So a private sale by a private citizen is the same as people in office taking money?
Did I say that? Did I draw any sort of equivalence? If Clinton did anything illegal, lock her up. If Trump did anything illegal, lock his ass up too. That's pretty simple. What I think is stupid is idiots who ignore the dozens of millions of Russian dollars moving through Trump's properties while focusing on payments to the Clintons that don't even total 1 million dollars. What I think is stupid is idiots who are laser-focused on an ex-politician with little to no influence when the past and present activities of the current president indicate a major threat to the country.
So your problem is that as a private businessman, conducting business years before he ever considered running for president, Trump may have made a profit larger than you think is reasonable.
No. Try to read what I wrote again and see if you can figure out what problem I have with all of that. Nothing even similar to the phrase "profit larger than I think is reasonable" is in anything I wrote.
Meanwhile, as described over and over in the comments of this posting you ignore a payment to Bill Clinton and his money laundering foundation
I'm not ignoring shit. If you have evidence that Clinton received a money laundering payment from the Russians, then please, give your evidence. If your evidence is nothing more than circumstantial, then you can put your circumstantial evidence of $500k being laundered by Clinton against my circumstantial evidence of dozens of millions of dollars being laundered by Trump. I don't want to ignore any evidence, circumstantial or not. I can't stand the Clintons, so if you've got the smoking gun then bring it out big guy.
a clear case of bias on your part as you reject facts you don't like about a politician you support.
You're a fucking idiot if you think I support the Clintons, which makes all of your other claims about what I wrote pretty useless. Stop attacking me and support your statements and claims. You don't win this argument by attacking me.
Meanwhile Rybolovlev might very well have been overpaying Trump in return for some business favors, a practice that is not money laundering
Um, OK. And he might very well have been laundering money. Who the fuck knows? What I know is that he specifically said this was an investment property, he did not say anything about "favors". If he had a "favor" to Trump, you know what works for that? Paying cash. You don't need to pay double on an "investment" in order to return a favor. You just return the favor, no reason to get into a terrible investment.
the kind of pragmatic business practices followed in most of the world
You're not an intelligent person, are you? Most of the world does not follow the kind of "pragmatic business practices" that involve buying an "investment" for double what it is actually worth. Overpaying for an investment is not a pragmatic practice of any kind.
To prove money laundering you'd have to be able to prove Trump passed the money back to Rybolovlev or some other Russian.
No you don't. The guy pays Trump with his dirty money, but for Trump it's clean, because he sold the guy something. So for Trump that money isn't dirty, he doesn't have to explain where he got it because he has a bill of sale. And the Russian gets a property to sell for clean money. Sure, he paid $100 million in dirty money in order to get back $50 million of clean cash, but that's the cost of doing business. So, no, I do not have to show that Trump passed shit to anyone. If you want to prove it's money laundering then you need to prove the money was dirty to begin with, which means the Russian needs to straight up tell you the money is dirty. Now I'm no master criminal, but I think that one of the general rules of money laundering is to not tell everyone that you're doing it. This is why I have said that this is circumstantial evidence. I really really doubt it's going to put anyone in jail but it is very clearly Trump doing deals with shady Russians. I'd love to give you a list of other people who overpaid for condos in Trump Tower, but those are overseas shell corporations without an obvious owner, so we don't know where that money came from. It's convenient how it works that way. Even so, people, similar to yourself, see straight up treason in allegations against people like the Clintons that have far less evidence than this, so surely you wouldn't try to just brush all of this away because it'
Allow me to offer some advice, you don't understand chronic pain and likely never will unless you get to experience it yourself. Stop judging others when you haven't walked a mile in their shoes.
OK, step down from your cross, Jesus. No one is crucifying you. I don't know what you think this conversation is about, but it's not about whether or not people who have chronic pain should take pain killers, of any kind.
When put in that perspective 900 people out of 26000 in the county isn't as bad and reduces the percentage by a factor of 10. You should also keep in mind that's averaging, a half a dozen stage 4 cancer patients would heavily skew the numbers because the volume of pills they'd be taking would skew the average and mean.
I understand that, but the question is whether or not it's reasonable. Yes, I'm sure there are several people in chronic pain who need the medication. Yes, I'm sure certain patients with legitimate short-term needs of huge amounts of opiates exist. But we're talking about over 10 years. If you have chronic pain for 10 years you need surgery, not a lifetime of pills.
and very few were being obtained with valid prescriptions locally.
