American Healthcare continues to go backward

She sounds like a real peach.

We're pretty much doomed, aren't we?

I think we're pretty fked.

I've stated many times that I registered as a Libertarian after Jan 6, It was pretty much the final straw for me as a Republican, the one that broke the camel's back. I can't be associated with that shite.

HCQ is complex. The observational studies tend to show a benefit while the clinical trials do not. But the clinical trials are the evidence of cause and effect. It wasn't that Fauci et al demonized it. It was that there was no cause and effect evidence of benefit and there was a run on it causing a shortage which affected others who actually needed it for other indications. Morons couldn't understand this.

There are no data showing a benefit for ivermectin. None. Now we have someone in DHHS pushing this garbage.
 
Last edited:
United Health's new CEO just stepped down. I wonder if this is related to calls for increased profit by shareholders.
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, posted photos on Sunday of himself and his grandchildren swimming in a contaminated Washington creek where swimming is not allowed because it is used for sewer runoff.

 

Going to start phasing out floride supplements as they also push to get flouride out of drinking water.

Currently kids on well water or where city water is not flourided can take flouride tablets to help tooth health and prevent cavities. Now not only are they trying to get rid of the flouride from drinking water, they are going to try to phase out the alternative source.
 
Does anyone know enough to really speak on the fluoride issue? I don't...... I know a lot of people who are for and against it. What I recently discovered is most of the world doesn't and some who did have gone away from it. Any shade tree dentist on here ?
 

Going to start phasing out floride supplements as they also push to get flouride out of drinking water.

Currently kids on well water or where city water is not flourided can take flouride tablets to help tooth health and prevent cavities. Now not only are they trying to get rid of the flouride from drinking water, they are going to try to phase out the alternative source.
Or simply use flouridated toothpaste. But if tooth decay goes up in a city after flouridation ceases, would that mean it's not effective or only few people make sure they use flouridated toothpaste?
 
I'm not a dentist by any stretch of the imagination, but our family dentist is very consistent about making sure our son is taking flouride tabs even though essentially all toothpaste has flouride in it. She says only really need extra beyond the toothpaste for kids as their teeth are developing. Part of it could also be related to how well (aka poorly) kids typically brush.

I was under the impression that using flourided toothpaste would be sufficient but I guess that's not what she thinks.




My position is if they want to cut flouride from drinking water, thats fine. But don't also take the option of replacing it with the tablets.
 
Last edited:
The stupidest argument on the planet is “pharma doesn’t come up with cures because they make more money on treatments.” Which is worth more to you, which would you be willing to pay more for, a cure for cancer or a treatment? A cure for diabetes or a treatment? A cure for HIV or a treatment?

If I found a cure for diabetes tomorrow it would make me the richest person in the history of the world.

And these are now the people in charge of DHHS.
 
RFK Jr refuses to say if he would vaccinate his children today for measles, then adds, "I don't think people should take medical advice from me."

 
DeLAURO: Are you planning to break the law by impounding congressionally appropriated funds?

RFK Jr: If you appropriate the funds, I'm going to spend them

DeLAURO: We have! You're cutting the NIH by $18 billion. The Congress appropriated those funds. How then can you justify cutting billions of dollars from the biomedical research budget?

 
The stupidest argument on the planet is “pharma doesn’t come up with cures because they make more money on treatments.” Which is worth more to you, which would you be willing to pay more for, a cure for cancer or a treatment? A cure for diabetes or a treatment? A cure for HIV or a treatment?

If I found a cure for diabetes tomorrow it would make me the richest person in the history of the world.

And these are now the people in charge of DHHS.
As a P.S. we’ve essentially cured HIV now. U=U which means undetectable equals untransmittable.
 
As a P.S. we’ve essentially cured HIV now. U=U which means undetectable equals untransmittable.
Well, big pharma totally screwed up their plan with Hepatitis C. They stupidly came up with DAAs which cure Hep C in 8-12 weeks.

And, sure, they had a "cure" before with interferon and ribavirin. But those had to be taken a long time, have lowe rates of cure, and had huge side effects. And, side effects get treated with MORE DRUGS so they make more money.

Dumb big pharma. (and I do think big pharma does some evil crap. But that doesn't make stupid arguments correct)
 
Well, big pharma totally screwed up their plan with Hepatitis C. They stupidly came up with DAAs which cure Hep C in 8-12 weeks.

And, sure, they had a "cure" before with interferon and ribavirin. But those had to be taken a long time, have lowe rates of cure, and had huge side effects. And, side effects get treated with MORE DRUGS so they make more money.

