effective and affordable healthcare. We need to fight against bad behavior by big corporations like drug and insurance companies. We also need to fight against snake oil; treatments and remedies which have not been proven to be safe and effective.

eta:

It's all buyer beware, buyer do research, buyer be smart. The whole world is. We can't trust the regulatory agencies to be straight with us, or the journals, or the media.

Should the alternative health industry (ie, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, supplements, etc.) not be held to the same standard as the drug companies?

Mark Hansen wrote:For one example didn't I say, near the end of my post, that insurance companies are more interested in making money then in giving it back to you and me?

You're the ass, Mark. You can't even keep your fucking story straight!

Can this:

mark hansen wrote:insurance companies are more interested in making money then in giving it back to you and me

and this:

mark hansen wrote:I guess I don't understand why you think a cheap effective alternative treatment wouldn't be in their interests also.

and this:

mark hansen wrote:but wouldn't a low cost, reasonably safe treatment like the use of Vitamin C be encouraged by health insurance companies (which, by the way, I have no love for either) as a way to keep their costs down?

All be true at the same time???????

How the FUCK do you have the gall to attack me when you said that motherfucking insurance companies would be interested in making health care cost less, when at the same time, you are arguing this?

mark hansen wrote:insurance companies are more interested in making money then in giving it back to you and me

What do you think 'giving more money back' means????

It means lowering costs.

You, in one hour, have argued that the insurance companies WOULD want to lower costs, and that insurance companies WOULD NOT want to lower costs!!!!

Fuck you. Go read a book.