Indeed, so the per-pill-per-person average goes up when you factor in the black market over 10 years in addition to the 20.8 million pills shipped to 2 pharmacies.
And the best part is the politicians are trying to blame pharmacies
I don't think the pharmacies are the ones being blamed, I think the focus is on doctors who are prescribing opiates to people who either do not need or specifically should not be taking them.
No shit, put away your straw man. I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about what happens after the baby leaves the vagina and every so-called "conservative" who believes in the "sanctity of life" decides that since that child is out of its mother it does not deserve health care it cannot pay for, it does not deserve an education it cannot pay for, and if it's born poor then fuck it. Oh, but life is so "sacred", so let's make sure to force every woman to give birth, but those sacred lives can go fuck themselves because we don't need no socialist health care. It's hypocritical bullshit, it's all over the place in both political parties but especially onerous when it comes to this particular issue. It's religious zealotry masquerading, very poorly, as some bullshit political position. Religious zealotry has no place in the US government.
I would believe so-called "pro-life" people were consistent if their "sanctity of life" extended to all living things instead of only unviable fetuses, but once that kid gets pushed out they think that little fucker better get to work if it wants health care and a decent chance at life. Their "sanctity" ends when they can't force women to do what they want them to do.
Have you flown high enough to see the curvature of the earth (almost certainly not)
Yes, I have flown in a commercial airline at cruising altitude.
They ask why every satellite can communicate with earth, but none of them ever record their launch and show it.
You should watch some of the recent SpaceX videos. After one of the boosters separates from the second stage and starts the descent you most definitely can see the smoke trail from the launch.
They ask why every video that shows the curvature of the earth uses a fish-eye lens.
That's some No True Scotsman bullshit if I've ever heard it. "Oh, you have a video from a space? Really? Does it show the earth as a ball? Oh, well then it was a fish-eye lens." That's the problem with arguing with people who believe stupid things. I think you could put one of those flat-earth people in SpaceShipTwo and launch them all the way into low gravity and back down and they would be trying to tell everyone that the windows on the spacecraft distort vision. They would literally not believe their own eyes.
That misses the point by so much. Whether or not an article posted on a website that looks like local news but was actually produced in the Kremlin and is state propaganda is not a matter of opinion. It is either factually correct, or incorrect. Those are the two options. If it is factually correct, then I realize there are still a pretty good number of voters who will refuse to believe the facts and will instead choose to believe the propaganda, but this is not "people deciding for other people." It is figuring out what the facts are and reporting those as facts. If you want to accept that they're true then that's your choice, no one will decide that for you, but whether or not they are true does not depend on your views or your opinions. Facts are facts regardless of what any random idiot believes. The authorship of any one article is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact that does not depend on your feelings.
Something got fucked up in your post. I think you meant to link to "actual text messages from the FBI demonstrating malfeasance towards Republicans", but instead of you linked to some crap on Fox News.
The DNC and the Clintons were in deep with the Russians (the fake dossier paid for by HRC PAC and the DNC, from the Russians, the uranium One deal, the 500 thousand Bill Clinton got after the deal went through when HRC was Sec. of State)
That's "in deep" by your reckoning? What about in 2008 when Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, $50 million more than Trump paid for it a few years earlier? Couldn't be that Trump was helping launder money for the Russians, right? No, the house must have doubled in value in a few years, right? Never mind that it was the highest price paid for a Palm Beach house (by $13 million), that's just what the market could bear, right? Maybe the guy just really liked the property, even though he specifically said he didn't plan to live in the house or the US in general. No, he said it was an investment property, and if I know anything about real estate investments, I know that you should pay double what it's worth, and more than any other property in the area. I'm pretty sure that's how investment works. And this is a continuing pattern of Trump selling condos and other high-value real estate, a notorious target for money laundering, to a long list of shell companies. This is following Russia identifying Trump as exactly the kind of person they might want to groom as an oblivious foreign agent because of his easily manipulated personality, only to drop the effort after a decade or two because he's too unpredictable. Instead you want to try to drag up a payment made to Bill Clinton for $500k, and use that as evidence that they are "in deep" with the Russians. Where's the paper trail on that payment to Bill, by the way, which connects it to Russia?
