Well, I make and use CS because it's something "I" can do.
When it's not enough, I have no problem hitting the feed and seed store or
asking the dentist for anti-biotics.
Doctors under attack are more expensive than dentists told about a
fantasy tooth ache, animal drugs are the same as people drugs and I cut out
the middle men that pay $100,000 a year for malpractice
insurance...except...if I choose them wrong, I can't sue for more than
being my own dead or disabled dog...and the lawyers to do that will cost
far more than the payoff.
It probably cost a billion dollars to get Vioxx approved, so I can see why
the resistance to having it yanked because the risk of corking off is .7%
But lookie. I hear all the time how the FDA should get out of our lives on
one hand, and burrow further into them on the other.
What do you WANT?
Freedom or safety. You can't have it both ways.
With freedom comes risk.
With safety, lack of choice...and you pay for that lack.
We don't want to pay the FDA the billions it takes to do the testing, so we
pay the "Pharm" in the cost of the drugs that do get approved to cover
those which don't and they write their own ticket accordingly.
For every billion the "Pharm" spends getting a drug approved, they spend 5
billion on the ones that don't pass the initial phases...and you wonder why
approved drugs cost so much and why they might want to fudge the data just
a little bit and balance the risk of being sued against the probability of
staying solvent.
The cost of that pill is something like 25 cents for the pill and 25
dollars to insure against possible risks if ANY one dies or comes to harm,
disregarding everyone that doesn't.
Taking drugs is not safe and NOT taking drugs when you need some is also
not safe.
Meanwhile, people make a big stink about CS not having the approval it
deserves, but won't pay the FDA to do it and the Pharm can't profit from it
to cover the cost.
Following our OWN logic.... if the "Pharm" won't spend a billion dollars to
get CS approved to satisfy OUR demand for safety, it will be outlawed and
it's all the FDAs fault for not doing what it hasn't been paid to do.
The FDA has done the right thing. "Don't ask and if you do we'll just say
no to cover our unpaid buttholes." [We don't know, we haven't been paid to
find out and we have found no reason to want to know OR find out..yet you
ask us? ..go away kid, hide in a water closet someplace and jerk your own
chain.]
If you live your own life and die your own death, you have freedom...but
it's risky and a sharp mind is gonna be your best and only friend.
If you spend it looking for approval, you'll be licking a lot of corrupt
boots that pick your pockets to pay for the safety you demand...but at
least you can blame those boots for the heal grinding on your head when it
turns out that you are one of those that doesn't fit the odds of success.
"It's YOUR fault that I'm different and ignorant..pay up" "It's YOUR fault
that I weighed the risks against benefits and came up short "
No one body can afford that, so every body pays a kings ransom...and the
oddball STILL corks off. [ Damned if you do, damned if you don't ]
Get it?
Is it better to have Gov't in control of your choices?
Well, it's hard to sue the Gov't and they can just "print money" to pick
your pockets behind your back to pay for ten times as many leaches to tell
you that you have blood to suck, but it's not YOUR blood that's leaving the
hole in your safety seeking head.
How many people do you want to pay to convince you that your own life isn't
yours so you don't have to take the risk of living it?.. then bitch and
moan when you can't, but still have to pay all those people to tell you
that you aren't damned when any way you look at it, you are. [Nobody dies
for you and the only difference is who you get to blame]
What IS blame?
It's placing ALL the power to make choices into the hands of the people
that YOU say don't care, making yourself both innocent and totally
helpless...your very own victim.
People go to Casinos knowing full well the odds are far and away stacked
against striking the mother load and hugely stacked towards losing their
shirts...yet they don't sue the Casino for leaving naked...but when the
odds are stacked IN their favor but they lose, they do.
Go figger.
In the UK, a thief can sue you if he gets hurt ripping off your house.
So you want Gov't making decisions FOR you?
Good luck.
At least in the USA I can still buy a gun on the street and shoot myself
in the head.
Ode
At 06:45 PM 2/28/2010 +0000, you wrote:
Well I suppose if we all thought like that, then we wouldn't bother to
make CS either! There wouldn't be any point, because we could just go and
take the anti-biotics the doctor gives us as they may or may not, kill us,
but hey - who cares - we are going to die of something anyway! dee
On 28 Feb 2010, at 15:05, Ode Coyote wrote:
>
>
> So how many benefited from Vioxx that may have died without it,
compared to those that died with it? [I dunno, but that's not the point]
> Absolutism is just not part of reality...there is never just one
answer. [But it does make self defense very expensive for a drug company
when lawyers prosecute on absolutist terms using absolutist juries ]
> The doctor is required to inform of risks...to the best of his
knowledge. Nothing is free of risk. It's ALL "Relative risk vs probable
benefit "
>
> A doubled risk of heart attack, stroke and death persisted at least a
year after people stopped taking withdrawn painkiller Vioxx ..which means
"what? Double WHAT risk?
> Does that mean 1 in 10,000 turns into 2 in 10,000 ?
>
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com?subjectsubscribe>
Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/silver-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html
Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com>
List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:mdev...@eskimo.com>
