obamot
Well, if you really agreed with that, you would not lightly attribute these 146 deaths to the healthcare system! Nobody wants the death of his patient, let's be reasonable! Because it wouldn't make sense.
It is not a matter of wishing the death of anyone or it would be to assume that all the doctors know that they are poisoning their clients (in fact they know it since the benefit / risk is weighed knowing that everything chemical drug is dangerous) wherever Servier (or others) wanted to poison his clients by medical intervention.
So it is not a question of this, but of the system's refusal to open up to other paths than their own, even if it is to the detriment of the "patients" and that in order to preserve their dominant, doctoral position.
On the other hand, strictly speaking, it's 80% of deaths (so a lot more than your number)! That should be argued, if with a wave of a magic wand, people became "wise"!
That's the least we can say! But it is not a question of deaths per se (one must die one day), but of the circumstances of these deaths, whether from cancer, vascular diseases, etc. However, indeed, a better lifestyle would reduce all this suffering to a “nearly acceptable” minimum and at the same time the use of therapies that are physically and morally traumatic.
If it was ONLY enough to eat seasonal vegetables and fruits to stay healthy (without any other consideration of any kind), that would be known.
To find out, you have to try it! Otherwise, it's been a long time since I had released that one. It reminds me of my early days when I was trying to "convince" my colleagues. "
but if it were true, it would be known! ""
of course but for this to be known, it must be communicated and who makes this communication? Then who would believe it?"... From where
"if it was true it would know »Nice example of the dog running after the tail!
And that is not at all the fault of the care system (to continue the metaphor, you accuse the firefighters of being responsible for the fires, sorry, it's not them: so attack the real people responsible). For example, among the health authorities, those which authorize the marketing of devitalized products, refined sugar (see tobacco etc.), lobbyists, etc. I don't mind ... But this is not the fault of the healthcare system. Because the first culprit is the legislator who lets this happen, and in a beautiful hypocrisy, the political parties who spare the goat and the cabbage so as not to ruin the pharmaceutical industry! And here again, this is not directly involved, but depends on the "personal will" of individuals to - somewhere and in some cases - have a certain propensity to self-destruct (consciously or not) .
We obviously do not take the problem by the same end. The consumer
is NOT REQUIRED to consume devitalized products, stuffed with chemicals, endocrine disruptors, nor to drink, to smoke, to take drugs. Only he has become accustomed to being passive, to being a consumer rather than a consumer and therefore becoming a willing victim of his choices. From there they get sick and hope that by using other drugs as dangerous as the ones they passively used will get them out (and there it is the healthcare system). To use the example of the firefighter, the individual set his house on fire and the firefighters sprinkle it with gasoline rather than water.
If some firefighters do not realize it (are they so blind) others have chosen another mode of extinction, but they are taken for arsonists and they are removed from the order of doctors for non-compliance with the standard, even imprisoned or must expatriate to be recognized and dozens of patients, who could have escaped, die from it.
So yes, not only are systems responsible, but systems without the individuals that make them up are nothing and unfortunately when there are immense financial interests at stake, morality quickly becomes elastic.
What I wanted to say, and that there was not so much reason to moderate. It is that if those who wish to spread a prevention message take it more into account, they would be much more effective in their approach.
What do you want? I'm not a diplomat for two cents and I call a cabbage: cabbage, whether you like it or not!
However, if you have paid attention, I do not question the individuals, but the systems to report the faults and, possibly, I indicate other possible ways among those that I know
and especially practiced, after everyone does what they want with it.
