On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:27:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > There is a tendency to conflate science and scientists. In the long
>>>> > run science doesn't lie. In the short run scientists lie like rugs.
>>>> If you think that scientists even lie like politicians, you're part of
>>>> the problem.
>>>
>>>I tend to agree here. Scientists, (and even more so, engineers),
>>>operate in a milieu in which there are objective tests of claims.
>>>Politicians do not.
>>
>>Objective tests of claims are part of science. Claims are not made by
>>science, they are made by scientists. Scientists are people. People
>>lie.
>>
>>One of the biggest problems our society has is trusting scientists.
>
>Bull.
>
>Republicans have been denigrating scientists and science (just as you do
>above) without reason for decades. Look at climate science for an
>example.

So ... your theory is that Mary Shelley was a Republican?

Herr Doktor Frankenstein is, after all, the poster boy for scientists
who are not to be trusted.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:04:58 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >
>> >> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>> >> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>> >> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>> >> know?
>> >
>> >After Trump fanatics, by "questioning Modern Medicine", exacerbated
>> >the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't see the problem with the attitude you're
>> >criticizing here.
>> 1. They weren't questioning Modern Medicine so much as using Science
>> to guide policy in an area where the science /itself/ was uncertain
>> and so changed its recommendations frequently.
>>
>> 2. The opioid crisis showed the problem. We cannot /trust/ Modern
>> Medicine to behave properly any longer. Marcus Welby, MD, is long
>> gone.
>
>Opioids worked staggeringly well for me when I had shingles and none of the other
>painkillers made an iota of difference. If they are unavailable when I next have pain like that,
>I will be one unhappy guy.
>
>I've only had migraines once, for a week, as a result of an accident. If someone had offered
>me heroin I'd have taken it. Time release opiods would have saved me from a vast
>amount of pain. And saved those around me from what I presume was my incessant
>bitching (I've no memory of that, but at a guess that's what I did).
>
>I used a bit more than half the prescribed amount for the shingles. The day after I took my last, I felt minute
>withdrawal symptoms. They were gone by evening.

Properly used, they are needed for pain control. They are a potential
exception to my "just say no" rule, should I ever have severe
uncontrollable pain.

The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
product, claiming it was not addictive.

But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.

But they were asleep at the switch.

Possibly as a result of those great lunches the drug-maker's salesmen
treated them to. Or perhaps they believed the advertising more than
their own experience.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:24:24 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:57:11 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:20:34 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:13:33 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:02:55 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:36 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:51:04 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2022-05-23 9:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I thought the official propaganda was that obesity was an
>>>>>>>>>> epidemic. Of course, now that we have been reminded what a /real/
>>>>>>>>>> epidemic looks like (a pandemic is a large-scale epidemic), has that
>>>>>>>>>> bit of hysterical hyperbole gone out of fashion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obesity is an endemic condition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obesity is not an infectious disease. Therefore, it is neither epidemic
>>>>>>>>> nor endemic. Those categories simply do not apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would agree with that, but the medical propaganda has claimed it was
>>>>>>>> an epidemic since at least the advent of BMI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that context, "endemic" is, by far, more accurate, as the %
>>>>>>>> reported originally (33%) is the same as that reported two decades
>>>>>>>> later. When the earlier estimates were re-computed as 20% or so. As if
>>>>>>>> an increase in incidence of 10% over 20 years would make it an
>>>>>>>> epidemic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is, however, a health problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather, it is a gold mine for improving the income of doctors, since
>>>>>>>> it is (trust me on this) /very/ hard to permanently lose weight. Even
>>>>>>>> diet and excercise (which do work, up to a point) have their limits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is only "hard" in that it forces people to make choices that they
>>>>>>>don't want to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There may be a small percentage of the population for whom weight loss
>>>>>>>is genuinely difficult for metabolic reasons, but most people simply
>>>>>>>don't want to do what is required:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eat less and exercise more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the reason a demon never actually appears in the pentagram is
>>>>>>because you didn't chant the spell correctly. Or some other excuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are engaging in, at best, magical thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, at worst, totalitarian thinking ("if they did what I told them to
>>>>>>do, everything would be perfect").
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I will concede that attitude is everything. The attitude I found
>>>>>>most helpful was to /not/ obsess about weight, but instead to simply
>>>>>>adopt a proper diet and sufficient exercise. I "worry", IOW, about
>>>>>>diet and exercise for their own sake, and let my weight take care of
>>>>>>itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>I used to walk several miles several times a week. I found my
>>>>>endurance getting shorter and shorter, to the point that I was beat
>>>>>just walking to the end of the block. I told my doctor. He had no
>>>>>comment. Finally identified the cause. Decided to do That Which Is
>>>>>Forbidden and take a med holiday. Turned out it was one of the blood
>>>>>pressure meds he had me on. Off the meds my endurance is about where
>>>>>I expected it to be.
>>>>
>>>>If you tell your doctor, he can probably prescribe an additional
>>>>medication or two to take care of this "side effect".
>>>
>>>And likely cause two or three others.
>>
>>Well, of course. This is the well-known phenomenon of "fan-out". When
>>I tried Linux, oh, 20 years + ago, I became /very/ familiar with the
>>process as one package invariably needed others.
>>
>>He might also be able to identify which med is doing it and find a
>>resplacement that doesn't.
>
>_Some_ physician might. This one won't. He's one of the ones who
>says "it's probably" rather than finding out.

