Janic wrote
Finally, after many handicapped and dead sacrificed on the altar of profitability and money for any purpose.
meanwhile they have saved even more lives,
this passage specifically concerned HPV, which has never been able to prove its effectiveness on cancers that will only appear in 20 for about a year (read the article in full)
So we can not say, say, something without providing evidence by precise figures, statistically provable and comparable to other health systems.
SI, again, chemical medicine "saves" lives, how many others,
that chemical medicine could not save, would have been by other means less violent and destructive like cancers? Regardless of any financial aspect
it's not the altar of the dough (you really have a problem with the money)
On the contrary, the nascent drug industry of 19 ° century exploded at the beginning of the 20 ° century, without any long-term decline, only the immediate result being taken into consideration, therefore effective in the short term, but harmful in the long term ( therefore very expensive for the human community) and disastrous for the environment.
However, it is not
mon problem money since I do not use any of these means in questions. If I had to deal with a current health problem, I would do it by taking money out of my pocket, not the SS one, as I have done so far (like those who are not not for chemicals) By cons it is doctors like the doctors of the world, or Delépine, cited, who are scandalized by the price of certain treatments (especially for cancer in his case) who denounce it.
https://www.medecinsdumonde.org/fr/actu ... edicamentsBREAK THE MONOPOLY
In territories where it is in force, the patent creates a monopoly situation of 20 years that prevents any competition with generic forms. This is how the price of 12 weeks of sofosbuvir in France is at 41 680 euros while the same molecule is sold $220 in India.If that's not a question of money.
but of the lesser harm, done to so-called "incurable" diseases years ago, chemistry has made it possible to cure some patients but not all, after with the experience of years later we take stock, and we remove the molecules who do not have sufficient profit from the news
The notion of lesser harm is measured not in relation to oneself (for example vaccines compared to other vaccines and not compared to real placebos) but
compared to all available means around the world. For example Lyme disease! But obviously this is not done since big pharma has a monopoly of fact.
Now, an incurable disease is only considered as such within the restricted framework of official medicine, always, of which it presents itself as both judge and exclusive party, once more.
40-50 years ago we did not dialy people, they simply died, NOW THE TECHNIQUE and the chemistry allow to keep them alive,
The first dialyses appear in France in 1954.
There you are right
on the technique because it is more about technology in the service of medicine, which no one disputes anywhere. It's like using an artificial leg in case of amputated leg. Now the chemistry to keep them alive, your formulation is good: keep alive, not be healthy. The ehpad are full of people kept alive too, but in what state and drugged by multiple drugs of all kinds, that's the good life!
and more recently chemistry allows grafting these patients, so everything is not so black as you claim
It's not about seeing everything in black, but about being realistic. Transplants, which are extraordinary techniques, only concern cases where grafts are available and chemistry does not allow grafts, it only prevents rejections by bypassing the immune system and thus makes the grafted individual susceptible to narcotics. Any virus or bacterium (hence their rustling folly of being contaminated and wanting all humanity to sterilize to save them alone at any cost). It is understandable that the individual is afraid and wants to survive, but this can and must be done only when ethics is not violated.
So how much of a life do you expect, from how much to stop treatment, from how much to sacrifice a life to not enrich the pharma lobby? since for you it's all about cash and nothing else
The example of doctors in the world shows that the relationship care and prices are questionable.
You misunderstood the approach. You dispute any possibility of action of other medicines than the one you use and especially without knowing or want to take into consideration other non-toxic solutions, they, for the organization. But the price of a life is the same on the ethical level, but it is not related exclusively to a single technique especially monopolistic? It reminds us too much of the religious domination of Catholicism over Protestantism (which was protesting against this monopoly) and which solved the question by eliminating the protesters.
So if a treatment is proposed, to a patient, and that it agrees, there is nothing to repeat, it is called the freedom of choice
but of the lesser harm, done to so-called "incurable" diseases years ago, chemistry has made it possible to cure some patients but not all, after with the experience of years later we take stock, and we remove the molecules who do not have sufficient profit from the news
The concept of lesser harm is measured not in relation to oneself (for example vaccines compared to other vaccines and not compared to real placebos) but in relation to all available means around the world. For example Lyme disease! But obviously this is not done since big pharma has a monopoly of fact.
However, an incurable disease is considered as such only within the restricted framework of the official medicine, always, so it appears as both judge and exclusive party, once again.
40-50 years ago we did not dialy people, they simply died, NOW THE TECHNIQUE and the chemistry allow to keep them alive,
There you are right on the technique because it is more about the technology in the service of the medicine, which nobody does not dispute anywhere. It's like using an artificial leg in case of amputated leg. Now the chemistry to keep them alive, your formulation is good: keep alive, not be healthy. The ehpads are full of people kept alive too, but in what state and drugged by multiple drugs of all kinds, that's the good life!
and more recently chemistry allows grafting these patients, so everything is not so black as you claim
It's not about seeing everything in black, but about being realistic. Transplants, which are extraordinary techniques, only concern cases where grafts are available and chemistry does not allow grafts, it only prevents rejections by bypassing the immune system and thus makes the grafted individual susceptible to narcotics. Any virus or bacterium (hence their rustling folly of being contaminated and wanting all humanity to sterilize to save them, them alone and at any price). It is understandable that the individual is afraid and wants to survive, but this can and must be done only when ethics is not violated.
So if a treatment is proposed to a patient, and that it agrees, there is nothing to repeat, it is called the freedom of choice conscious and informed. But when any system claims that he and he alone holds "
the truth out of which there is no salvation "Catholicism is still in question, it is no longer the freedom of therapeutic choice but the totalitarianism against which the societies that claim to be democratic are struggling, but who practice it commonly (do what I say, but not what I do) as mandatory vaccinations that are extremely disparate from one country to another.
So there is no question of stopping anything, in progress, would be only because the system recognizes only what he himself instituted and he is unable to propose anything else (except some open minds, not totally conditioned by this one). So it's not just a question of money, but a lot all the same since pro allopathy dispute the reimbursement of homeopathy, despite the lives it has saved, for almost nothing on the cash side.
Plus other alternative medicines that also save lives for 0 Euros for society.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré