CHEMICAL MASSACRE: More Deaths From Doctors than ANY terror attack EVER

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

whocares is right, this dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and is pulling shit out his ass. No source, no nothing. Just saying that most of "their" numbers are wrong and "our" numbers are right.

Bullshit. First of all it doesn't say anything about "theirs our wrong, ours are right". It points out that the numbers are wrong in that they are based on extrapolations and not on actual figures, where as the people making the allegations pass them off as actual figures. It then says that when the numbers are accurate, they are still misleading and goes on to show how they can be misleading.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by whocares

If I rant that "Aw shit man, I fucking got ice cream all over me, FUCK YOU ICECREAM", it's neither correct nor incorrect. It's a fucking rant with no sources. It doesn't prove anything.

And since I wasn't intending that article to refute the OP (nor did I say it did) but instead to show the logical fallacies used by those attacking the medical community based on negative outcomes.... your point is what exactly?

[whocares]

Originally Posted by Rust

Bullshit. First of all it doesn't say anything about "theirs our wrong, ours are right". It points out that the numbers are wrong in that they are based on extrapolations and not on actual figures, where as the people making the allegations pass them off as actual figures. It then says that when the numbers are accurate, they are still misleading and goes on to show how they can be misleading.

Lol first you said the ranting article isn't out to prove that the statistics are wrong, but yet here you are saying that the numbers are misrepresented. But yet the article doesn't provide a single source to correct those numbers. They say it's an "extrapolation", but don't say "how" they're an extrapolation. You're just taking their word for it.

So which is it? Are they arguing the logical fallacies or arguing that the numbers are extrapolated, but hasn't shown a single proof of it?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by whocares

Lol first you said the article isn't out to prove the numbers are wrong, but yet here you are saying that the numbers are misrepresented, but yet the article doesn't provide a single source to correct those numbers. They say it's an "extrapolation", but don't say "how" they're an extrapolation. You're just taking their rant for it.

Yes, and that's true. If you look at the article, which you clearly haven't, you'll see it only spends a sentence or so saying anything about the figures. It's intent is to show the logical fallacies being used by those who use those figures without pointing out how they are misleading.

If you want to throw a hissy-fit and nitpick over that incredibly tiny portion of the article then fine: Yes, the article does not prove that those claims are based on extrapolation, it assumes the reader is familiar with the sources those claims are based on to know that they are extrapolations.

Does that change anything about the logical fallacies it points out? Does that refute the fact that the figures themselves can be misleading? Does that show how the claim is incorrect?

[whocares]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, and that's true. If you look at the article, which you clearly haven't, you'll see it only spends a sentence or so saying anything about the figures. It's intent is to show the logical fallacies being used by those who use those figures without pointing out how they are misleading.

If you want to throw a hissy-fit and nitpick over that incredibly tiny portion of the article then fine: Yes, the article does not prove that those claims are based on extrapolation, it assumes the reader is familiar with the sources those claims are based on to know that they are extrapolations.

Does that change anything about the logical fallacies it points out? Does that refute the fact that the figures themselves can be misleading? Does that show how the claim is incorrect?

And that's why the article sucks. It doesn't prove anything.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by whocares

And that's why the article sucks. It doesn't prove anything.

You're moron. The first bold part didn't refer to the article I posted, it refered to those attacking the medical community. They (those who attack the medical community, not the article I posted) use those figures without explaining how they can be misleading.

The only relevant part is the second one... which I conceded. Yes, for a very tiny part of the article, for what amounts to a single sentence that isn't the main point of the article, it assumes that people know the figures are an extrapolation. Oh my. Does that change anything about the logical fallacies it points out? No. Does that refute the fact that the figures themselves can be misleading? No. Does that show how the claim is incorrect? No.

[whocares]

Originally Posted by Rust

You're moron. The first bold part didn't refer to the article I posted, it refered to those attacking the medical community. They (those who attack the medical community, not the article I posted) use those figures without explaining how they can be misleading.