Well, after all, he is The Doctor, and you are a mere patient, who
exists only to pay him (through your medical insurance if not
directly). And, if he's young, he probably has one heckofa student
loan to pay off.

Good luck on your search for a more ... reasonable ... doctor.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <1eq19htfrqc83gpf0cnhnn2d5ig5aqrjob@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:27:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > There is a tendency to conflate science and scientists. In the long
>>>>> > run science doesn't lie. In the short run scientists lie like rugs.
>>>>> If you think that scientists even lie like politicians, you're part of
>>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>>I tend to agree here. Scientists, (and even more so, engineers),
>>>>operate in a milieu in which there are objective tests of claims.
>>>>Politicians do not.
>>>
>>>Objective tests of claims are part of science. Claims are not made by
>>>science, they are made by scientists. Scientists are people. People
>>>lie.
>>>
>>>One of the biggest problems our society has is trusting scientists.
>>
>>Bull.
>>
>>Republicans have been denigrating scientists and science (just as you do
>>above) without reason for decades. Look at climate science for an
>>example.
>
>So ... your theory is that Mary Shelley was a Republican?
>
>Herr Doktor Frankenstein is, after all, the poster boy for scientists
>who are not to be trusted.

The big political reform in Last Men is the replacement of a monarchy
with a republic (which is fails for reasons outside the characters'
control), so small r republican maybe.

By coincidence, I just discovered that someone uploaded 1975 CBC radio
play adaptation of Frankenstein, which I enjoyed a lot as a teen (we
wore out the illicit tape we made of it). The issue with Frankenstein
is less that he dabbled in Things Man Was Not to Know and more that he
was a fuck-awful dad who having created what amounted to a son then
entirely abdicated his responsibilities as soon as the job proved
challenged. I don't know where Mary Shelley got the idea of brilliant
man-child speading disaster in his wake as he did his best to avoid
dealing with the consequenses of his actions.

The problem with the Creature is that not only was he subjected to
abuse and prejudice from a young age, but his formative literary
experience was reading the Sorrows of Young Werther, which would
be right at the top of my list of books not to give emotionally
volatile bright alienated youths. Sadly, the radio play cuts
the bit about Goethe.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <pnq19hl76aboom5c91pufc7jqd7lua7ajd@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

snip

>But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
>more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
>Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.

My ex-wife was a pharmacy assistant 40 years ago. As it happened,
the pharmacy at which she worked got almost all of its trade from
a single doctor who burned through prescription pads at a fearful
rate. Calamity struck when the doctor moved his office across town.
Rumour had it that the reason he moved was because a rival pharmacist
offered to pay the doctor's office rent if he moved in next door and
steered patients to the rival pharmacy. Which was illegal but not
something the authorities cared to enforce at that time.

The doctor in question was eventually struck off for overprescribing
and many other offenses... twenty years later.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:11:48 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:27:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > There is a tendency to conflate science and scientists. In the long
>>>>> > run science doesn't lie. In the short run scientists lie like rugs.
>>>>> If you think that scientists even lie like politicians, you're part of
>>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>>I tend to agree here. Scientists, (and even more so, engineers),
>>>>operate in a milieu in which there are objective tests of claims.
>>>>Politicians do not.
>>>
>>>Objective tests of claims are part of science. Claims are not made by
>>>science, they are made by scientists. Scientists are people. People
>>>lie.
>>>
>>>One of the biggest problems our society has is trusting scientists.
>>
>>Bull.
>>
>>Republicans have been denigrating scientists and science (just as you do
>>above) without reason for decades. Look at climate science for an
>>example.
>
>So ... your theory is that Mary Shelley was a Republican?
>
>Herr Doktor Frankenstein is, after all, the poster boy for scientists
>who are not to be trusted.

