That solves it everyone. Science is wrong,
How often do you order 'supplements' from sites like infowars or naturalnews? How often do you use non-sequitur personal attacks when you make yourself look like an ass by arguing against established science because you were intent on parroting some digital rag in order to confirm your bias? |
|
|
|
Are there any good pro-Trump memes that don't need to spell out the punchline?
 Happy now? P.S. This is your safe space. |
|
|
|
and the real funny think about certain people trying to be vitamin C ambassadors..
you can spot when they step over the line of trying to har to push something as a medical miracle cure
but here is a wake up call:
its does not prevent the flu
it alleviates the symptoms
there is a difference
plus. vitamin C does not prevent pneumonia. otherwise doctors would be telling people with pneumonia to just go home with a glass of orange juice and they will be ok in the morning..
.. yet.. instead people still die from it
because
vitamin C doesnt cure things or prevent things. it just alleviates the symptoms
if orange juice was such a miracle cure. then people would be forming black markets to sell orange juice at stupidly high prices.. not face masks
That solves it everyone. Science is wrong, Franky1 is right. There certainly is no incentive for the medical industry to sell everyone expensive pharmaceuticals when simple natural and unpatentable treatments are available right? I mean just look at marijuana, the government says it has zero medical value, and they would never lie to you right? |
|
|
|
No surprise about your vast intellect given that you use urban dictionary as your source knowledge.  So I should be looking in a regular dictionary for racial slurs? |
|
|
|
Owly you racist fuck, tisk tisk.. Tag yourself..
And no, before you blah blah blah about that not being racist, that is a lie..
Calling Indians Pajeets is exactly the same thing as calling Africans Niggers, Mexicans Spics, Jews Kikes, Japs Nips, etc.. etc..
To say it is not is a lie and just makes it even more racist against Indians.. I don't care what "Bitcointalk culture" is, that is just as racist as calling people Niggers...
Stop being a hypocrite and remove the stupid tag..
Wrong. You are per definition a pajeet too, and there is nothing racist about this statement. It is your problem that you do not understand it. "Pajeet A slang / racial slur for a smelly dirty curry drinking hairy Indian that poos in the loo." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PajeetI am curious why pooing in the loo is a problem, I thought that was where you are supposed to go, but maybe I am missing something. |
|
|
|
|
I have the ability to produce colloidal silver at a 10-12ppm concentration in somewhat large quantities. I use only distilled water and .9999 purity silver to produce it, nothing else. If you are reading this you are probably aware of its qualities. Does anyone have any interest in this product? PM me. USA only please.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't explicitly say orally in the abstract, I made an assumption based on what was included in the abstract.
Unless we have access to the actual study, all we can do is make assumptions based on the abstract...right? You really shouldn't play the 'he made an assumption therefore he is wrong' card if you are using only the abstract of a study to make a point. Assumptions? Very scientific. Or we could, you know not make assumptions just because they serve your little semantic distinction, we could also do that. I will take my study abstract over your bullshit articles, thanks. FYI, there are lots of studies on vitamin C treatments for a wide variety of diseases if you bothered to look for them objectively instead of just cherry picking articles which confirm your bias. I am sure feeling right is more important than learning something and potentially saving lives so you can stroke your ego though. |
|
|
|
The 'megadose' in that study is 1,000 mg hourly for the first 6 hours, of the first day, and then 3 1,000 mg doses every day after. All taken orally.
The fake news article is recommending a dosage of 4.000 mg - 16,000 mg, taken by IV.(for people with the virus) Hey look who it is, Captain Semantics here to distract from the point in order to backpedal to feel the most right about the worlds wrongs. Please quote in the abstract where it says "orally". Vitamin C is an effective treatment and prevention for viral infections. The end. |
|
|
|
as usual you should read more and gloss over less relieving symptoms. does not = preventing getting the flu itself have a nice day though its like saying if you got the sniffles where your endlessly sniffing and annoying people around you with that sniff sound due to a runny nose for 2 weeks. actually blowing your nose or if you have a mucussy throat. spitting it out instead of just coughing/swallowing will make the sniffs less apparent and the coughs less apparent and you will probably get over it in less than 2 weeks. this does not mean blowing your nose and spitting will prevent you ever getting the flu. just reduce and alleviate the severity and length of the suffering of the symptoms. "RESULTS: Overall, reported flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C. CONCLUSION: Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the symptoms in the test population compared with the control group." Just stop talking. Please. |
|
|
|
|
Bar received, it is as described. There were no further difficulties.