The only relevant part is the second one... which I conceded. Yes, for a very tiny part of the article, for what amounts to a single sentence that isn't the main point of the article, it assumes that people know the figures are an extrapolation. Oh my. Does that change anything about the logical fallacies it points out? No. Does that refute the fact that the figures themselves can be misleading? No. Does that show how the claim is incorrect? No.

Lol what fallacies? The article just kept saying it's a "fallacy" without saying how they're fallacies without sources to back it up. If that's the best the author can come up with, that's a terrible MD and a terrible "argument". It's just a baseless rant and it doesn't prove anything.

[anunnakiagenda.com]

It's just that diplomas do not insure that a particular *insert profession here* is competent in *insert previously mentioned profession here*.

In other words, a qualified doctor and a competent doctor are two different things. It seems there is more than some medical degree behind a competent doctor if you ask me.

Nonetheless, even competent doctors make mistakes. They merely make them less (if not far less) frequently and tend to be less dangerous on the patient's health (HUMAN ERROR).

[Greyusurper]

Originally Posted by Rust

Ignoring the fact that ate is a moron and that NaturalNews has no credibility whatsoever... and taking those figures at face value just for the fuck of it...

How many people are saved by doctors? Thousands a hour? Millions a day? Billions a year? Exactly.

Yes, and when Ate see's this he'll think to himself "Hmm, since they're [the FDA/whoever] saying this for a positive view on themselves, the numbers of 'saved' people are clearly lower than they are admitting. Therefore it's propaganda! I'm not mind controlled, no sir! I'll expose them and tell everyone on the Internets! Anyone that disagrees with me is mind controlled and I'll have to tell them that! With any luck they won't take it as an insult and just realize what I'm saying is right! I'll be a hero!"

[Rust]

Originally Posted by whocares

Lol what fallacies? The article just kept saying it's a "fallacy" without saying how they're fallacies without sources to back it up. If that's the best the author can come up with, that's a terrible MD and a terrible "argument". It's just a baseless rant and it doesn't prove anything.

What do you mean what fallacies? They pointed them out in the article. There's a whole fucking section called fallacies where they go over how fallacious it is to use the statistics without painting the actual picture. There is no source you are going to find that merits being posted there. Just as there is no source I need to cite when responding to someone saying 4 > 1 even those that is illogical just the same.


But since we both know you're a moron who hasn't read an actual article in his life and is just harping on something because you think it will make you look good to attack both sides as the same time, I'll go ahead and not only provide the references that Ate's video mentions (and which you were so stupidly impressed by), but show how they are misleading (or how they are used by the video is misleading):



Claim:
290 people a day are killed by FDA approved drugs. They cite JAMA Vol 284. No. 4.


Facts:
First note how they don't actually give the name of the study. Why not? The title of the study is the first thing you look at and you search for when looking for the reference (that and the authors and year), so why not provide it? Well it probably has something to do with the fact that the title of the article will immediately let you know what the article talks about, and it isn't the anti-medical establishment bullshit they are trying to make it seem:


"Is US Health Really the Best in the World?". Barbara Starfield. 2000.
JAMA. 2000;284(4):483-485
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192908

That article isn't about attacking medicine, or "Big-Pharma" or the horeshit it's being used for in the video. It's about questioning the efficacy of U.S. healthcare, and goes on to talk about availability and income inequality as explanations. More importantly, that article isn't the actual source of the statistic; it just repeats it. The actual source of the statistic is this article:

Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.
JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200-1205.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=187436

They find that 10,6000 of patients had fatal ADRs (i.re. "Adverse Drug Reactions"). An adverse drug reaction is "any noxious, unintended, and undesired effect of a drug, which occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy.

That would include, therefore, patients that have an allergic reaction to a drug. In fact, almost 25% of all the ADR cases where found to be due to allergic reactions in eight of the studies analyzed:

"Eight ADRIn articles included the proportion of type A (dose-dependent ADRs) and type B (idiosyncratic and/or allergic ADRs). Of the "all severities" ADRIn, 76.2% (95% CI, 71.0%-81.4%) were type A reactions and 23.8% (95% CI, 18.6%-29.0%) were type B reactions."