Further, I did not denigrate science, I denigrated scientists. Science
is a process that works in the long term despite the short-term
failings of scientists.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:lc429hdot5h895dh4nculuoagl4snsbsm6@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:11:48 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 16:27:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > There is a tendency to conflate science and scientists.
>>>>>> > In the long run science doesn't lie. In the short run
>>>>>> > scientists lie like rugs.
>>>>>> If you think that scientists even lie like politicians,
>>>>>> you're part of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>I tend to agree here. Scientists, (and even more so,
>>>>>engineers), operate in a milieu in which there are objective
>>>>>tests of claims. Politicians do not.
>>>>
>>>>Objective tests of claims are part of science. Claims are not
>>>>made by science, they are made by scientists. Scientists are
>>>>people. People lie.
>>>>
>>>>One of the biggest problems our society has is trusting
>>>>scientists.
>>>
>>>Bull.
>>>
>>>Republicans have been denigrating scientists and science (just
>>>as you do above) without reason for decades. Look at climate
>>>science for an example.
>>
>>So ... your theory is that Mary Shelley was a Republican?
>>
>>Herr Doktor Frankenstein is, after all, the poster boy for
>>scientists who are not to be trusted.
>
> Further, I did not denigrate science, I denigrated scientists.
> Science is a process that works in the long term despite the
> short-term failings of scientists.
>
You appear to be claiming that all scientists are liars. Which is
as big a mistake as claiming that all scientists are saints. In
fact, it's the *same* mistake, that all of *any* group of people
that includes millions of members are the same in any way.

In short, you're *both* wrong, and not just wrong, but full of
shit.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:04:58 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>> >> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>> >> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>> >> know?
>>> >
>>> >After Trump fanatics, by "questioning Modern Medicine", exacerbated
>>> >the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't see the problem with the attitude you're
>>> >criticizing here.
>>> 1. They weren't questioning Modern Medicine so much as using Science
>>> to guide policy in an area where the science /itself/ was uncertain
>>> and so changed its recommendations frequently.
>>>
>>> 2. The opioid crisis showed the problem. We cannot /trust/ Modern
>>> Medicine to behave properly any longer. Marcus Welby, MD, is long
>>> gone.
>>
>>Opioids worked staggeringly well for me when I had shingles and none of the other
>>painkillers made an iota of difference. If they are unavailable when I next have pain like that,
>>I will be one unhappy guy.
>>
>>I've only had migraines once, for a week, as a result of an accident. If someone had offered
>>me heroin I'd have taken it. Time release opiods would have saved me from a vast
>>amount of pain. And saved those around me from what I presume was my incessant
>>bitching (I've no memory of that, but at a guess that's what I did).
>>
>>I used a bit more than half the prescribed amount for the shingles. The day after I took my last, I felt minute
>>withdrawal symptoms. They were gone by evening.
>
>Properly used, they are needed for pain control. They are a potential
>exception to my "just say no" rule, should I ever have severe
>uncontrollable pain.
>
>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
>product, claiming it was not addictive.

In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
please present it.

>But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
>more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
>Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.
>
>But they were asleep at the switch.
>
>Possibly as a result of those great lunches the drug-maker's salesmen
>treated them to. Or perhaps they believed the advertising more than
>their own experience.

Or perhaps they just plain weren't paying attention. I once found
myself in the ER with no blood pressure to speak of because three
different physicians were prescribing blood pressure meds for me
without paying attention to what the others had prescribed.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:28:09 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:24:24 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:57:11 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:20:34 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:13:33 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:02:55 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:36 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 23 May 2022 11:51:04 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2022-05-23 9:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I thought the official propaganda was that obesity was an
>>>>>>>>>>> epidemic. Of course, now that we have been reminded what a /real/
>>>>>>>>>>> epidemic looks like (a pandemic is a large-scale epidemic), has that
>>>>>>>>>>> bit of hysterical hyperbole gone out of fashion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obesity is an endemic condition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obesity is not an infectious disease. Therefore, it is neither epidemic
>>>>>>>>>> nor endemic. Those categories simply do not apply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would agree with that, but the medical propaganda has claimed it was
>>>>>>>>> an epidemic since at least the advent of BMI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that context, "endemic" is, by far, more accurate, as the %
>>>>>>>>> reported originally (33%) is the same as that reported two decades
>>>>>>>>> later. When the earlier estimates were re-computed as 20% or so. As if
>>>>>>>>> an increase in incidence of 10% over 20 years would make it an
>>>>>>>>> epidemic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is, however, a health problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rather, it is a gold mine for improving the income of doctors, since
>>>>>>>>> it is (trust me on this) /very/ hard to permanently lose weight. Even
>>>>>>>>> diet and excercise (which do work, up to a point) have their limits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is only "hard" in that it forces people to make choices that they
>>>>>>>>don't want to make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There may be a small percentage of the population for whom weight loss
>>>>>>>>is genuinely difficult for metabolic reasons, but most people simply
>>>>>>>>don't want to do what is required:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eat less and exercise more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the reason a demon never actually appears in the pentagram is
>>>>>>>because you didn't chant the spell correctly. Or some other excuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are engaging in, at best, magical thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And, at worst, totalitarian thinking ("if they did what I told them to
>>>>>>>do, everything would be perfect").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But I will concede that attitude is everything. The attitude I found
>>>>>>>most helpful was to /not/ obsess about weight, but instead to simply
>>>>>>>adopt a proper diet and sufficient exercise. I "worry", IOW, about
>>>>>>>diet and exercise for their own sake, and let my weight take care of
>>>>>>>itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to walk several miles several times a week. I found my
>>>>>>endurance getting shorter and shorter, to the point that I was beat
>>>>>>just walking to the end of the block. I told my doctor. He had no
>>>>>>comment. Finally identified the cause. Decided to do That Which Is
>>>>>>Forbidden and take a med holiday. Turned out it was one of the blood
>>>>>>pressure meds he had me on. Off the meds my endurance is about where
>>>>>>I expected it to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you tell your doctor, he can probably prescribe an additional
>>>>>medication or two to take care of this "side effect".
>>>>
>>>>And likely cause two or three others.
>>>
>>>Well, of course. This is the well-known phenomenon of "fan-out". When
>>>I tried Linux, oh, 20 years + ago, I became /very/ familiar with the
>>>process as one package invariably needed others.
>>>
>>>He might also be able to identify which med is doing it and find a
>>>resplacement that doesn't.
>>
>>_Some_ physician might. This one won't. He's one of the ones who
>>says "it's probably" rather than finding out.
>
>Well, after all, he is The Doctor, and you are a mere patient, who
>exists only to pay him (through your medical insurance if not
>directly). And, if he's young, he probably has one heckofa student
>loan to pay off.
>
>Good luck on your search for a more ... reasonable ... doctor.