|
|
|
|
vitamin C does not cure or prevent corona
the point of vitamin C is that for people with weak immune systems and bad health due to vitamin deficiency, they will feel more negative effects compared to someone who is completely healthy and vitamin efficient
its like saying to help with a runny nose. use tissues so that you dont suffer from snot face
this does not mean that tissue prevent a runny nose nor prevent getting the flu. it just helps alleviate some of the negative symptoms.
another tip for corona is to stay hydrated. this does not mean water cures or prevents corona. but will alleviate symptoms
another tip for corona is to stay warm. not because heat cures or prevents corona. but can alleviate the chills people get when they get the flu
As usual, you should talk less, and read more. "The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing and relieving the symptoms of virus-induced respiratory infections." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10543583 |
|
|
|
I'm really not kidding about what I said. The absolutely least appealing to young people, physically, voice patterns, appearance, gestures... least appealing personal imaginable would be in my opinion, Sanders.
Democrats thrive by pushing the "pretty boy." Kennedy, Obama, etc etc. That would mean most Democrats are superficial and prejudiced wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Did I say you said do nothing? You seem to be worried about fraud, which happens at a much lower rate among public health insurance claims as compared to private insurance, as there is much less plundering to be done and the penalties after getting caught are much more severe. In addition, private insurers simply aren't interested in pursuing fraud because it creates unnecessary headache from which they receive no benefit. They just pass on the costs inflicted to their customers, who have no choice but to pay the higher premiums. https://www.propublica.org/article/we-asked-prosecutors-if-health-insurance-companies-care-about-fraud-they-laughed-at-usWhat I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?"
Nobody is saying that. You don't know the change will be for the worse -- you simply insist that it will because that's what you believe to be true. No, you just insinuated it. And people who don't own pools are at a significantly reduced risk of drowning. That clearly means that if the government installs pools in everyone's homes the rate of drownings will not increase. You talk about these supposedly magical laws that will stop fraud if done under the government. What is stopping similar laws being imposed on the private sector? Oh right, that magical pot of "free" health care at the end of the rainbow. |
|
|
|
~snip~
What are you trying to prove by going on this witch hunt anyways ? There is no evidence of me scamming anyone explicitly in anything you drag out here. Yes, I didn't control that account from the date of its creation but it was given to me in an personal deal I could not disclose. Yet, though I have not attempted to do anything financially risky or engage in any scamming beheviour from it. It's clear that you are just intrested in bragging me up with anything you could bring down but it reflects your anger and greed to crush someone speaking against your selective trust abuse. I KNEW IT! You ate a Payday bar back in April 3rd of 2016! These peanut fragments submitted as exhibit #2 prove it! Just wait until I start counting them!  I am so hot on your trail I can feel it! |
|
|
|
|
2 of 6 sold! Last one left!
|
|
|
|
Perhaps private insurers would bring their lobbyists along with them to help gain maximum reimbursement when legislation is written, after being converted to a public insurance plan administration company, but that's a risk that has to be taken. The dumbest option would be to do nothing out of fear of change for the worse. Did I say do nothing? This is a false choice. I'm not denying that it's possible we try it and fail miserably due to corruption or incompetence. But we gotta do something, and I think it would be silly not to learn from what has worked or not worked in other countries. What I am seeing as a repeating theme here is "Hey it could go horribly wrong, but what choice do we have but to make what is already a horrible disaster even worse?" The USA is not like any of these other nations you are comparing to, furthermore the healthcare systems of the world are heavily reliant on the fact that the US taxpayer subsidizes their expenses, mostly in the form of R&D and pharmaceuticals. The thing you are pointing out as a success is partially a result of the fact that we are paying for it here. The evidence of international success is simultaneously the evidence of failure domestically, but both partially driven by the same cause. Even assuming that there are some reforms are had, there will inevitably be a drop in the quality of care, increased dependence on the government, as well as the government deciding what kind of medical care you can have and when. Who in their right mind wants to give the government control over their bodies? I am sure that will all work out just fine. |
|
|
|
The data suggests that private insurance companies cause the overall cost of healthcare to go up.
For example, the UK has a pretty successful government run universal healthcare system. Everyone gets what's necessary to live a healthy life, funded through a payroll tax. The population overall approves of it, and they pay less in taxes than we do right now for our medicare/medicaid programs. (there might be some other programs the government funds that's included in the chart. I'm not sure)
If we had their infrastructure, you'd be paying less in health care related taxes, and your only out of pocket expenses would be dental, eye doctor, and a $8 co pay for each prescription.
It would take a long time to get there though, and we might fuck it up. But we're already paying way too much and the data is pretty clear which direction we should go in if we want to get costs down.