This is very different than the ridiculous "Big-Pharma is the leading cause of death" bullshit that the video is trying to peddle.



Claim:
738,936 people die each year from the medical system. They cite "Death by Medicine" By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MDebora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD


Facts:

The article estimates a total of 783,936 "iatrogenic deaths" a year (which basically deaths caused by a doctor unintentionally).

www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf


Let's ignore the fact that nobody has ever claimed that hospitals don't make mistakes or the Medicine is perfect, and that we expect there to be inadvertent deaths in Hospitals, let's focus on how they got that figure.


Table 1 shows the sources of the deaths, which they obtained from different studies. The problem? There is no guarantee in that article that the figures provided by those sources are unique and don't overlap. In fact, we expect that they do. For example, they include "surgery-related" deaths, and another figure for "medical error". Those aren't distinct categories. We expect surgery-related deaths to overlap with deaths caused by medical error. The same is true of other categories in the table. Taking numbers reported by different studies and adding them together with no concern of overlap doesn't paint an accurate picture of the mortality.


Furthermore, just like the article I had posted mentions, the figures are also based on extrapolations. For example, the number given for "unnecessary surgical procedures" is actually an extrapolation based on two different figures from more than 3 whole decades old:

"Using the 1974 House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations' figure of 17.6% as the percentage of unnecessary surgical procedures, and extrapolating from the death rate in 1974, produces nearly 7.5 million (7,489,718) unnecessary procedures and a death rate of 37,136" (Page 11 of the PDF).

[moron]

Originally Posted by Figure-8

160,000 death from side effects

106,000 you hyperbolic fuck

[Lillypad]

Originally Posted by whocares

Lol what fallacies? The article just kept saying it's a "fallacy" without saying how they're fallacies without sources to back it up. If that's the best the author can come up with, that's a terrible MD and a terrible "argument". It's just a baseless rant and it doesn't prove anything.

You lost this argument now you look like an idiot

[shotse]

This is a simple statistical complication. You are looking at two completely different data sets. This is like comparing old people driving (65+) to drivers who are 18 (teenagers). Obviously there's going to be more car crashes with the old people because there is more people in that data set compared to the teenagers data set. This is exactly applicable to your stupid video because there are more deaths for medical reasons than gun related or another other related death because more people are involved and use medical support compared to using guns or being around them. Your statistical findings are totally off and I would be more than happy to prove it to you scientifically, you dumb ass.

[Cytosine]

Originally Posted by shotse

This is a simple statistical complication. You are looking at two completely different data sets. This is like comparing old people driving (65+) to drivers who are 18 (teenagers). Obviously there's going to be more car crashes with the old people because there is more people in that data set compared to the teenagers data set. This is exactly applicable to your stupid video because there are more deaths for medical reasons than gun related or another other related death because more people are involved and use medical support compared to using guns or being around them. Your statistical findings are totally off and I would be more than happy to prove it to you scientifically, you dumb ass.

Too much logic. Ate's too stoned to understand that.

"Medicine bad, fairies good."

[Trix Are For Kids]

Medicine is a business. What kind of sense would it make for the people who work at the business to practice in ANY way that would lose them money?

They neither want to kill people, nor do they want them to live without health problems.

Here's a couple little analogies for you: Giving the best treatment available is like if a logger advocated hemp paper; great idea for everybody else, stupid for him because his cash flow would be cut off. Killing patients off is like a trust fund kid thinking about offing their dad, knowing full well that the step mom gets the cash. Maybe they don't care about their dad at all, but also stupid for them because the cash flow is shut off.

Both parties have nothing to gain.

That's the medical industry in a nutshell. No they don't want you to die. No they don't want you to live well. If they wanted you to die they wouldn't keep you alive at all, if they wanted you alive they wouldn't give you expensive second-rate treatment.