Here's the real problem though: people say they want to decide for themselves what is true, but in the past when presented with obviously fake stories, these same people did not do the research to actually determine if it's true. Hell, a lot of the time they don't even read the article, just the headline, and just hit "share". This is how this shit spreads - it spreads specifically because the target audience is known for not doing the research to determine whether or not it's true. The people who make money on this stuff know and admit this fact - they know that they have to choose a target audience that will not do the research. And this target audience is pretty broad, it might include children of four-star generals, it might include sons of presidents, it might include presidents themselves, all kinds of people really.
So, if the target audience for fake news and foreign propaganda will not do their own research, and they still don't want to be told whether or not they are reading foreign propaganda aimed at them, then what's the desired outcome? Do they just want to consume foreign propaganda while being willfully ignorant of it? Is it just stubbornness, or do they actually not care if the article they are reading was produced in a foreign intelligence agency and bears no truth in reality, as long it describes something which they feel might be true?
Why should anyone believe Facebook when they've been caught red-handed manipulating trending news stories?
See, but that's what's so great about this kind of thing, when done right. It's not a religion, it doesn't require faith and belief. You can look at the evidence and see where it points. It's like the people who are quick to dismiss anything from Wikipedia because "anyone can edit it" while conveniently forgetting about that giant list of citations at the end of the article. This isn't happening in a vacuum. If they remove a page and they tell you which page you don't have to blindly trust them, you can do your own research on that group to figure out what Facebook knows about them. In theory, anyway.
So, if we assume that 10 servings of neo-heroin per day is reasonable, and we extend that to this town of 2,900 people over 10 years, we learn that 20.8 million pills is enough to cover about 570 people at 10 per day. So, what do you think the likelihood is that 20% of the town (women, children, everything) are living in pain that is so bad that it requires 10 opioid pills per day, every day, for 10 years? Is that reasonable? Do you feel like the doctors in this town are just there to help and care for everyone?
Here's another question: how long does it take to become physically dependent on opioids or risk an overdose? If you're not sure, ask Tom Petty's wife. If your doctor said you need to smoke 10 cigarettes per day, because it's going to help you shit, are you just going to say "yeah, I need help shitting, so getting myself addicted to nicotine in the process is a reasonable tradeoff, and this doctor totally has my well-being foremost in his mind."
My wife has chronic pain, as does a close friend. I realize the usefulness of opioids or any other pain relieving drug. But I don't think that it's likely that a majority of the people living in any one town all have chronic pain to the level that it requires opioids to treat. That's part of the problem. A doctor hears that someone has a toothache, so might as well give them some opioids because the pharmaceutical manufacturer will pay the doctor for every prescription. They are over-prescribed big time. This is the not the same thing as saying no one needs them. In fact, if they were not over-prescribed then the people who need them would probably have an easier time of getting them. Every person I know who needs and takes prescription medications, especially controlled ones, complain about the process to get what they need.
As for why the "penis" message was left on its homepage, it may have something to do with the name of the startup. Prodeum is a medication that treats urinary tract infections and other urinary problems...
That's a great observation. And the crudely-drawn cock and balls on the side of this building is probably an advertisement for the urologist a few blocks away.
Do you understand that there is basically an 8 or 9 figure industry in the US based only around providing medication for opioid overdose? If the mass market opioid drugs are not to blame for this because they don't produce any opioid effects like you claim, then why does the anti-overdose industry exist?
If you want a hint, look at the historical price of naloxone from its market debut in 1971 until today, and compare the price changes with sales of prescription opioids. Look at stats from the CDC like saying that in 2014 over 47,000 people died in the US from drug overdoses, a new high number, and 60% of those deaths were from opioids. If pills like this have no opioid effects, which by the way completely ignores the experiences of so many people who have abused them, then are you suggesting that all of these people are dying from injecting heroin? Why do you think people end up abusing oxy and hydrocodone? Do they just like the taste?
This is definitely a Slashdot thread. We're talking about the prescription opioid epidemic but the history of Ford Fiesta sales in the US do not go unnoticed. You should start those comments with "ackchyually" though to really drive the point home.
a new generation of un-educated, malnourished sprogs who will be a burden
Don't forget that they also have no health care to speak of, because that is the responsibility of the individual, as I've heard a number of so-called "pro-life" people try to tell me.
So anyway, yes, these numbers are notorious half-truths and trumped-up to boot. But at the same time they might still point at a problem.