Some doctors believe their job is to reassure the patient. Others
think their job is to find out what's wrong and fix it. He's one of
the first kind. The second kind can be a pain if there's not actually
anything wrong but in this case I do have a few issues that need to be
addressed.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:56:15 AM UTC-4, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:11:53 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-6, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > > > On 2022-05-22, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Obesity is not an infectious disease. Therefore, it is neither epidemic
> > > > > nor endemic. Those categories simply do not apply.
> > >
> > > > The phrase "obesity epidemic" is used in scientific publications
> > > > in the medical field. For instance, try a Google search for
> > > > site:journals.plos.org inurl:plosmedicine "obesity epidemic"
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you go back a few decades, you will find that when it was first attempted to describe
> > > obesity or smoking as epidemics, the people doing so acknowledged that this was a
> > > novel usage, requiring a new way of thinking about those health problems.
> > >
> > > In my view, there is a very strong presumption that any "new" or "updated" meaning
> > > for a word, which doesn't match the meaning already known to existing speakers of
> > > the language, is just wrong. They won't understand it unless it's explained to them,
> > > so it can cause confusion.
> > Check this:
> >
> > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Smoking+epidemic%2C+obesity+epidemic&year_start=1940&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSmoking%20epidemic%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cobesity%20epidemic%3B%2Cc0
> >
> > Or
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/yu22abyn
> >
> > Also, delete the ',obesity epidemic' term and search just on smoking.
>
> For just smoking, I also added "gun epidemic," which may not be the best search term.
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Smoking+epidemic%2Cgun+epidemic&year_start=1940&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSmoking%20epidemic%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cgun%20epidemic%3B%2Cc0
>
> The small humps in the late '60s and most of the '70s may be the minimum -- equivalent to a single usage, or however Google is measuring it, which sort of gives a scale for how "bouncy" the curves are. Hmm... the curves crossed around 1990.
>
> Hang on, you have "Smoking" with a capital 'S'. No doubt your "helpful" computer thought the first thing you'd want to type would be a capital letter. Either retype it, or select "Case-Insensitive" button and the graph changes, although I'll admit, not a lot.

I find the google ngram handy for finding when a concept entered popularity.. Be careful
about oddly early uses however - once common problem is an error in picking up the publication
date of a piece. You need to confirm it be looking at the Google Advanced Book Search results
for the period. Either you can see the actual date of the publication, or its clear from the other
contents or typography that the document is more recent than it thinks.

pt

On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:45:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:15:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> > There is a tendency to conflate science and scientists. In the long
>>> > run science doesn't lie. In the short run scientists lie like rugs.
>>> If you think that scientists even lie like politicians, you're part of
>>> the problem.
>>
>>I tend to agree here. Scientists, (and even more so, engineers),
>>operate in a milieu in which there are objective tests of claims.
>>Politicians do not.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Of course, there /is/ the minor problem of results not actually being
>replicable in many cases.

Which is a much bigger problem in 2022 than previously since
preliminary results disseminate faster than ever before while the rate
of peer review hasn't kept pace.