If it just doesn't make sense, you were either lied to or not told the whole truth.

Edit: And speaking from experience, as somebody who has spent his fair share in medical facilities, doctors have no opinion about you at all. They care about the money; if you have that then they'll have you.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Trix Are For Kids

That's the medical industry in a nutshell. No they don't want you to die. No they don't want you to live well. If they wanted you to die they wouldn't keep you alive at all, if they wanted you alive they wouldn't give you expensive second-rate treatment.

You do realize that "the medical industry" has guaranteed cash flow regardless of whether you live well or not, right? This isn't the age of Zen, Peak Eugenics and Immortality.

[Fox Paws]

Figure-8

Stopped reading right there

[Ethan]

Big Medicine is a soulless machine created incidentally. Its primary function is producing revenue, not saving people. This is old news. My sources are fuck you, this shit is obvious.

[Figure-8]

Haha. That's a bit of reality for you.

Now here's 10 million people.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Figure-8

Haha. That's a bit of reality for you.

Emphasis on *bit*. Not anywhere close to representative of the entire picture.

[Figure-8]

Right. It's not about money in the larger scale.

[Sir Cornwell]

Making profit is good, if people die it's just too bad.

Graham’s data indicate that 140,000 Americans suffered Vioxx-induced heart attacks and strokes; 55,000 died, and many more were permanently disabled. The Merck executives’ real crime was conspiracy to commit murder.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/...r-mass-murder/

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by Figure-8

Haha. That's a bit of reality for you.

Now here's 10 million people.

Non sequitur

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Figure-8

Right. It's not about money in the larger scale.

Not all about money, no. And again, that's money in only a small part of the bigger picture. Loot of money, sure, but it doesn't change that.

[Mirana]

welcome to the real world. My dad's on 3-4 medications at a time, he gets new ones weekly or monthly cause the other ones give side effects. I tried talking to him but he doesn't listen/understand. And just calls me a hippy for telling him the truth.

This is the people they are targeting. Old fashioned, simple minded hard working generations. Keep them sick when they're not sick so they can prescribe you a new medication.

And for the kids, well don't worry. We got kiddy crack like amphetamines and morphine to keep you smiling.

I can keep writing forever

Just really hope when I'm old, society will start learning to put people before profits.

[Sir Cornwell]

Doctors don't wear white for cleanliness.

They do it to appear "good".

[whocares]

Originally Posted by Sir Cornwell

Doctors don't wear white for cleanliness.

They do it to appear "good".

Bullshit, they dress white because they like coke.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Sir Cornwell

Doctors don't wear white for cleanliness.

They do it to appear "good".

http://voices.yahoo.com/why-doctors-...-11274736.html

All that needs to be said, really.

[The Pat-Man]

lets turn this into a "talk shit about capitalist healthcare thread" shall we?


my uncle got metastatic lung cancer, which is basically a death sentence. instead of chemo he flew his happy ass to china for some photodynamic light therapy, which has been proven and tested in both china and russia as more effective than the side effect packed chemo or the radiation, which just gives you cancer later. only reason doctors dont use it here is because its hilariously cheap (basically just the hospital buying the machine), and it doesnt require other medications for side effects.

he lived ten more years and had a heart attack lol.

[Rust]

^ Except, of course, that photodynamic therapy is used in the U.S., Canada, and pretty much everywhere else that can afford it. If he had to fly to China, it's not because it wasn't offered "here". It was probably because his cancer wasn't the type that can be treated by PDT, and went to China to get it treatment for a cancer that PDT isn't meant to treat.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

^ Except, of course, that photodynamic therapy is used in the U.S., Canada, and pretty much everywhere else that can afford it. If he had to fly to China, it's not because it wasn't offered "here". It was probably because his cancer wasn't the type that can be treated by PDT, and went to China to get it treatment for a cancer that PDT isn't meant to treat.