Is that your takeaway from this story? 20.8 million doses of heavy opiates shipped to a town of 2,900 over a decade and you're takeaway is that this "might point to a problem?" I realize you don't live in the US, but do you understand the number and frequency of opiate overdose deaths that are occurring in the US? Do you understand that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are culpable for pushing this product to people who don't need it so that they make more money, while Congress passes laws to restrict it so that people who actually do need it can't get it? Nothing that I just said is political, people would only have a political position on that if they're being paid to have one, or if they have been preached to by a spokesperson with a profit motive.
And then it's fairly important to frame (or re-frame or counter-frame) the narrative into something reasonably solvable
Holding doctors accountable when their patients die from overdose on an unnecessary medication prescribed by the doctor is a good first step. Maybe it will drive some of them away from prescribing without another thought just because they're going to get a kickback when they do prescribe something the person doesn't need. In other words, the profit motive needs to be removed. A complete overhaul of the health care system would also do that, but there are too many people making too much money in order to expect any meaningful change there.
Up the script to 3 pills per day as needed and you've got a standing prescription for about 1,925 people.
That's quitter talk, every baby should also be on opiates. You'll shit your pants when you see what happens to stock prices and revenue when we get babies addicted as earlier as possible. Because that's literally the only thing that matters, stock prices, and revenue. In fact, the real story here is that these babies ONLY get 2 doses of neo-heroin per day. Those are rookie numbers.
It most definitely has not been the coldest on record. I've had about 2 days this year when I can wear a hoodie without sweating.
That's the only thing that matters, right? The temperature where I am. It doesn't matter what's going on in the rest of the world. It's about 70F here, which means it's 70F everywhere, right? I'm pretty sure that's how these things work.
Slashdot Mirror
So a private sale by a private citizen is the same as people in office taking money?
Did I say that? Did I draw any sort of equivalence? If Clinton did anything illegal, lock her up. If Trump did anything illegal, lock his ass up too. That's pretty simple. What I think is stupid is idiots who ignore the dozens of millions of Russian dollars moving through Trump's properties while focusing on payments to the Clintons that don't even total 1 million dollars. What I think is stupid is idiots who are laser-focused on an ex-politician with little to no influence when the past and present activities of the current president indicate a major threat to the country.
So your problem is that as a private businessman, conducting business years before he ever considered running for president, Trump may have made a profit larger than you think is reasonable.
No. Try to read what I wrote again and see if you can figure out what problem I have with all of that. Nothing even similar to the phrase "profit larger than I think is reasonable" is in anything I wrote.
Meanwhile, as described over and over in the comments of this posting you ignore a payment to Bill Clinton and his money laundering foundation
I'm not ignoring shit. If you have evidence that Clinton received a money laundering payment from the Russians, then please, give your evidence. If your evidence is nothing more than circumstantial, then you can put your circumstantial evidence of $500k being laundered by Clinton against my circumstantial evidence of dozens of millions of dollars being laundered by Trump. I don't want to ignore any evidence, circumstantial or not. I can't stand the Clintons, so if you've got the smoking gun then bring it out big guy.
a clear case of bias on your part as you reject facts you don't like about a politician you support.
You're a fucking idiot if you think I support the Clintons, which makes all of your other claims about what I wrote pretty useless. Stop attacking me and support your statements and claims. You don't win this argument by attacking me.
Meanwhile Rybolovlev might very well have been overpaying Trump in return for some business favors, a practice that is not money laundering
Um, OK. And he might very well have been laundering money. Who the fuck knows? What I know is that he specifically said this was an investment property, he did not say anything about "favors". If he had a "favor" to Trump, you know what works for that? Paying cash. You don't need to pay double on an "investment" in order to return a favor. You just return the favor, no reason to get into a terrible investment.
the kind of pragmatic business practices followed in most of the world
You're not an intelligent person, are you? Most of the world does not follow the kind of "pragmatic business practices" that involve buying an "investment" for double what it is actually worth. Overpaying for an investment is not a pragmatic practice of any kind.
To prove money laundering you'd have to be able to prove Trump passed the money back to Rybolovlev or some other Russian.