Thus giving the phoney baloney stuff far more ability to be heard
without debunking than ever before.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 16:11:27 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <pnq19hl76aboom5c91pufc7jqd7lua7ajd@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
>>more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
>>Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.
>
>My ex-wife was a pharmacy assistant 40 years ago. As it happened,
>the pharmacy at which she worked got almost all of its trade from
>a single doctor who burned through prescription pads at a fearful
>rate. Calamity struck when the doctor moved his office across town.
>Rumour had it that the reason he moved was because a rival pharmacist
>offered to pay the doctor's office rent if he moved in next door and
>steered patients to the rival pharmacy. Which was illegal but not
>something the authorities cared to enforce at that time.

Some years ago now, the State required that all doctors treating
long-term pain patients develop an actual /individual treatment plan/
for each and every patient -- IOW, to actually act like doctors. Many
many of them shut down immediately -- all they wanted to do was write
'scripts at $50 (IIRC) a pop. As many as possible, as fast as
possible.

The patients, at least those thrown onto the tender mercies of
Medicaid, began complaining about the State's favorite medication --
Methadone. A local newpaper (well, /the/ local newspaper, if you only
count those actually providing printed copies in addition to the web
site) investigated and found that long-term use of Methodone killed
people. It built up in their systems over time. This produced a change
in Medicaid's preferences.

>The doctor in question was eventually struck off for overprescribing
>and many other offenses... twenty years later.

First someone has to detect it, then someone has to report it, and
then someone else (usually) has to do the dirty work and /prove/ it.

And the people-in-charge have to care. If they adopt the attitude that
doctors are professionals making professional decisions, the chance of
this working is greatly reduced. Well, unless the doctor does
something explicitly illegal, like robbing a bank. Felony convictions
are hard to ignore.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:04:58 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>> >> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>> >> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>> >> know?
>>>> >
>>>> >After Trump fanatics, by "questioning Modern Medicine", exacerbated
>>>> >the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't see the problem with the attitude you're
>>>> >criticizing here.
>>>> 1. They weren't questioning Modern Medicine so much as using Science
>>>> to guide policy in an area where the science /itself/ was uncertain
>>>> and so changed its recommendations frequently.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The opioid crisis showed the problem. We cannot /trust/ Modern
>>>> Medicine to behave properly any longer. Marcus Welby, MD, is long
>>>> gone.
>>>
>>>Opioids worked staggeringly well for me when I had shingles and none of the other
>>>painkillers made an iota of difference. If they are unavailable when I next have pain like that,
>>>I will be one unhappy guy.
>>>
>>>I've only had migraines once, for a week, as a result of an accident. If someone had offered
>>>me heroin I'd have taken it. Time release opiods would have saved me from a vast
>>>amount of pain. And saved those around me from what I presume was my incessant
>>>bitching (I've no memory of that, but at a guess that's what I did).
>>>
>>>I used a bit more than half the prescribed amount for the shingles. The day after I took my last, I felt minute
>>>withdrawal symptoms. They were gone by evening.
>>
>>Properly used, they are needed for pain control. They are a potential
>>exception to my "just say no" rule, should I ever have severe
>>uncontrollable pain.
>>
>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
>
>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
>please present it.

I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
non-addictive.

>>But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
>>more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
>>Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.
>>
>>But they were asleep at the switch.
>>
>>Possibly as a result of those great lunches the drug-maker's salesmen
>>treated them to. Or perhaps they believed the advertising more than
>>their own experience.
>
>Or perhaps they just plain weren't paying attention. I once found
>myself in the ER with no blood pressure to speak of because three
>different physicians were prescribing blood pressure meds for me
>without paying attention to what the others had prescribed.

/Life Stinks/ has a similar situation in it -- but only one doctor is
involved.

This is aimed at such doctors (not all doctors):
stupid is as stupid does

In the Army we had a saying "You gotta be smarter than the equipment".
Looks that applies to doctors as well, which is hard to do.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:04:58 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>> >> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>> >> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>> >> know?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >After Trump fanatics, by "questioning Modern Medicine", exacerbated
>>>>> >the COVID-19 pandemic, I don't see the problem with the attitude you're
>>>>> >criticizing here.
>>>>> 1. They weren't questioning Modern Medicine so much as using Science
>>>>> to guide policy in an area where the science /itself/ was uncertain
>>>>> and so changed its recommendations frequently.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The opioid crisis showed the problem. We cannot /trust/ Modern
>>>>> Medicine to behave properly any longer. Marcus Welby, MD, is long
>>>>> gone.
>>>>
>>>>Opioids worked staggeringly well for me when I had shingles and none of the other
>>>>painkillers made an iota of difference. If they are unavailable when I next have pain like that,
>>>>I will be one unhappy guy.
>>>>
>>>>I've only had migraines once, for a week, as a result of an accident. If someone had offered
>>>>me heroin I'd have taken it. Time release opiods would have saved me from a vast
>>>>amount of pain. And saved those around me from what I presume was my incessant
>>>>bitching (I've no memory of that, but at a guess that's what I did).
>>>>
>>>>I used a bit more than half the prescribed amount for the shingles. The day after I took my last, I felt minute
>>>>withdrawal symptoms. They were gone by evening.
>>>
>>>Properly used, they are needed for pain control. They are a potential
>>>exception to my "just say no" rule, should I ever have severe
>>>uncontrollable pain.
>>>
>>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
>>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
>>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
>>
>>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
>>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
>>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
>>please present it.
>
>I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
>non-addictive.