It obviously wasn't offered to him here or he wouldn't have had to fly to China to get the treatment that cured him.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

It obviously wasn't offered to him here or he wouldn't have had to fly to China to get the treatment that cured him.

Or he was told that it doesn't treat the cancer he has, and he stubbornly decided to ignore their medical advice. PDT works for cancers that are on the surface or close to the surface. It requires light to penetrate the skin.

Or Pat-Man made it up.

The point is, PDT is in fact offered as a treatment in the U.S., Canada, and pretty much everywhere else in the Western world. That's a fact that your awful trolling isn't going to make disappear.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Or he was told that it doesn't treat the cancer he has, and he stubbornly decided to ignore their medical advice. PDT works for cancers that are on the surface or close to the surface. It requires light to penetrate the skin.

Or Pat-Man made it up.

The point is, PDT is in fact offered as a treatment in the U.S., Canada, and pretty much everywhere else in the Western world. That's a fact that your awful trolling isn't going to make disappear.

He ignored the medical advice and got his cancer cured for doing just that.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

He ignored the medical advice and got his cancer cured for doing just that.

Cancer cured? Where did you get that bullshit from? That's right, nowhere. Even if we believe Pat-Man, and I have no reason to think he has all the facts straight, you still can't say whether he was cured or not. You can live years with cancer.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Cancer cured? Where did you get that bullshit from? That's right, nowhere. Even if we believe Pat-Man, and I have no reason to think he has all the facts straight, you still can't say whether he was cured or not. You can live years with cancer.

Whatever, Rust.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Bullshit. First of all it doesn't say anything about "theirs our wrong, ours are right". It points out that the numbers are wrong in that they are based on extrapolations and not on actual figures, where as the people making the allegations pass them off as actual figures. It then says that when the numbers are accurate, they are still misleading and goes on to show how they can be misleading.

You're a twat.

"Most of their numbers are wrong. They are based on extrapolations. Even when they are more or less accurate they are misleading."

That's from your blog. Where are his statistics to back up this absurd claim?

That's right, there are no statistics to back up any of his claims and he's just going on a rant against hippie science. I don't know how you can't see this...

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

You're a twat.

"Most of their numbers are wrong. They are based on extrapolations. Even when they are more or less accurate they are misleading."

That's from your blog. Where are his statistics to back up this absurd claim?

That's right, there are no statistics to back up any of his claims and he's just going on a rant against hippie science. I don't know how you can't see this...

Yeah, I already acknowledged that the article did not support the allegation that the numbers are based on extrapolations with a source. I pointed out how it was a tiny portion of the overall article.

Finally, I already posted evidence of the extrapolation. Pay attention.

[The Pat-Man]

it was experimental deep photodynamic therapy, which is not being studied here. they stuck a tube down his trachea and exposed it from the inside.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by The Pat-Man

lets turn this into a "talk shit about capitalist healthcare thread" shall we?


my uncle got metastatic lung cancer, which is basically a death sentence. instead of chemo he flew his happy ass to china for some photodynamic light therapy, which has been proven and tested in both china and russia as more effective than the side effect packed chemo or the radiation, which just gives you cancer later. only reason doctors dont use it here is because its hilariously cheap (basically just the hospital buying the machine), and it doesnt require other medications for side effects.

he lived ten more years and had a heart attack lol.

Maybe your uncle should have flown to any one of a number of hospitals that offer it here in the US, such as: Jefferson University Hospital, the Josephine Ford Institute in Michigan, the Cancer Care Center of Wisconsin, or any of a number of other fine institutions here in the USA that offer that service.

But that would actually require him to acknowledge that this shit is available in the USA, and not being secretly suppressed by some Mafiapharmaceutillinati Cartel Conspiracy that owns every last facet of the medical industry in the USA.

The reason doctors don't use it as freely as you think it should be is because it is extremely limited in effectiveness. It's not only not a cancer cure-all, but it simply can't be used to the best effect. If it were, the technology to do so would be no doubt be patented, and you'd be paying out the ass for it.