No you don't. The guy pays Trump with his dirty money, but for Trump it's clean, because he sold the guy something. So for Trump that money isn't dirty, he doesn't have to explain where he got it because he has a bill of sale. And the Russian gets a property to sell for clean money. Sure, he paid $100 million in dirty money in order to get back $50 million of clean cash, but that's the cost of doing business. So, no, I do not have to show that Trump passed shit to anyone. If you want to prove it's money laundering then you need to prove the money was dirty to begin with, which means the Russian needs to straight up tell you the money is dirty. Now I'm no master criminal, but I think that one of the general rules of money laundering is to not tell everyone that you're doing it. This is why I have said that this is circumstantial evidence. I really really doubt it's going to put anyone in jail but it is very clearly Trump doing deals with shady Russians. I'd love to give you a list of other people who overpaid for condos in Trump Tower, but those are overseas shell corporations without an obvious owner, so we don't know where that money came from. It's convenient how it works that way. Even so, people, similar to yourself, see straight up treason in allegations against people like the Clintons that have far less evidence than this, so surely you wouldn't try to just brush all of this away because it'
Allow me to offer some advice, you don't understand chronic pain and likely never will unless you get to experience it yourself. Stop judging others when you haven't walked a mile in their shoes.
OK, step down from your cross, Jesus. No one is crucifying you. I don't know what you think this conversation is about, but it's not about whether or not people who have chronic pain should take pain killers, of any kind.
That sounds shitty. I hope you were able to get the medication you legitimately needed.
When put in that perspective 900 people out of 26000 in the county isn't as bad and reduces the percentage by a factor of 10. You should also keep in mind that's averaging, a half a dozen stage 4 cancer patients would heavily skew the numbers because the volume of pills they'd be taking would skew the average and mean.
I understand that, but the question is whether or not it's reasonable. Yes, I'm sure there are several people in chronic pain who need the medication. Yes, I'm sure certain patients with legitimate short-term needs of huge amounts of opiates exist. But we're talking about over 10 years. If you have chronic pain for 10 years you need surgery, not a lifetime of pills.
and very few were being obtained with valid prescriptions locally.
Indeed, so the per-pill-per-person average goes up when you factor in the black market over 10 years in addition to the 20.8 million pills shipped to 2 pharmacies.
And the best part is the politicians are trying to blame pharmacies
I don't think the pharmacies are the ones being blamed, I think the focus is on doctors who are prescribing opiates to people who either do not need or specifically should not be taking them.
Cool story bro. I had wisdom teeth removed and was given a prescription for I don't even remember what, and I never took a single pill. We rule!
Not sure what the point of this little anecdote is, but I'm pretty sure we rule!
No shit, put away your straw man. I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about what happens after the baby leaves the vagina and every so-called "conservative" who believes in the "sanctity of life" decides that since that child is out of its mother it does not deserve health care it cannot pay for, it does not deserve an education it cannot pay for, and if it's born poor then fuck it. Oh, but life is so "sacred", so let's make sure to force every woman to give birth, but those sacred lives can go fuck themselves because we don't need no socialist health care. It's hypocritical bullshit, it's all over the place in both political parties but especially onerous when it comes to this particular issue. It's religious zealotry masquerading, very poorly, as some bullshit political position. Religious zealotry has no place in the US government.
I would believe so-called "pro-life" people were consistent if their "sanctity of life" extended to all living things instead of only unviable fetuses, but once that kid gets pushed out they think that little fucker better get to work if it wants health care and a decent chance at life. Their "sanctity" ends when they can't force women to do what they want them to do.
Have you flown high enough to see the curvature of the earth (almost certainly not)
Yes, I have flown in a commercial airline at cruising altitude.
They ask why every satellite can communicate with earth, but none of them ever record their launch and show it.
You should watch some of the recent SpaceX videos. After one of the boosters separates from the second stage and starts the descent you most definitely can see the smoke trail from the launch.
They ask why every video that shows the curvature of the earth uses a fish-eye lens.
That's some No True Scotsman bullshit if I've ever heard it. "Oh, you have a video from a space? Really? Does it show the earth as a ball? Oh, well then it was a fish-eye lens." That's the problem with arguing with people who believe stupid things. I think you could put one of those flat-earth people in SpaceShipTwo and launch them all the way into low gravity and back down and they would be trying to tell everyone that the windows on the spacecraft distort vision. They would literally not believe their own eyes.