Dumb big pharma. (and I do think big pharma does some evil crap. But that doesn't make stupid arguments correct)
Of course they do evil crap, like every corporation, like that tramadol+celecoxib money grab sub therapeutic doses of the two worst pain meds on the market just so they could slap a brand name on it bullspit. That’s simply indefensible.

But the idea that they can make more money off of treatments than cures, well, people just aren’t thinking that one through.
 
Of course they do evil crap, like every corporation, like that tramadol+celecoxib money grab sub therapeutic doses of the two worst pain meds on the market just so they could slap a brand name on it bullspit. That’s simply indefensible.

But the idea that they can make more money off of treatments than cures, well, people just aren’t thinking that one through.
I would like you to elaborate a little here because I absolutely see where it makes financial sense to keep someone on something as opposed to ending it. Every aspect of stable ongoing income is better than a one off unless the one off is priced incredibly high....like unattainably for most everyone high. I would think even the insurance folks would want it.....they match premiums to payments.....if I cover an employee and my premiums are X I'd rather cover a med at 0.2X than pay out once at 500-1000X.....they could change jobs or providers at anytime you could have someone that works somewhere 6 months get paid out on a cure that cost 10 years of premiums then go elsewhere.....in that scenario the provider just lost a boat load. I'm not saying the practice is happening, read that again, but just looking at the numbers from a spreadsheet perspective and not knowing the treatment side it monies out. If someone created a cure for something as wide spread, chronic, and complex as say diabetes, just an example not knowing how the ankle bones connected to the knee bone, and came up with a cure and priced it at 500K that would be regulated in a heartbeat......you wouldn't have rich people or people with great insurance free from a chronic common illness and low income folks not if there was a magic bullet in this example throw in that impacts some minorities at higher rates....but daily insulin........ And at the smaller level, again this may not be the best example medically I'm just spit balling.....eczema not going to kill you pain in the rear type thing. I could give you a 1000-2500 shot once or get you on a cream that's $50 every two weeks.....1000-2500 bucks isn't a bar to high....from a pure dollars perspective I know which one I would choose as a business. I would also think the risk of development which is already high would be exponentially greater......I can spend a gozillion dollars working on a cure that may never pass or be price regulated or I can tackle symptoms and have calculated recovery on investment till someone else does better which could be years and I have repackaging options then. Why is the business model different for pharma than other businesses because ongoing income plans are preferred in every other business.
 
Last edited:
I would like you to elaborate a little here because I absolutely see where it makes financial sense to keep someone on something as opposed to ending it. Every aspect of stable ongoing income is better than a one off unless the one off is priced incredibly high....like unattainably for most everyone high. I would think even the insurance folks would want it.....they match premiums to payments.....if I cover an employee and my premiums are X I'd rather cover a med at 0.2X than pay out once at 500-1000X.....they could change jobs or providers at anytime you could have someone that works somewhere 6 months get paid out on a cure that cost 10 years of premiums then go elsewhere.....in that scenario the provider just lost a boat load. I'm not saying the practice is happening, read that again, but just looking at the numbers from a spreadsheet perspective and not knowing the treatment side it monies out. If someone created a cure for something as wide spread, chronic, and complex as say diabetes, just an example not knowing how the ankle bones connected to the knee bone, and came up with a cure and priced it at 500K that would be regulated in a heartbeat......you wouldn't have rich people or people with great insurance free from a chronic common illness and low income folks not if there was a magic bullet in this example throw in that impacts some minorities at higher rates....but daily insulin........ And at the smaller level, again this may not be the best example medically I'm just spit balling.....eczema not going to kill you pain in the rear type thing. I could give you a 1000-2500 shot once or get you on a cream that's $50 every two weeks.....1000-2500 bucks isn't a bar to high....from a pure dollars perspective I know which one I would choose as a business. I would also think the risk of development which is already high would be exponentially greater......I can spend a gozillion dollars working on a cure that may never pass or be price regulated or I can tackle symptoms and have calculated recovery on investment till someone else does better which could be years and I have repackaging options then. Why is the business model different for pharma than other businesses because ongoing income plans are preferred in every other business.
If you have diabetes and you are facing all the negative consequences of diabetes: heart disease, amputation, blindness, kidney disease and dialysis, impotence, etc., which would you pay more for, a treatment which would reduce your risk of all of that but not to zero, or a cure which would reduce your risk of diabetic complications to zero?

You would be an absolute idiot to say, from a consumer standpoint, that the treatment is worth more, that you would pay more for the treatment than the cure. Again I say if I found a cure for diabetes tomorrow it would make me the richest person in the history of the world. It makes absolutely zero financial sense to not market a cure for diabetes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top