I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.
>
>>>But I would expect a doctor to notice if his patients kept asking for
>>>more and more of the "nonaddictive" opioid, and become suspicious.
>>>Likewise a pharmacist, faced with filling ever-larger prescriptions.
>>>
>>>But they were asleep at the switch.
>>>
>>>Possibly as a result of those great lunches the drug-maker's salesmen
>>>treated them to. Or perhaps they believed the advertising more than
>>>their own experience.
>>
>>Or perhaps they just plain weren't paying attention. I once found
>>myself in the ER with no blood pressure to speak of because three
>>different physicians were prescribing blood pressure meds for me
>>without paying attention to what the others had prescribed.
>
>/Life Stinks/ has a similar situation in it -- but only one doctor is
>involved.
>
>This is aimed at such doctors (not all doctors):
>stupid is as stupid does
>
>In the Army we had a saying "You gotta be smarter than the equipment".
>Looks that applies to doctors as well, which is hard to do.

On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 17:44:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
> >><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> >>><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
> >>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
> >>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
> >>
> >>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
> >>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
> >>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
> >>please present it.
> >
> >I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
> >non-addictive.
> I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
> think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
> show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.

You want to see an advertisement from after 1925?

Bearing in mind that diamorphine (heroin) was banned in 1924?

<https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm>
probably doesn't count as an "advertisement".

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/>
asserts, "In much of its promotional campaign - in literature
and audiotapes for physicians, brochures and videotapes for
patients, and its “Partners Against Pain” Web site - Purdue
claimed that the risk of addiction from OxyContin was
extremely small."

But of course not many people know about that. This is
the gradual, controlled release version of oxycodone, unless
you chew the tablet.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>>>>> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>>>>> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>>>>> know?

Slightly less than very little?

The opioid crisis was only in the US and was created by the Sackler
family not "Modern Medicine" whatever that is.
The Sackler family company, Purdue, which paid them about 11 billion and
despite significant political influence through Giuliani, was
successfully prosecuted and fined less than a billion in about 2005 for
intent to defraud and mislead in regard to selling opioids. A crucial
part of the evidence was the company's training videos for sales staff
which demonstrated that the procedures for selling to doctors were
designed to conceal and understate the opioid addictiveness dangers.
However, this happened in the US where money and corruption rule so
Purdue was allowed to continue with the same behaviour.
Try a web search for Sackler opioid Giuliani.
The opioid crisis is another example of how things work in one corrupt
society rather than something to do with the vague label "Modern Medicine".

On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 17:44:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>> >>><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
>> >>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
>> >>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
>> >>
>> >>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
>> >>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
>> >>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
>> >>please present it.
>> >
>> >I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
>> >non-addictive.
>> I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
>> think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
>> show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.
>
>You want to see an advertisement from after 1925?
>
>Bearing in mind that diamorphine (heroin) was banned in 1924?
>
><https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm>
>probably doesn't count as an "advertisement".
>
><https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/>
>asserts, "In much of its promotional campaign - in literature
>and audiotapes for physicians, brochures and videotapes for
>patients, and its “Partners Against Pain” Web site - Purdue
>claimed that the risk of addiction from OxyContin was
>extremely small."
>
>But of course not many people know about that. This is
>the gradual, controlled release version of oxycodone, unless
>you chew the tablet.

So where was this advertised, exactly? And according to the article
you link, the risk actually _is_ pretty small--3-16% they say, then
they go on about other studies showing a percentage with a range so
wide that one has to question the validity of the research.

It looks to me like a made-up crisis. Congress chose to let
pharmaceutical companies advertise, they advertised, and now Congress
doesn't like the result, so maybe Congress should just repeal the law
that lets them (and lawyers) advertise.

On 29/05/2022 08:28, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>>>>>> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>>>>>> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>>>>>> know?
>
> Slightly less than very little?
>
> The opioid crisis was only in the US and was created by the Sackler
> family not "Modern Medicine" whatever that is.

