It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight Club Pub.

page: 333
40
<< 330  331  332    334  335  336 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Awww.. don't be like that, recontextualizing what I said. You know a complement was paid.




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Free to be me! (reveal)



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Awesome! Sky and I are at terms and are ready to go whenever the thread is updated.

Thank you SO MUCH to Sky for taking up the challenge as well as a big thanks to Orange Light for being willing to do it if I couldn't find anyone.

You both are great.

Ok, off to get some work done around here so the debate can have my undivided attention. Whenever you're ready to update the thread, MS, and Sky with his opening statement.

Thanks to Sky, MS, and Orange!


[edit on 1/19/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The debate thread has been updated.

Sky, you're up...



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
In the meantime, in case Chissler is unavailable at the moment, I'm still looking for a debate.

Anyone who is interested let me know…I'll take whatever debate I can work out first.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Did you have any thoughts about topics? I've been kind of holding off until the next tournament since I burn out so fast, but if an appealing topic comes along …

I don't suppose you'd be interested in stepping in for Lucid Lunacy in the debate I made him sign up for the forum for and therefore blame myself for his disappearance


The topic would be something like "Jesus' original teaching and the early church were primarily Gnostic in outlook" and he was to take pro



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Hmmm….generally I wouldn't take a religious debate unless forced to do so through a tournament, but I'll think about it.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 




Even though you'd have the heterodox side? While arguing against an agnostic? I've been trying to think of someone who might want to take that position over and I have to admit I'd completely written you off



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


With good reason….religous debates typically aren't by bag. This one is no different.

It's always good to consider any offer though.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Nyk .. do you want to reconsider the vaccine debate, or forfeit, since I can't find anyone else to pick it up?


Orange: Next Mon or Tues will be fine. You have Lucid's spot, therefore you have the pro and the opening. Let Shock or Semper know when you're ready to start so they can update the thread and open it. And TIA to whichever one of you does it.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


ok heike
i will inform one of the guys and will ponder and research about my opening



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
Nyk .. do you want to reconsider the vaccine debate, or forfeit, since I can't find anyone else to pick it up?


Funny, I was just talking to orange via u2u about doing a medical debate someday.

I wouldn't take up nyk's position, but I'd go pro-vaccination against you if we could rework the topic. Specifically, I'd want to agree in advance whether we're talking any vaccinations or all vaccinations, and also I'd want to lose or modify the word "mandatory".



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Well, I am generally anti-medical in many respects, but as a former veterinary tech I do know and appreciate the value of vaccinations. I almost lost my puppy just a few months ago because the person I got him from lied to me about whether he'd received his parvo vaccines.

I think that vaccines should be a personal decision, not mandated by law, and that was the entire premise of the debate with Nyk. I think children should able to get their "shots" if the parents want them, and for free, but I can't agree that they should be forced to get them.

On many other subjects - such as Hormone Replacement Therapy, anti-cholesterol drugs, etc. I would be delighted to take a con (anti commercial/conventional medicine) position.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Things are starting to happen...

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Medical-issue-wise, what's currently got my attention is the polarization of pro- and con- conventional medicine, and the misinformation spread by both sides. There was also an interesting article a couple months back about doctors prescribing placebo treatments and the ethics of informing patients – there might be an interesting topic in there somewhere.

I think I'd rather stay out of something like pro- or con- cholesterol-lowering drugs. For one thing, because I think the best argument is made for the middle position on most of those issues: yes, we rely too much on pharmaceutical interventions, and yes sometimes they're needed. It depends on the patient and their needs.

Another point could be the role of the patient/public in driving conventional medicine into its current "just hand over a prescription" mode. What is the responsibility of the doctor if what the patient wants is a pill but what the patient needs is a diet? If we demand a system of health care based on a model of perfect health versus disease, rather than a balance and a continuum, and demand quick fixes to get us back to health, can we really complain when that's what we get?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm lovin' it, Sky! Can't wait to get to it. Just a bit more chores, a shower, then it's on.


Heike, you shall be AVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENGED!



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


My position is that there is, actually, a conspiracy. A conspiracy to keep us alive but sick rather than healthy. For example, the specialist I saw after recovering from an episode of Bell's Palsy admitted to me that my "cure" was likely the echinacea I took when it first started because I thought it was either a head cold or a sinus/ear infection, and yet he also admitted that, had I talked to him then, he, by LAW as well as the "rules" of his profession, could not have advised me to take echinacea, or even approved of me taking it. Some doctors are "brainwashed" successfully in medical school, others actually KNOW that homeopathic and holistic remedies work but are required to advise you against taking them, and they hand out prescriptions and surgeries like candy instead of advising a healthy lifestyle, nutritious food, and stupidly simple things like not using antibiotic soaps and cleansers so that your immune system can stay healthy.

