Or, they'll take yet a different tack, which I've heard they've done with other drugs: Refuse to release in the US (ostensibly because of FDA hurdles) until they've cleared a giant profit in the third world, then clear FDA hurdles and introduce here in the US. During the time that they are encountering "FDA obstructions", they are obtaining the higher prices for treatments here in the US while reaping huge profits on the vaccine elsewhere. Then, about the time that black market or ripoff vaccines start booming here, they'll clear FDA trail and release a much higher cost version here in the US, claiming the research and FDA trail cost justifies the higher price. Then, people who want the vaccine but are either 1. afraid of dealing with black/grey markets or, 2. covered by insurance, will go to their doctor and get the vaccine at the higher price.
I don't understand why you think that. Do you think that the payee somehow determines the competence of the doctor? Anyway, I submit that even were we to remove malpractice insurance from the equation (and moot the question of what happens when a doctor commits malpractice in a socialized medicine environment), the increased costs from trivial visits would more than make up for it. If people view healthcare as 'free', they overuse it. They go to the doctor for every bump and sniffle, making it harder for people with real problems to receive care. This also, of course, runs the cost waaaaaaaay up. We can see this effect in America, where medicine is not even yet socialized.
You make no sense. Please name me ONE industry with a higher markup than pharmaceuticals. I'll wait. They even make the oil companies' margins look razor-thin.
Well, let me take the easy out here. I wouldn't be the CEO of a pharmaco because I do not have the callousness that the CEO of ANY major corporation must have. I do not care about shareholders or making wealthy people more wealthy. I do not care about pursuing my own fortune. However, I believe that for most CEOs, the answer would be 2, because of these factors: 1. if no one jacks your patent, you make *insanely* more money 2. if someone jacks your patent, you can sue 3. if some third-world cut-rate pharmaco starts putting a cure out, you can then release your cure and bank on your 'good name', smearing the cut-rate thieves as..well, cut-rate thieves. 4. you don't have to do a major gear-up for a drug like you do for a new car or something. Once you find the right combination of substances, it's relatively easy to manufacture. This means your lead-time wouldn't give someone else a major edge, especially if they're a smaller company. 5. the FDA would never allow some knock-off to get approved here in the US. That doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't get it, but still, the US is a HUGE drug market. (yes, for ALL drugs)
Look, dude, there's a lot going on in China, it's true. But I think Billy Boy will make sure his drugs are clean. (Why stop now?) Just because something comes from China doesn't make it shoddy or unsafe. It may make that more likely, but it is certainly not a guarantee, and in my personal experience you can get cheap, shoddy stuff made lots of places, or you can get quality things made in those same places...just depends on your discernment. Also, if you are Chinese, American popular stereotype says you DO practice gung fu in your spare time. So don't lie.
Pharmaceutical companies are in charge of how drugs get distributed in this country. Yes. If they aren't, who is? The FDA is almost always chaired by someone who comes from or goes to a lucrative job in a food or drug company. Many food and drug safety laws are literally written by food or drug companies. Pharmacos charge incredible rates for their products. It takes only a few cents to manufacture the pills in a bottle of aspirin. Yet that bottle costs $5.00 or more. Of course, I'm sure I'm being completely naive. Besides, never in history have companies been so large and powerful. Yes, I realize there have been large companies before, but they didn't have the resources available to them that companies have today. Also, the government had not been wedded to corporate America as thoroughly back then. Of course, I'm sure you don't think that that is the case today, either, so...
Yes, I agree with you to an extent. However, I wouldn't want to see a fight between big insurance and big pharmaco. That would SUCK for the average American.
I should have said 'up to' as it seems that under recent pressure, most pharmacos have reduced that number to around $25k per year. That's still around $150k-300k over an infected person's lifetime, which is still substantially more than they'll get for one shot. Also, if your friends are on any kind of insurance plan, you're a retard. If they aren't, SOMEONE is still paying for those 'free' drugs.