Oh, no, it's not just in the USA, it's pretty much everywhere that could
afford to buy the stuff.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 00:04:17 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 17:44:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
> >> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
> >> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
> >> >><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> >> >>><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
> >> >>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
> >> >>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
> >> >>
> >> >>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
> >> >>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
> >> >>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
> >> >>please present it.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
> >> >non-addictive.
> >> I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
> >> think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
> >> show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.
> >
> >You want to see an advertisement from after 1925?
> >
> >Bearing in mind that diamorphine (heroin) was banned in 1924?
> >
> ><https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm>
> >probably doesn't count as an "advertisement".
> >
> ><https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/>
> >asserts, "In much of its promotional campaign - in literature
> >and audiotapes for physicians, brochures and videotapes for
> >patients, and its “Partners Against Pain” Web site - Purdue
> >claimed that the risk of addiction from OxyContin was
> >extremely small."
> >
> >But of course not many people know about that. This is
> >the gradual, controlled release version of oxycodone, unless
> >you chew the tablet.
> So where was this advertised, exactly? And according to the article
> you link, the risk actually _is_ pretty small--3-16% they say, then
> they go on about other studies showing a percentage with a range so
> wide that one has to question the validity of the research.
>
> It looks to me like a made-up crisis. Congress chose to let
> pharmaceutical companies advertise, they advertised, and now Congress
> doesn't like the result, so maybe Congress should just repeal the law
> that lets them (and lawyers) advertise.

The web page says "extremely small". Why didn't you?

On Sun, 29 May 2022 03:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 00:04:17 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 17:44:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:10:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>> >> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:01 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >> >><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>> >> >>><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The problem with the opioid crisis is that they were misused because
>> >> >>>(IIRC) the legal drug cartel (pharmaceutical company) lied about its
>> >> >>>product, claiming it was not addictive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>In what universe did that happen? I have never seen any hint of a
>> >> >>suggestion that any opioid was nonaddictive. If you have a source
>> >> >>that supports any company making such an assertion after, say, 1925,
>> >> >>please present it.
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
>> >> >non-addictive.
>> >> I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
>> >> think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
>> >> show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.
>> >
>> >You want to see an advertisement from after 1925?
>> >
>> >Bearing in mind that diamorphine (heroin) was banned in 1924?
>> >
>> ><https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm>
>> >probably doesn't count as an "advertisement".
>> >
>> ><https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/>
>> >asserts, "In much of its promotional campaign - in literature
>> >and audiotapes for physicians, brochures and videotapes for
>> >patients, and its “Partners Against Pain” Web site - Purdue
>> >claimed that the risk of addiction from OxyContin was
>> >extremely small."
>> >
>> >But of course not many people know about that. This is
>> >the gradual, controlled release version of oxycodone, unless
>> >you chew the tablet.
>> So where was this advertised, exactly? And according to the article
>> you link, the risk actually _is_ pretty small--3-16% they say, then
>> they go on about other studies showing a percentage with a range so
>> wide that one has to question the validity of the research.
>>
>> It looks to me like a made-up crisis. Congress chose to let
>> pharmaceutical companies advertise, they advertised, and now Congress
>> doesn't like the result, so maybe Congress should just repeal the law
>> that lets them (and lawyers) advertise.
>
>The web page says "extremely small". Why didn't you?

Because I didn't want to. GEEZUS, what is _wrong_ with you?

On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:44:51 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

<snippo above and below>

>>I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
>>non-addictive.
>
>I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
>think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
>show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.

First of all, it wasn't "opioids". It was a /specific/ opioid from a
/specific/ company.

Second, another post found an article, which suggests that they merely
claimed to be less addictive.

Third, they have been sued and the various States have won. The owners
may or may not have been required to put the money they took out
before the sh*t hit the fan back (I don't recall, or it may not have
been finalized yet), but you don't sue a pharmaceutical company for
accurately describing its product. You sue them for lying through
their teeth to make large profits and killing lots of people in the
process.

The Opioid Crisis was a product of /modern medicine/, not the drug
war. Live with it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:28:49 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>>>>>> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>>>>>> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>>>>>> know?
>
>Slightly less than very little?
>
>The opioid crisis was only in the US and was created by the Sackler
>family not "Modern Medicine" whatever that is.
>The Sackler family company, Purdue, which paid them about 11 billion and
>despite significant political influence through Giuliani, was
>successfully prosecuted and fined less than a billion in about 2005 for
>intent to defraud and mislead in regard to selling opioids. A crucial
>part of the evidence was the company's training videos for sales staff
>which demonstrated that the procedures for selling to doctors were
>designed to conceal and understate the opioid addictiveness dangers.
>However, this happened in the US where money and corruption rule so
>Purdue was allowed to continue with the same behaviour.
>Try a web search for Sackler opioid Giuliani.
>The opioid crisis is another example of how things work in one corrupt
>society rather than something to do with the vague label "Modern Medicine".

The corruption you identify is /part of/ Modern Medicine in the USA.