[img ]https://i.gyazo.com/256e63f9125679d38166f36e5f2007c6.png[/img] You aren't actually responding to what I said, you are just repeating what you think the solution is. "The data suggests" is usually something people say just before they present an appeal to authority fallacy. The current system is broken, I am not even arguing that. I am arguing your solution is not a solution at all, but something that will exacerbate the problem. Rather than just playing a game of musical chairs between public and private, perhaps the core issues should be addressed, such as the ones I directly responded to, that of fraud and general abuse. The premise that this abuse won't continue just because it will be government run is laughable, and another layer of bureaucracy is the wrong direction to go as just the mechanisms to operate that layer will eat even more into what should be going to treatment. A lot of doctors now are just dumping insurance (public or private) and going to cash only if they can. You know why that is? Because of bureaucratic bloat. Healthcare professionals spend over half of their day doing paperwork for the various calves feeding at the proverbial teet. You think government is going to fix that? Shifting the dependence of citizens from corporations to the government is not a solution, it is a profit plan insurance companies are spending COPIOUS amounts of money to make happen, and that is because they have the people writing that legislation in their pockets. This is a game of three-card monte. This is a hustle. This is a carefully marketed project designed to make people like you think there is a pot of gold over the rainbow. Real reform is tough, bloody, drawn out, and painful. There is no magical pot of free health care at the end of the rainbow. The real problems aren't being addressed, the partners in crime are just shifting responsibility from hand to hand because the heat is on, and they are under pressure to make changes, but the spice must still flow. Oh and will it ever flow. You think it is bad now? Wait until those insurance companies can take what they want at the point of the government's gun. You are being sold a bill of goods. Private healthcare is not the problem. Capitalism is not the problem. Profit is not the problem. FRAUD is the problem. Solve the problem, don't increase the complexity of the problem with more of one hand washing the other. When termites infest your house, you don't burn down the house and move in across the street, you call the exterminator. The same people accountable for the current problems are the same ones who will be administrating what you propose. That is not a solution, that is arson, and the insurance companies will be waiting in the street to sell you a fire protection package after the fact. |
|
|
|
I'm far from an expert on this stuff. But all of these countries have some form of Government run Universal Healthcare and they're able to do it for way less. I'm definitely not 100% confident that we won't find a way to fuck it up if we try, but looking at the numbers I feel kind of optimistic it might work. The fact that our insurance companies primary motivation is to make as much profit as possible has to be a major factor as to why healthcare in America costs way more than anywhere else in the world. Having worked in the health insurance industry for a number of years, I can confidently say you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence here. The greed of a lot of American hospitals and doctors is absolutely disgusting. Hospital coders are regularly encouraged to manufacture diagnoses and provided services on claim forms in order to up payouts from insurance companies by several fold. For example, a childbirth with complications could cost 5-10x that of a childbirth without complications. Hospitals can trick the system by giving the mother or newborn some diagnosis that they don't have, like hemophilia or something, and voila, instant 10x return on the insurance claim from what they should be getting. This kind of abuse is rampant. Not to mention that the insurance companies also take a big cut. This is all due to privatization of a system that shouldn't be privatized. Everybody needs healthcare at some point or another -- it should be a right, not a privilege. The potential for profiteering needs to be removed through introduction of a public option or medicare for all-type system. If insurance companies have to compete with one of these options it will force them to cut costs and behave as they will be at risk of losing healthy membership pools. Without enough healthy members, any health insurance company can go into a "death spiral," where the medical costs exceed the coverage dues. After coverage dues are increased, healthy members who don't need the insurance leave, meaning the insurance company is stuck with a smaller pool of sicker members with higher medical costs. However, if the healthy members _have_ to pay the insurance company for lack of a different option, the cycle can continue. Right now the health insurance industry is basically a cartel or oligopoly of big players that work with each other to fight against industry reform. Though obviously his vision will be heavily compromised by forces in the senate and house (that's what politics is a lot of the time -- a compromise), Bernie is attempting to overhaul an incredibly flawed and unsustainable system for the literal well-being of the country. Critics object to it outright for reasons deeply ingrained in their head that they perhaps don't even understand; so as long as they can mutter "BUT SOCIALISM!", they needn't be bothered to explain why they are against reformation. What gives you the impression that this will change when "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, and there is no one with a motive to resist these kind of wild expenditure abuses? At least in a private system, the individual and or insurance companies have incentive to raise objection when something is unduly inflated. When "the government" (taxpayer) is footing the bill, not only does the patient not concern themselves with it, the healthcare provider has even more incentive to tack on as much as possible, because good old uncle scam is there to foot the bill, and he doesn't care because he doesn't actually pay the bill. Just shifting the burden from the individual to the tax payer isn't a solution. There needs to be wider reform of the private system to push back against fraud and abuse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