Nice troll. Insurance companies != pharmacos. Perhaps you could learn to read? No, that's asking too much. Besides, all companies, not *just* insurance companies but including them, pass costs on to the consumer. SO while insurance companies may be outwardly pursuing lower costs, in reality they don't care as long as they can pass the cost on.
When I bought my insurance, the only disease they explicitly tested me for was AIDs. I had to take an HIV test. Even if it cost $50K per dose it would be cheaper than the disease.
That's my whole point. It would be a gigantic, huge, enormous amount cheaper than the disease. Who makes money off the disease?
A working HIV vaccine will BANK SERIOUS COIN for whoever sells it.
Sure, but it will also replace an even MORE SERIOUS AMOUNT OF COIN that the pharmacos currently make selling treatments to victims. What is better for a pharmaco: 1. selling an exorbitantly expensive treatment which does not cure the disease for 5-10 years 2. selling a single shot
And I'm sure there will be myriad variations patented on this. Hell I could imagine joint ventures among big pharma, just to share in the BILLIONS that come pouring in when every man, woman, and child gets this vaccine. Governments will subsidize it. It ain't gonna get disappeared.
First of all, there is no proof that every man, woman, and child would get this vaccine. There are many people who have absolutely no fear of HIV whatsoever, and that includes those who engage in risky behavior as well as those who don't. Second, 'disappeared' was only one option. Another would be making insurance companies not cover this as 'elective' or something and then making it cost $500k per shot. Third, what makes you think governments would subsidize it? Apart from those whose medications are already subsidized, that is.
The pharmaceutical companies make a killing off EVERYTHING. They have the highest markup known to man. Yet they'd have to sell a whole lot of vaccines to replace 1 year of AIDS treatment. An analogy would be this: how excited would the oil companies be if you could run your car for the rest of your life on one tank of gas? Even if THEY were the ones selling the magic gas?
Well, off the top of my head I can't remember a vaccine which obsoleted $100k per year for 5-10 years. That's what this will do to the AIDS drug industry. Unless they're charging $500k an injection we're talking about a loss of an incredible amount of money in future sales. Besides, how would I know what vaccines which have been killed by pharmacos were effective? They were killed. Durf durf.
well, I'm not sure how much better things will be with the Russians in control of it. I can't imagine that organized crime will stay out of that one, considering that they don't even let spam/spyware producers alone. Still, I think you're 100% correct re: FDA approval. Unless some US pharmaco can charge $400k per pop (if covered by insurance, HELLO giant premium raises for everyone!).
Well, it doesn't really matter if that guy would or wouldn't. It won't be his call. Unfortunately, though, the pharmacos let people die every day for exactly that reason. I'm not saying pharmacos are evil, or at least any more evil than any other corporation. Ford wouldn't give away cars if people died for their lack. Corporations aren't meant to care about humans. They're not people. Besides, many PEOPLE don't care about humans, so why should fictional legal entities be any different?
You are being ridiculously naive. A year's worth of treatment for AIDS costs about $100k US. Except Bill Clinton can get the SAME EXACT course of treatment made in China for about $800. Yes, that's right. Slight disparity there, isn't there? Oh, but those wonderful pharmacos wouldn't do something like *that*....because they're all about helping people!
Yeah. I mean, there's no way you could get the same year's worth of AIDS treatment for $800 that American pharmacos charge $100k for, right? 'Cause it's so high-profile and immune to politics and bullshit, right? Oh, unless your name is Bill Clinton.
I know America isn't the world. But America is where the world comes for new drugs, for the most part. I mean, come on, American companies make Viagra, Propecia, AND that new fat absorption inhibitor. Where was the rest of the world in the eternal struggle against limp, bald, fat men? HUH? HUH?!?
With the price of a year's treatment for AIDS in America approaching or exceeding $100k, I wonder how long it will be before this vaccine is 1. killed, 2. publicly smeared by pharmacos NOT producing it, or 3. price jacked to infinity. I hope it's none of the above, but....
So perhaps we do agree, after all. What is required is better Government accountability.
