Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Equally interesting is the fact that people with hypothyroidism or adrenal insufficiency are more robust that their non-afflicted counterparts.

Quite the contrary, although these important hormones can help.

[Angakuk]

It has been my observation that people who live to be 100 years old or older experience the onset of various age related illnesses at a later age than people who die at an earlier age. That is too say that most of the centenarians that I have known (and have known more than just a few) have been healthier over most of their lives than those who don't live as long. Diseases commonly associated with aging, such as congestive heart disease and osteoarthritis, seem to occur later in life for those who live the longest. Likewise, those same people start taking medications later in life in those whose ailments present at an earlier age. One wonders why these things should be the case and if they have any significance with regard to longevity. It is almost as if healthier people live longer than people who are less healthy. Why this might be the case is a total mystery to me.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't stupid to make the comment that centenarians are more robust than their younger counterparts. The fact that they use less medicine is just another interesting observation. It's also interesting to note that the various medicines taken by seniors to keep them healthy never seem to help them reach very old age or we would be seeing many centenarians on lots of meds. It would seem to me that the goal would be to try to prevent the need for lots of meds or to work toward getting off of them, if possible. This does not imply that meds aren't sometimes necessary to control important functions of the body like blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.

When in doubt, double down on the stupid! Ah peacegirl you never disappoint.

"centenarians are more robust than their younger counterparts."



That is one for the collection, right there.

It's also interesting to note that the various medicines taken by seniors to keep them healthy never seem to help them reach very old age or we would be seeing many centenarians on lots of meds.

Weird, right? But like I said - that is just the tip of the iceberg. If chemotherapy actually worked, then how come people who are treated by it die of cancer at a higher rate than people who are not? Coincidence? I think NOT!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When in doubt, double down on the stupid! Ah peacegirl you never disappoint.

"centenarians are more robust than their younger counterparts."



That is one for the collection, right there.

Why is that for the collection? Centenarians are more robust than their younger [senior] counterparts who are often on lots of drugs.

It's also interesting to note that the various medicines taken by seniors to keep them healthy never seem to help them reach very old age or we would be seeing many centenarians on lots of meds.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Weird, right? But like I said - that is just the tip of the iceberg. If chemotherapy actually worked, then how come people who are treated by it die of cancer at a higher rate than people who are not? Coincidence? I think NOT!

Not the same thing Vivisectus. Cancer patients are not in the same category as people taking medication who don't have cancer. You would think that these medications would help people live very long lives since their numbers (cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.) are being kept in check, but that's not what we're seeing. This suggests that drugs, however helpful they may be when necessary, cannot compare to prevention through lifestyle changes in regard to longevity.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cancer patients are not in the same category as people taking medication who don't have cancer.

You would think that these medications would help people live very long lives since their numbers (cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.) are being kept in check

Maybe you would think that, peacegirl, but you are really quite stupid and poorly educated, and will believe anything a Holocaust denier types on the Internet.

[Vivisectus]

Why is that for the collection? Centenarians are more robust than their younger [senior] counterparts who are often on lots of drugs.

Do you really not get it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Weird, right? But like I said - that is just the tip of the iceberg. If chemotherapy actually worked, then how come people who are treated by it die of cancer at a higher rate than people who are not? Coincidence? I think NOT!

Not the same thing Vivisectus.

Pretty much exactly the same thing.

Cancer patients are not in the same category as people taking medication who don't have cancer. You would think that these medications would help people live very long lives since their numbers (cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.) are being kept in check

And people who take chemotherapy? Would you not think they would have less of a chance of dying of cancer, since the cancer is being kept in check?

, but that's not what we're seeing.

No indeed! We see people who are treated with chemotherapy die of cancer way more often than people who are not!

It is an indication that drugs, however helpful they may be when necessary, cannot compare to prevention through lifestyle changes in regard to longevity

You don't say! It is almost as if it is better not to get cancer than to treat cancer with chemotherapy? Thank goodness for internet research and due diligence. How would we ever have figured THAT one out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you really not get it?