Are the patients responsible? Not really. Not any more. My doctor has no problem at all telling me what he won't or can't do because of HMO restrictions or even his own "ethics" (like, for example, give me a slightly higher dose of thyroid hormone so that I'd be able to lose weight without having to starve myself and spend at least an hour a day doing strenuous exercise). So I'm sure he would have no problem telling me "no" if I asked for an antibiotic when I have the flu (not that I'd be stupid enough to do that).

The prescription drug dealers (otherwise known as pharmaceutical companies) work hand in hand with the FDA to keep us buying drugs we don't need, and work at keeping us from getting healthy enough not to need or want those drugs. Just like the 2 or 3 potential cures for cancer which can't get FDA approval for trials because they're not patentable and therefore can't make anyone any money. Cancer TREATMENT makes huge profits, a cancer CURE would be a disaster for the health care and big pharma industries. So, we don't have one.

Oops, sorry. I must have mistaken this pedestal for a soapbox. *Heike gets into her custom lift chair and descends to the floor. But anyway, I think that medicine is great for traumas (like car accidents and broken bones) and critical emergencies like my husband's exploded appendix. But for routine care, minor illnesses, and staying healthy, they're worse than no help at all, they will actually give you - and tell you - things that will hurt you.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Heike, I can't agree with you more in regards to Doctors/Meds/Antibiotics.

I despise the doctor. I have a friend who goes EVERYTIME she has a headache, the flu, or the starting of a Cold. I've tried talking to her about dealing with colds and such naturally - but she just doesn't get it. She thinks I'm paranoid.

OH well?

I'm looking forward to your debate.

- Carrot



[edit on 1/19/2009 by CA_Orot]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
[Interrupting Rant]

Damn the 10K character limit. Damn it, I say!
Don't know what is more time consuming for me- writing and researching a debate post or narrowing it down to 10K! Brevity isn't my virtue.

[/Rant]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Maybe we could narrow that down to a topic somehow… "there is an organized conspiracy among medical professionals to keep the public diseased."

I think there's a lot of seriously unethical and even immoral behavior by pharmaceutics companies and by HMOs/insurers. I think there are a lot of bad doctors, and even more overworked doctors. But I don't think that there is an organized conspiracy reaching throughout the health care field to keep us alive but sick.

I do think there is a societal/cultural terror of death that drives us to take absurd measures to prolong life at the cost of living. And I think it's consciously fed by the media as part of their fear and drama conditioning.

I've seen you tell the story about the doctor and the echinacea before, and I can't figure out what exactly he meant – I'm pretty sure there's no legal bar to telling patients about alternative treatments as long as it's clear that they are alternative and not backed up by peer-review studies.

And I have yet to see a "cancer cure" that hasn't either been debunked or is actively in early stage research. For what it's worth, I used to work as a secretary on an oncology unit (mid-1990s) in a major teaching/research hospital. While I was there one of the nurses and one of the doctors were collaborating on a study of using Reiki in cancer treatment. They really are willing to try new things – even things with no benefit to the drug companies or medical device manufacturers.

No doubt the doctors are partly to blame for the pitiful state of medical practice in the US. Antibiotics transformed medicine and doctors bought into the idea of the magic bullet hook, line, and sinker, and then taught the public to expect magic. We need a new attitude among doctors, but we need a new attitude among patients as well. It's great (in my opinion) that your doctor would refuse to give you antibiotics for the flu – unfortunately many doctors have been worn down by the never-ending demands to take action about a problem that just requires time, and justify their misprescribing by appealing to the placebo effect.

And too many doctors have bought into the idea that they can do magic. But the attacks on them rather than on the dysfunctional medical infrastructure drive them into a corner and seem to result in an oppositional relationship between doctors and patients that actually wish to be well-informed and to participate in their treatment decisions.

(In the interest of full disclosure and in case of future debate: my father is a doctor and professor of medicine at the aforementioned teaching institution. Growing up with a doctor as a parent gives you a different take on things: we rarely saw our pediatrician between annual visits, and I've probably been on antibiotics five or six times in my life, all for ear infections. My dad is vehemently opposed to antibacterial soaps etc – except for scrubbing in to the OR – and has always practiced and preached a very minimalist medicine. He also refuses his flu shot every year
)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 330  331  332    334  335  336 >>

log in

join