Well no, not exactly. What is required is less government involvement, period. I know the idea is popular that nothing gets done unless government steps in. However, the opposite is usually the case, for the very reasons that you delineated further down: "Those who control the purse strings will impose too much bureaucracy which will either reduce the effectiveness of charity workers or simply dissuade them from even beginning in the first instance"
You have described government involvement in *anything* precisely with that quote. Simply replace 'charity workers' with whatever noun is appropriate. It is HMOs and managed care that have driven the price of medical care so high. Why? Well, several reasons. For one, the cost of malpractice insurance has risen dramatically. For another, people with health insurance will often make unneeded trips to the doctor simply because they are 'covered' and might as well. This ends up making it harder for people who actually need care to get it. It also raises everyone's costs. Not to mention the fact that doctors are more likely to be able to scam HMOs and such than individuals. YOU know you didn't get X, Y, or Z tests. Your HMO is not nearly as likely to know. There are many, many reasons why socialized medicine is a bad thing. If you do some research on your own, you are bound to run into them.
Whenever government steps in, efficiency goes down and costs go up. At one time, our welfare system was paying out only 8 cents per dollar to a recipient. Not many charities in the world operate on that kind of margin. I wouldn't donate to any charity that kept 92 cents per dollar. Yet it is much harder to put a government entity out of business than any private organization. No matter how poorly the government does the job, they cannot be fired, much like their employees. It is no accident that our own founding fathers (here in America) believed that 'That government is best which governs least) and that there should be an armed revolution every 20 years.
Your belief is the conclusion. It's unsupported by data, so unless you have compelling reasons for it (other than 'it's artificial') it's unwarranted. I was just putting "your words" in perspective: you believe something that may or may not be true, and you're willing to declare it in a public forum. The question is, who gives a fuck?
I CLEARLY STATED that it was belief and not fact. I really don't get your point here. You don't have any factual data, either. Your belief is just as much conclusion as mine, yet I am stating up front that mine is belief and not fact, while you pass yours off as fact. As to who gives a fuck, apparently you do. Otherwise why bother replying?
Of course not, but then I'm not the one declaring "xyz is bad for you"
You're declaring that it's NOT bad for you. A belief you hold based on no evidence. That's ok for you to do, though. Besides as I've said a million times now, I DID NOT MAKE A STATEMENT OF FACT. I put a disclaimer right on the end of it, which you quoted.
You made a statement of fact which is probably not true based on the evidence. You might as well jump up on a soapbox and yell "I believe xyz (but I may be lying)!"
No, in order for me to be LYING, I'd have to have specific knowledge that what I was saying was incorrect. You are a total idiot, and I'm not lying about that.
Okay, you got me on that one. Glad you got a laugh out of it. Yes, people do dangerous things because they enjoy them, or because they're addicted. They also freak out at the slightest suggestion that there's something dangerous in their food. How many people stopped cooking with aluminum pans when researchers discovered a tentative link between aluminum and Alzheimer's? The problem is, they're just as likely to freak out from baseless scaremongering as from actual study results.
The vocal minority does not constitute the silent majority. Sorry. BTW, when was the last time you heard any stories about that? I saw an aluminum cookware set in the store the other day. Perhaps the freakout wasn't as widespread as you believe.
I don't know if it's the one with caplets, but this MIT study looks like a good independent one.
You mean the one sponsored by Searles? Heh. Nice one.
Anyway it's far more likely that actual dangers of Aspartame will be revealed by more research than by ranting netloons.
Hmm. You mean that more research may be accomplished with research? You sure are a bright one! Besides, I don't think even the most retarded definition of 'rant' includes one sentence with a fucking disclaimer attached to it.
Maybe Aspartame is bad for you. You are not everybody.
Hey, there's been at least one guy that didn't die from falling out of a plane. Maybe that's not bad for you! Why don't you try it?
And when people reported problems with these products, who found the cause? That's right, medical researchers.