That misses the point by so much. Whether or not an article posted on a website that looks like local news but was actually produced in the Kremlin and is state propaganda is not a matter of opinion. It is either factually correct, or incorrect. Those are the two options. If it is factually correct, then I realize there are still a pretty good number of voters who will refuse to believe the facts and will instead choose to believe the propaganda, but this is not "people deciding for other people." It is figuring out what the facts are and reporting those as facts. If you want to accept that they're true then that's your choice, no one will decide that for you, but whether or not they are true does not depend on your views or your opinions. Facts are facts regardless of what any random idiot believes. The authorship of any one article is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact that does not depend on your feelings.
Something got fucked up in your post. I think you meant to link to "actual text messages from the FBI demonstrating malfeasance towards Republicans", but instead of you linked to some crap on Fox News.
The DNC and the Clintons were in deep with the Russians (the fake dossier paid for by HRC PAC and the DNC, from the Russians, the uranium One deal, the 500 thousand Bill Clinton got after the deal went through when HRC was Sec. of State)
That's "in deep" by your reckoning? What about in 2008 when Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, $50 million more than Trump paid for it a few years earlier? Couldn't be that Trump was helping launder money for the Russians, right? No, the house must have doubled in value in a few years, right? Never mind that it was the highest price paid for a Palm Beach house (by $13 million), that's just what the market could bear, right? Maybe the guy just really liked the property, even though he specifically said he didn't plan to live in the house or the US in general. No, he said it was an investment property, and if I know anything about real estate investments, I know that you should pay double what it's worth, and more than any other property in the area. I'm pretty sure that's how investment works. And this is a continuing pattern of Trump selling condos and other high-value real estate, a notorious target for money laundering, to a long list of shell companies. This is following Russia identifying Trump as exactly the kind of person they might want to groom as an oblivious foreign agent because of his easily manipulated personality, only to drop the effort after a decade or two because he's too unpredictable. Instead you want to try to drag up a payment made to Bill Clinton for $500k, and use that as evidence that they are "in deep" with the Russians. Where's the paper trail on that payment to Bill, by the way, which connects it to Russia?
it makes their brains hurt that they like being traitors
That grammar makes my brain hurt.
There's a period there. It doesn't make my brain "hurt that" something, because that doesn't make any sense, it just makes it hurt.
Here's the real problem though: people say they want to decide for themselves what is true, but in the past when presented with obviously fake stories, these same people did not do the research to actually determine if it's true. Hell, a lot of the time they don't even read the article, just the headline, and just hit "share". This is how this shit spreads - it spreads specifically because the target audience is known for not doing the research to determine whether or not it's true. The people who make money on this stuff know and admit this fact - they know that they have to choose a target audience that will not do the research. And this target audience is pretty broad, it might include children of four-star generals, it might include sons of presidents, it might include presidents themselves, all kinds of people really.
So, if the target audience for fake news and foreign propaganda will not do their own research, and they still don't want to be told whether or not they are reading foreign propaganda aimed at them, then what's the desired outcome? Do they just want to consume foreign propaganda while being willfully ignorant of it? Is it just stubbornness, or do they actually not care if the article they are reading was produced in a foreign intelligence agency and bears no truth in reality, as long it describes something which they feel might be true?
Why should anyone believe Facebook when they've been caught red-handed manipulating trending news stories?
See, but that's what's so great about this kind of thing, when done right. It's not a religion, it doesn't require faith and belief. You can look at the evidence and see where it points. It's like the people who are quick to dismiss anything from Wikipedia because "anyone can edit it" while conveniently forgetting about that giant list of citations at the end of the article. This isn't happening in a vacuum. If they remove a page and they tell you which page you don't have to blindly trust them, you can do your own research on that group to figure out what Facebook knows about them. In theory, anyway.
So, if we assume that 10 servings of neo-heroin per day is reasonable, and we extend that to this town of 2,900 people over 10 years, we learn that 20.8 million pills is enough to cover about 570 people at 10 per day. So, what do you think the likelihood is that 20% of the town (women, children, everything) are living in pain that is so bad that it requires 10 opioid pills per day, every day, for 10 years? Is that reasonable? Do you feel like the doctors in this town are just there to help and care for everyone?
Here's another question: how long does it take to become physically dependent on opioids or risk an overdose? If you're not sure, ask Tom Petty's wife. If your doctor said you need to smoke 10 cigarettes per day, because it's going to help you shit, are you just going to say "yeah, I need help shitting, so getting myself addicted to nicotine in the process is a reasonable tradeoff, and this doctor totally has my well-being foremost in his mind."