And that is the point -- our very efforts to control this stuff
betrayed us. How, then, can they be trusted not to do so again? Or to
not doing so right now?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:51:26 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:44:51 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:54:17 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
><snippo above and below>
>
>>>I didn't say it /was/ non-addictive; I said it was /advertised/ as
>>>non-addictive.
>>
>>I have not seen such a hint in any advertisement, jackass. If you
>>think that opioids have been advertised as being nonaddictive please
>>show us the ad. And not something from a hundred years ago.
>
>First of all, it wasn't "opioids". It was a /specific/ opioid from a
>/specific/ company.
>
>Second, another post found an article, which suggests that they merely
>claimed to be less addictive.
>
>Third, they have been sued and the various States have won. The owners
>may or may not have been required to put the money they took out
>before the sh*t hit the fan back (I don't recall, or it may not have
>been finalized yet), but you don't sue a pharmaceutical company for
>accurately describing its product. You sue them for lying through
>their teeth to make large profits and killing lots of people in the
>process.
>
>The Opioid Crisis was a product of /modern medicine/, not the drug
>war. Live with it.

However it will continue to be a cause celebre until the horrible
terrible mean evil opioid industry is stamped out. Or the last
surviving anti-opioid loon kicks it.

On 29 May 2022 at 16:53:58 BST, "Paul S Person"
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:28:49 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>>>>>>> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>>>>>>> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>>>>>>> know?
>>
>> Slightly less than very little?
>>
>> The opioid crisis was only in the US and was created by the Sackler
>> family not "Modern Medicine" whatever that is.
>> The Sackler family company, Purdue, which paid them about 11 billion and
>> despite significant political influence through Giuliani, was
>> successfully prosecuted and fined less than a billion in about 2005 for
>> intent to defraud and mislead in regard to selling opioids. A crucial
>> part of the evidence was the company's training videos for sales staff
>> which demonstrated that the procedures for selling to doctors were
>> designed to conceal and understate the opioid addictiveness dangers.
>> However, this happened in the US where money and corruption rule so
>> Purdue was allowed to continue with the same behaviour.
>> Try a web search for Sackler opioid Giuliani.
>> The opioid crisis is another example of how things work in one corrupt
>> society rather than something to do with the vague label "Modern Medicine".
>
> The corruption you identify is /part of/ Modern Medicine in the USA.

No, it's corporate capitalist psychopathy. That the market is medicine
is irrelevant. You have similar problems in food, construction,
internet, transport...

> And that is the point -- our very efforts to control this stuff
> betrayed us. How, then, can they be trusted not to do so again? Or to
> not doing so right now?

Regulate the shit out of your idiot corporations.

Which is never the answer Americans want, despite it working quite well
elsewhere. Not amazingly well, but quite well.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Tomorrow (noun) - A mystical land where 99 per cent
of all human productivity, motivation and achievement
is stored.
-- http://thedoghousediaries.com/3474

On 29 May 2022 20:30:45 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 29 May 2022 at 16:53:58 BST, "Paul S Person"
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:28:49 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And then there are the /real/ nutters, who get frantic when anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> questions Modern Medicine. After Modern Medicine's creation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> opioid crisis, I would think that attitude was passe, but what do I
>>>>>>>>>>> know?
>>>
>>> Slightly less than very little?
>>>
>>> The opioid crisis was only in the US and was created by the Sackler
>>> family not "Modern Medicine" whatever that is.
>>> The Sackler family company, Purdue, which paid them about 11 billion and
>>> despite significant political influence through Giuliani, was
>>> successfully prosecuted and fined less than a billion in about 2005 for
>>> intent to defraud and mislead in regard to selling opioids. A crucial
>>> part of the evidence was the company's training videos for sales staff
>>> which demonstrated that the procedures for selling to doctors were
>>> designed to conceal and understate the opioid addictiveness dangers.
>>> However, this happened in the US where money and corruption rule so
>>> Purdue was allowed to continue with the same behaviour.
>>> Try a web search for Sackler opioid Giuliani.
>>> The opioid crisis is another example of how things work in one corrupt
>>> society rather than something to do with the vague label "Modern Medicine".
>>
>> The corruption you identify is /part of/ Modern Medicine in the USA.
>
>No, it's corporate capitalist psychopathy. That the market is medicine
>is irrelevant. You have similar problems in food, construction,
>internet, transport...
>
>> And that is the point -- our very efforts to control this stuff
>> betrayed us. How, then, can they be trusted not to do so again? Or to
>> not doing so right now?
>
>Regulate the shit out of your idiot corporations.
>
>Which is never the answer Americans want, despite it working quite well
>elsewhere. Not amazingly well, but quite well.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie

We do regulate the shit out of them. That's why we are constantly
being bomarded with shit. The idea is to make the shit _stop_ not
squeeze yet more shit out.