The same ones that did the studies by which those things were FDA approved? No, becuase those studies are almost entirely done by the company producing whatever it wants approved. Research wasn't done into those things until a lot of people died. My point was not that all medical researchers are bad, my point was that not all medical researchers are good either, and you don't personally know any of the ones upon whose character and honesty you are relying. Would you rely on a random 'medical researcher' to housesit for you? If not, why not? Don't you trust them?
If you think Aspartame or HFCS are unhealthy, that's perfectly okay. Let's see the evidence, please.
Again you are requesting that I go do the work and give YOU evidence, when you can't be bothered to do the same. Let's see the evidence that it is safe before you go around saying that it is full stop. Here are some places you can start looking.
# Olney, J.W., N.B. Farber, E. Spitznagel, L.N. Robins, 1996. "Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame?" Journal
What about those on low incomes, or the unemployed? Is it right that they should be denied treatment simply because of their situation? I don't accept this as necessary in this day and age.
Here is the main part where we disagree. It isn't repairable I'm afraid. I do not believe that it is fair to place a burden upon the poorest members of society (because taxes are a FAR smaller percentage of living expenses for the wealthy) in order to fund everyone else's welfare, free lunch, etc. What did the truly needy do before taxes? They went to churches, community centers, friends, family, etc. Heavy tax burdens only reduce the ability of those places to do the work they do because they want to do it. This is important. Who do you think takes better care of the truly needy, a charity worker, or a government worker? I know who I'd rather deal with, were I in need. It isn't charity with which I have a problem. Not at all. It is the government taking money from me and everyone else by force, then spending it however they want as if it is their money and not ours. I will NEVER sanction that for any reason. If you or I did the same thing, we would be put in jail. But just as with so much other crime, when the government is involved it is not only legal but expected. I cannot condone that.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, they'll take yet a different tack, which I've heard they've done with other drugs: Refuse to release in the US (ostensibly because of FDA hurdles) until they've cleared a giant profit in the third world, then clear FDA hurdles and introduce here in the US. During the time that they are encountering "FDA obstructions", they are obtaining the higher prices for treatments here in the US while reaping huge profits on the vaccine elsewhere. Then, about the time that black market or ripoff vaccines start booming here, they'll clear FDA trail and release a much higher cost version here in the US, claiming the research and FDA trail cost justifies the higher price. Then, people who want the vaccine but are either 1. afraid of dealing with black/grey markets or, 2. covered by insurance, will go to their doctor and get the vaccine at the higher price.
Until those things happen, Firefox will be a product that never reached it's potential.
How could it? How could anything reach "it is" potential? That doesn't even make sense. I call straw man!
I don't understand why you think that. Do you think that the payee somehow determines the competence of the doctor? Anyway, I submit that even were we to remove malpractice insurance from the equation (and moot the question of what happens when a doctor commits malpractice in a socialized medicine environment), the increased costs from trivial visits would more than make up for it. If people view healthcare as 'free', they overuse it. They go to the doctor for every bump and sniffle, making it harder for people with real problems to receive care. This also, of course, runs the cost waaaaaaaay up. We can see this effect in America, where medicine is not even yet socialized.
You make no sense. Please name me ONE industry with a higher markup than pharmaceuticals. I'll wait. They even make the oil companies' margins look razor-thin.
Well, let me take the easy out here. I wouldn't be the CEO of a pharmaco because I do not have the callousness that the CEO of ANY major corporation must have. I do not care about shareholders or making wealthy people more wealthy. I do not care about pursuing my own fortune. However, I believe that for most CEOs, the answer would be 2, because of these factors:
1. if no one jacks your patent, you make *insanely* more money
2. if someone jacks your patent, you can sue
3. if some third-world cut-rate pharmaco starts putting a cure out, you can then release your cure and bank on your 'good name', smearing the cut-rate thieves as..well, cut-rate thieves.
4. you don't have to do a major gear-up for a drug like you do for a new car or something. Once you find the right combination of substances, it's relatively easy to manufacture. This means your lead-time wouldn't give someone else a major edge, especially if they're a smaller company.