My wife has chronic pain, as does a close friend. I realize the usefulness of opioids or any other pain relieving drug. But I don't think that it's likely that a majority of the people living in any one town all have chronic pain to the level that it requires opioids to treat. That's part of the problem. A doctor hears that someone has a toothache, so might as well give them some opioids because the pharmaceutical manufacturer will pay the doctor for every prescription. They are over-prescribed big time. This is the not the same thing as saying no one needs them. In fact, if they were not over-prescribed then the people who need them would probably have an easier time of getting them. Every person I know who needs and takes prescription medications, especially controlled ones, complain about the process to get what they need.
No, it's not inane enough.
As for why the "penis" message was left on its homepage, it may have something to do with the name of the startup. Prodeum is a medication that treats urinary tract infections and other urinary problems...
That's a great observation. And the crudely-drawn cock and balls on the side of this building is probably an advertisement for the urologist a few blocks away.
so they can't have any opioid effects.
Other than overdose and death.
Do you understand that there is basically an 8 or 9 figure industry in the US based only around providing medication for opioid overdose? If the mass market opioid drugs are not to blame for this because they don't produce any opioid effects like you claim, then why does the anti-overdose industry exist?
If you want a hint, look at the historical price of naloxone from its market debut in 1971 until today, and compare the price changes with sales of prescription opioids. Look at stats from the CDC like saying that in 2014 over 47,000 people died in the US from drug overdoses, a new high number, and 60% of those deaths were from opioids. If pills like this have no opioid effects, which by the way completely ignores the experiences of so many people who have abused them, then are you suggesting that all of these people are dying from injecting heroin? Why do you think people end up abusing oxy and hydrocodone? Do they just like the taste?
This is definitely a Slashdot thread. We're talking about the prescription opioid epidemic but the history of Ford Fiesta sales in the US do not go unnoticed. You should start those comments with "ackchyually" though to really drive the point home.
a new generation of un-educated, malnourished sprogs who will be a burden
Don't forget that they also have no health care to speak of, because that is the responsibility of the individual, as I've heard a number of so-called "pro-life" people try to tell me.
Do you have any friends taking 2 opiate pills 3 times per day, at least that you know of?
realistically how many people per thousand actually need heavy opiates?
According to drug manufacturers and wholesalers? About 1,000.
and you're takeaway is
I must now commit seppuku. Might as well stay on topic and overdose on oxy.
So anyway, yes, these numbers are notorious half-truths and trumped-up to boot. But at the same time they might still point at a problem.
Is that your takeaway from this story? 20.8 million doses of heavy opiates shipped to a town of 2,900 over a decade and you're takeaway is that this "might point to a problem?" I realize you don't live in the US, but do you understand the number and frequency of opiate overdose deaths that are occurring in the US? Do you understand that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are culpable for pushing this product to people who don't need it so that they make more money, while Congress passes laws to restrict it so that people who actually do need it can't get it? Nothing that I just said is political, people would only have a political position on that if they're being paid to have one, or if they have been preached to by a spokesperson with a profit motive.
And then it's fairly important to frame (or re-frame or counter-frame) the narrative into something reasonably solvable
Holding doctors accountable when their patients die from overdose on an unnecessary medication prescribed by the doctor is a good first step. Maybe it will drive some of them away from prescribing without another thought just because they're going to get a kickback when they do prescribe something the person doesn't need. In other words, the profit motive needs to be removed. A complete overhaul of the health care system would also do that, but there are too many people making too much money in order to expect any meaningful change there.
Up the script to 3 pills per day as needed and you've got a standing prescription for about 1,925 people.
That's quitter talk, every baby should also be on opiates. You'll shit your pants when you see what happens to stock prices and revenue when we get babies addicted as earlier as possible. Because that's literally the only thing that matters, stock prices, and revenue. In fact, the real story here is that these babies ONLY get 2 doses of neo-heroin per day. Those are rookie numbers.
It most definitely has not been the coldest on record. I've had about 2 days this year when I can wear a hoodie without sweating.
That's the only thing that matters, right? The temperature where I am. It doesn't matter what's going on in the rest of the world. It's about 70F here, which means it's 70F everywhere, right? I'm pretty sure that's how these things work.