Pretty much exactly the same thing.

And people who take chemotherapy? Would you not think they would have less of a chance of dying of cancer, since the cancer is being kept in check?

No indeed! We see people who are treated with chemotherapy die of cancer way more often than people who are not!

You don't say! It is almost as if it is better not to get cancer than to treat cancer with chemotherapy? Thank goodness for internet research and due diligence. How would we ever have figured THAT one out?

The variables that impact longevity are not simple to unravel, granted. There are genetic components as well. This observation is nothing more than a correlation to be explored.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...tenarians.aspx

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This observation is nothing more than a correlation to be explored.

(1) Just like the correlation between deathbelt usage and diabetes prevalence!

(2) lol, peacegirl saying something is "nothing more than a correlation"

[Vivisectus]

PG, considering there is a clear correlation between armor thyroid and hydrocortisone and early death, plus god knows what other drug interreactions we don't know about yet, and a list of side-effects as long as my arm, should you not err on the side of caution and not take it?

I mean clearly they are making you less robust. There are people 30 years older than you that do not have your health problems... and they never took any of that stuff! So clearly, it is actually better for you not to take them and in stead just change your lifestyle so you don't need them anymore?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

PG, considering there is a clear correlation between armor thyroid and hydrocortisone and early death, plus god knows what other drug interreactions we don't know about yet, and a list of side-effects as long as my arm, should you not err on the side of caution and not take it?

I mean clearly they are making you less robust. There are people 30 years older than you that do not have your health problems... and they never took any of that stuff! So clearly, it is actually better for you not to take them and in stead just change your lifestyle so you don't need them anymore?

Doesn't fly Vivisectus. There is a big difference between a physiologic and a pharmacologic dose, the former being a necessary replacement for what your body is not producing.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't fly Vivisectus. There is a big difference between a physiologic and a a pharmacologic dose, the former being a necessary replacement for what your body is not producing.

Surely it would be better simply to be in the category of people whose bodies produce those compounds.
^
|
|
STUNNING OBSERVATION

[Stephen Maturin]

Clearly, there is much room for debate and discussion here. However, it appears we're all in agreement that the statement "[i]t seems that those who live the longest are those who take the least medications" is spectacularly, breathtakingly stupid.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Surely it would be better simply to be in the category of people whose bodies produce those compounds.
^
|
|
STUNNING OBSERVATION

Better that than being a goddamn DRUG USER.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Clearly, there is much room for debate and discussion here. However, it appears we're all in agreement that the statement "[i]t seems that those who live the longest are those who take the least medications" is spectacularly, breathtakingly stupid.

Login

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't fly Vivisectus. There is a big difference between a physiologic and a pharmacologic dose, the former being a necessary replacement for what your body is not producing.

Amazing - the human body produces hydrocortisol now?

But what you are saying is that in your case it is actually the other way around: that you need some sort of drug to fix a problem? That the problem was there first, and that there is actually no causative link between your taking of the drug and your lack of "robustness"?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Someone's selling wasp nests to grind up for your vagina on @Etsy https://t.co/p91y2rSnuG

— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) May 17, 2017

Seems as good a thread as any.

[peacegirl]

Psychiatric Association Wants FDA to Expand Electroshock Used on Children and Elderly

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Psychiatric Association Wants FDA to Expand Electroshock Used on Children and Elderly

The FDA has never required any clinical trials proving safety or efficacy of the treatment.

Perhaps they just did not start off having a hunch or a hypothesis which required data collection, and made their claim of safety and efficacy only after observing ECT and human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts). Perhaps they observed behavior which allowed them to make the claim that ECT may be effective for severe major depressive episode (MDE) associated with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or Bipolar Disorder (BPD) in patients 18 years of age and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition. That's good enough - right, peacegirl?