5. the FDA would never allow some knock-off to get approved here in the US. That doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't get it, but still, the US is a HUGE drug market. (yes, for ALL drugs)
Look, dude, there's a lot going on in China, it's true. But I think Billy Boy will make sure his drugs are clean. (Why stop now?)
Just because something comes from China doesn't make it shoddy or unsafe. It may make that more likely, but it is certainly not a guarantee, and in my personal experience you can get cheap, shoddy stuff made lots of places, or you can get quality things made in those same places...just depends on your discernment.
Also, if you are Chinese, American popular stereotype says you DO practice gung fu in your spare time. So don't lie.
Pharmaceutical companies are in charge of how drugs get distributed in this country. Yes. If they aren't, who is? The FDA is almost always chaired by someone who comes from or goes to a lucrative job in a food or drug company. Many food and drug safety laws are literally written by food or drug companies. Pharmacos charge incredible rates for their products. It takes only a few cents to manufacture the pills in a bottle of aspirin. Yet that bottle costs $5.00 or more. Of course, I'm sure I'm being completely naive. Besides, never in history have companies been so large and powerful. Yes, I realize there have been large companies before, but they didn't have the resources available to them that companies have today. Also, the government had not been wedded to corporate America as thoroughly back then. Of course, I'm sure you don't think that that is the case today, either, so...
Yes, I agree with you to an extent. However, I wouldn't want to see a fight between big insurance and big pharmaco. That would SUCK for the average American.
I should have said 'up to' as it seems that under recent pressure, most pharmacos have reduced that number to around $25k per year. That's still around $150k-300k over an infected person's lifetime, which is still substantially more than they'll get for one shot.
Also, if your friends are on any kind of insurance plan, you're a retard. If they aren't, SOMEONE is still paying for those 'free' drugs.
Nice troll. Insurance companies != pharmacos. Perhaps you could learn to read? No, that's asking too much. Besides, all companies, not *just* insurance companies but including them, pass costs on to the consumer. SO while insurance companies may be outwardly pursuing lower costs, in reality they don't care as long as they can pass the cost on.
What makes you think socialized medicine costs less than privatized medicine? I couldn't read past that in your post, sorry.
Yeah right.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing.
When I bought my insurance, the only disease they explicitly tested me for was AIDs. I had to take an HIV test. Even if it cost $50K per dose it would be cheaper than the disease.
That's my whole point. It would be a gigantic, huge, enormous amount cheaper than the disease. Who makes money off the disease?
A working HIV vaccine will BANK SERIOUS COIN for whoever sells it.
Sure, but it will also replace an even MORE SERIOUS AMOUNT OF COIN that the pharmacos currently make selling treatments to victims. What is better for a pharmaco:
1. selling an exorbitantly expensive treatment which does not cure the disease for 5-10 years
2. selling a single shot
And I'm sure there will be myriad variations patented on this. Hell I could imagine joint ventures among big pharma, just to share in the BILLIONS that come pouring in when every man, woman, and child gets this vaccine. Governments will subsidize it. It ain't gonna get disappeared.
First of all, there is no proof that every man, woman, and child would get this vaccine. There are many people who have absolutely no fear of HIV whatsoever, and that includes those who engage in risky behavior as well as those who don't.
Second, 'disappeared' was only one option. Another would be making insurance companies not cover this as 'elective' or something and then making it cost $500k per shot.
Third, what makes you think governments would subsidize it? Apart from those whose medications are already subsidized, that is.
The pharmaceutical companies make a killing off EVERYTHING. They have the highest markup known to man. Yet they'd have to sell a whole lot of vaccines to replace 1 year of AIDS treatment. An analogy would be this: how excited would the oil companies be if you could run your car for the rest of your life on one tank of gas? Even if THEY were the ones selling the magic gas?
Well, off the top of my head I can't remember a vaccine which obsoleted $100k per year for 5-10 years. That's what this will do to the AIDS drug industry. Unless they're charging $500k an injection we're talking about a loss of an incredible amount of money in future sales. Besides, how would I know what vaccines which have been killed by pharmacos were effective? They were killed. Durf durf.
well, I'm not sure how much better things will be with the Russians in control of it. I can't imagine that organized crime will stay out of that one, considering that they don't even let spam/spyware producers alone.
Still, I think you're 100% correct re: FDA approval. Unless some US pharmaco can charge $400k per pop (if covered by insurance, HELLO giant premium raises for everyone!).
Well, it doesn't really matter if that guy would or wouldn't. It won't be his call. Unfortunately, though, the pharmacos let people die every day for exactly that reason. I'm not saying pharmacos are evil, or at least any more evil than any other corporation. Ford wouldn't give away cars if people died for their lack. Corporations aren't meant to care about humans. They're not people. Besides, many PEOPLE don't care about humans, so why should fictional legal entities be any different?
You are being ridiculously naive. A year's worth of treatment for AIDS costs about $100k US. Except Bill Clinton can get the SAME EXACT course of treatment made in China for about $800. Yes, that's right. Slight disparity there, isn't there? Oh, but those wonderful pharmacos wouldn't do something like *that*....because they're all about helping people!
Yeah. I mean, there's no way you could get the same year's worth of AIDS treatment for $800 that American pharmacos charge $100k for, right? 'Cause it's so high-profile and immune to politics and bullshit, right? Oh, unless your name is Bill Clinton.
I know America isn't the world. But America is where the world comes for new drugs, for the most part. I mean, come on, American companies make Viagra, Propecia, AND that new fat absorption inhibitor. Where was the rest of the world in the eternal struggle against limp, bald, fat men? HUH? HUH?!?
That's what I thought.
Well, Bayer has already done a pretty good job of showing what the pharmacos think of Africans.
With the price of a year's treatment for AIDS in America approaching or exceeding $100k, I wonder how long it will be before this vaccine is 1. killed, 2. publicly smeared by pharmacos NOT producing it, or 3. price jacked to infinity. I hope it's none of the above, but....
So perhaps we do agree, after all. What is required is better Government accountability.
Well no, not exactly. What is required is less government involvement, period. I know the idea is popular that nothing gets done unless government steps in. However, the opposite is usually the case, for the very reasons that you delineated further down: "Those who control the purse strings will impose too much bureaucracy which will either reduce the effectiveness of charity workers or simply dissuade them from even beginning in the first instance"
You have described government involvement in *anything* precisely with that quote. Simply replace 'charity workers' with whatever noun is appropriate. It is HMOs and managed care that have driven the price of medical care so high. Why? Well, several reasons. For one, the cost of malpractice insurance has risen dramatically. For another, people with health insurance will often make unneeded trips to the doctor simply because they are 'covered' and might as well. This ends up making it harder for people who actually need care to get it. It also raises everyone's costs. Not to mention the fact that doctors are more likely to be able to scam HMOs and such than individuals. YOU know you didn't get X, Y, or Z tests. Your HMO is not nearly as likely to know. There are many, many reasons why socialized medicine is a bad thing. If you do some research on your own, you are bound to run into them.
Whenever government steps in, efficiency goes down and costs go up. At one time, our welfare system was paying out only 8 cents per dollar to a recipient. Not many charities in the world operate on that kind of margin. I wouldn't donate to any charity that kept 92 cents per dollar. Yet it is much harder to put a government entity out of business than any private organization. No matter how poorly the government does the job, they cannot be fired, much like their employees. It is no accident that our own founding fathers (here in America) believed that 'That government is best which governs least) and that there should be an armed revolution every 20 years.
Excuse me, sir. I am NOT a Grammar-Nazi. I, sir, am a Grammar-Islamo-Fascist*. Please keep up with the times, as Nazis are so over.
*I know.
It doesn't effect Windows at all, actually. It might, however, affect Windows.
Your belief is the conclusion. It's unsupported by data, so unless you have compelling reasons for it (other than 'it's artificial') it's unwarranted. I was just putting "your words" in perspective: you believe something that may or may not be true, and you're willing to declare it in a public forum. The question is, who gives a fuck?