[ChuckF]

Also, peacegirl, did you do any due diligence or critical analysis to determine if it is true that "[t]he Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed the electroshock therapy (ECT) device to remain on the market without requiring clinical studies proving safety and efficacy and is considering the American Psychiatric Association’s written proposal to expand ECT’s use on the general public, including on children." What data sources support this claim? What facts suggest that this claim is true? What resources did you use to research this claim?

peacegirl, isn't it stunning that there have been zero clinical studies proving the safety and efficacy of deathbelts??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Perhaps they just did not start off having a hunch or a hypothesis which required data collection, and made their claim of safety and efficacy only after observing ECT and human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts). Perhaps they observed behavior which allowed them to make the claim that ECT may be effective for severe major depressive episode (MDE) associated with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or Bipolar Disorder (BPD) in patients 18 years of age and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition. That's good enough - right, peacegirl?

This is sad because your analogies are so inaccurate. They are talking about giving electro-shock to children and the elderly which present a greater risk than the general population chuck. Of course you would go for this garbage. You're so full of shit.

FDA reconsiders behavior-modifying "shock devices" - CBS News

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, isn't it stunning that there have been zero clinical studies proving the safety and efficacy of deathbelts??

Did you know that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety uses DUMMIES in their crash testing? That's right - THEY DON'T EVEN USE REAL CHILDREN to test the efficacy and safety of these so-called child safety devices!

Of course, their chickenshit excuse is that is would be "unethical" to crash a vehicle containing an an unrestrained child because restraints are proven effective. Thus, Big Belt and their sniveling toadies at the IIHS are assuming the safety and efficacy of restraints to prove the safety and efficacy of restraints. That's a fallacy, probably the strawman fallacy!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Did you know that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety uses DUMMIES in their crash testing? That's right - THEY DON'T EVEN USE REAL CHILDREN to test the efficacy and safety of these so-called child safety devices!

That is outrageous! Their analogies are so flawed! Those dummies don't even have mothers like me who know best for them. And because they played with their dolls and called it science, I have to wrap MY CHILD up in a deathbelt or go to prison.

Of course, their chickenshit excuse is that is would be "unethical" to crash a vehicle containing an an unrestrained child because restraints are proven effective. Thus, Big Belt and their sniveling toadies at the IIHS are assuming the safety and efficacy of restraints to prove the safety and efficacy of restraints. That's a fallacy, probably the strawman fallacy!

What a red herring, too, I bet!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Did you know that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety uses DUMMIES in their crash testing? That's right - THEY DON'T EVEN USE REAL CHILDREN to test the efficacy and safety of these so-called child safety devices!

Of course, their chickenshit excuse is that is would be "unethical" to crash a vehicle containing an an unrestrained child because restraints are proven effective. Thus, Big Belt and their sniveling toadies at the IIHS are assuming the safety and efficacy of restraints to prove the safety and efficacy of restraints. That's a fallacy, probably the strawman fallacy!

I don't care to read your post because your shit is so impacted that no one can decipher where you stand other than recognizing your retorts regarding your nemesis whom you must prove wrong at any cost. No matter how hard you try, you are lacking in proof. Let's get other philosophers involved to see who ends up being the real fraud. If you're not scared, let's do it..

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is sad because your analogies are so inaccurate. They are talking about giving electro-shock to children and the elderly which present a greater risk than the general population chuck. Of course you would go for this garbage. You're so full of shit.

FDA reconsiders behavior-modifying "shock devices" - CBS News

peacegirl, why you are ignoring the important observations of PARENTS who know what is best for their child??? What about that anecdotal evidence??

But dozens of parents with children at the Judge Rotenberg Center argue otherwise in letters of support submitted to the FDA.

"Our kids are one punch away from going blind or killing themselves and need treatments that work quickly with minimal side effects," wrote the parents of a daughter with a rare form of epilepsy. "It would be a terrible injustice to deprive a child of such an effective life-saving treatment when all other available treatments have consistently failed."

peacegirl, why do you want that child to die??

And re your pre-edit post: of course I have a use for the book! I used it to take you on that whole observation/evidence detour to get the language I just used against you!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care to read your post

And yet you did.