I CLEARLY STATED that it was belief and not fact. I really don't get your point here. You don't have any factual data, either. Your belief is just as much conclusion as mine, yet I am stating up front that mine is belief and not fact, while you pass yours off as fact. As to who gives a fuck, apparently you do. Otherwise why bother replying?
Of course not, but then I'm not the one declaring "xyz is bad for you"
You're declaring that it's NOT bad for you. A belief you hold based on no evidence. That's ok for you to do, though. Besides as I've said a million times now, I DID NOT MAKE A STATEMENT OF FACT. I put a disclaimer right on the end of it, which you quoted.
You made a statement of fact which is probably not true based on the evidence. You might as well jump up on a soapbox and yell "I believe xyz (but I may be lying)!"
No, in order for me to be LYING, I'd have to have specific knowledge that what I was saying was incorrect. You are a total idiot, and I'm not lying about that.
Okay, you got me on that one. Glad you got a laugh out of it. Yes, people do dangerous things because they enjoy them, or because they're addicted. They also freak out at the slightest suggestion that there's something dangerous in their food. How many people stopped cooking with aluminum pans when researchers discovered a tentative link between aluminum and Alzheimer's? The problem is, they're just as likely to freak out from baseless scaremongering as from actual study results.
The vocal minority does not constitute the silent majority. Sorry. BTW, when was the last time you heard any stories about that? I saw an aluminum cookware set in the store the other day. Perhaps the freakout wasn't as widespread as you believe.
I don't know if it's the one with caplets, but this MIT study looks like a good independent one.
You mean the one sponsored by Searles? Heh. Nice one.
Anyway it's far more likely that actual dangers of Aspartame will be revealed by more research than by ranting netloons.
Hmm. You mean that more research may be accomplished with research? You sure are a bright one! Besides, I don't think even the most retarded definition of 'rant' includes one sentence with a fucking disclaimer attached to it.
Maybe Aspartame is bad for you. You are not everybody.
Hey, there's been at least one guy that didn't die from falling out of a plane. Maybe that's not bad for you! Why don't you try it?
And when people reported problems with these products, who found the cause? That's right, medical researchers.
The same ones that did the studies by which those things were FDA approved? No, becuase those studies are almost entirely done by the company producing whatever it wants approved. Research wasn't done into those things until a lot of people died. My point was not that all medical researchers are bad, my point was that not all medical researchers are good either, and you don't personally know any of the ones upon whose character and honesty you are relying. Would you rely on a random 'medical researcher' to housesit for you? If not, why not? Don't you trust them?
If you think Aspartame or HFCS are unhealthy, that's perfectly okay. Let's see the evidence, please.
Again you are requesting that I go do the work and give YOU evidence, when you can't be bothered to do the same. Let's see the evidence that it is safe before you go around saying that it is full stop. Here are some places you can start looking.
# Olney, J.W., N.B. Farber, E. Spitznagel, L.N. Robins, 1996. "Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame?" Journal
What about those on low incomes, or the unemployed? Is it right that they should be denied treatment simply because of their situation? I don't accept this as necessary in this day and age.
Here is the main part where we disagree. It isn't repairable I'm afraid. I do not believe that it is fair to place a burden upon the poorest members of society (because taxes are a FAR smaller percentage of living expenses for the wealthy) in order to fund everyone else's welfare, free lunch, etc. What did the truly needy do before taxes? They went to churches, community centers, friends, family, etc. Heavy tax burdens only reduce the ability of those places to do the work they do because they want to do it. This is important. Who do you think takes better care of the truly needy, a charity worker, or a government worker? I know who I'd rather deal with, were I in need. It isn't charity with which I have a problem. Not at all. It is the government taking money from me and everyone else by force, then spending it however they want as if it is their money and not ours. I will NEVER sanction that for any reason. If you or I did the same thing, we would be put in jail. But just as with so much other crime, when the government is involved it is not only legal but expected. I cannot condone that.