Thread: Boy Dies After Choosing Prayer Over Medicine

I'm completely ignorant about this but wouldn't it depend on the media source?

The more I return to this thread the harder and colder my heart becomes.

Originally Posted by Xei

Seems to me you were defending Jobs' decision to combat cancer with unsupported nonsense as compatible with intelligence.

Spoiler for Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?:

'Medicine'.

Why would I 'reject medical discovery'? Derp some moar.

This is malarky. If they can't patent it, they call it alternative medicine whether it works or not.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is malarky. If they can't patent it, they call it alternative medicine whether it works or not.

Interesting to note that in the US most prescriptions (69%) are generic drugs. Sales in 2007 were ~$59bn verses $228bn for branded drugs. There is a huge market for stuff that works. Even if you can't patent a drug you can still make a shitload from selling it.

Go and learn about the pharmaceutical industry before making such comments.

There is only one type of medicine that works: medicine. If homeopathy, crystal healing, or any of these bullshit 'treatments' worked, they would all be classified as medicine.

Prayer heals the heart.
Medicine heals the body.

So the boy chooses to heal the heart over the body.

I say both should come together.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Interesting to note that in the US most prescriptions (69%) are generic drugs. Sales in 2007 were ~$59bn verses $228bn for branded drugs. There is a huge market for stuff that works. Even if you can't patent a drug you can still make a shitload from selling it.

Go and learn about the pharmaceutical industry before making such comments.

There is only one type of medicine that works: medicine. If homeopathy, crystal healing, or any of these bullshit 'treatments' worked, they would all be classified as medicine.

When did I mention crystals? Nice fallacy. Funny you tell me I need to research Big Pharma more but here it seems I have to explain to you how the system works.

Generic Drugs cannot be made until the patent on the original expires. At this point, due to the funding the patented product received for clinical testing, the Generic Company has a fraction of the overhead. Because they are identical to their predecessors, Generic Drugs can skip the entire process of clinical testing and research which is what costs all the funding. Bypassing these expenses but profiting from their findings is how Generic Drugs have found a market. If you can't patent it then it never gets researched in the first place. Even if what tests have been performed work, most insurance companies won't cover alternative practices which basically covers anything that didn't come with a patent at some point and many things that did.

Would you be surprised to learn how many cancer treatments have better remission rates than chemotherapy but don't get used? Look up Aloe Arborescens.

If I had cancer I'd give money to anybody supplying a superior substance.

Would you be surprised to learn how many cancer treatments have better remission rates than chemotherapy but don't get used? Look up Aloe Arborescens.

Would you be surprised to know that that research was only conducted almost 3 years ago, so there hasn't been anywhere near enough time for such a product to pass all the trials and get on to the market? Further, typically what happens when a natural medicine is discovered is they research it to find out why it works, with the aim of figuring out the mechanism of action, so they can then make more effective treatments with reduced side effects. Do they like patentable drugs? Yes, because they can make more money out of them. But this idea that pharmaceutical companies don't make use of this stuff is asinine. It's like those conspiracy theorists who believe oil companies are suppressing free energy products.

Besides, any company could take an extract and add it to an already existing branded drug of theirs. In some cases they might even be able to patent the mixture, but even if they couldn't then they've just made an even more effective product which will gain more sales because it's more effective than their competitors' products. Clearly I need to add poor understanding of market forces to my list of accusations about you.

Funny you tell me I need to research Big Pharma more but here it seems I have to explain to you how the system works.

No you don't, and you told me nothing I didn't know. My point was A) there is an interest in providing these products and B) there is a very large market for these products.

When did I mention crystals? Nice fallacy.

You mentioned alternative medicine. I enlightened you as to what alternative medicine actually means. Your example fails spectacularly because there is research being conducted in legitimate and credible medical journals about the effectiveness of Aloe Arborescens, with evidence that it might be valuable. How the hell does that remotely qualify as "alternative medicine"? Where are these pharmaceutical companies that are labelling it as such?

If you chew willow bark for pain relief, that is medicine. Less refined, and more primitive and less effective medicine, but medicine nevertheless. There is nothing "alternative" about it, and the only time the word "alternative" is used is when a bunch of people make claims they can't back up.


Edit: I'll also note that I actually know people who work in that industry, and sometimes there is a delay in researching stuff simply because they have their hands full testing other stuff. If you knew anything about the testing process you would understand how much effort goes into this, and that ultimately there is only a finite amount that can be done at any given time.

Kudos for the patience and perseverance.

The FDA requires all generic drugs be identical to their counterparts. Adding a new active ingredient changes the formula so it can change the way it effects the body. Adding something new to a patented drug in order to bypass the patent law is illegal, known as a designer drug and can only be sold illegally. This is because it's dangerous to sell an untested product.

Furthermore, the Oil Companies are trying to suppress green technology.

Seems everything else in your post was ad hominem so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Seems everything else in your post was ad hominem so I'll leave it at that.

You're a shameful dogmatist. When was the last time you changed your mind about something?

Look who's talking

By the way I'm quite shameless about it. And in answer to your question my mind changes every moment. It is a fluid sort of thing. I am learning by arguing, not only what others have to say but also how to better articulate what I have to say. It is a process and we are all both student and teacher.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Furthermore, the Oil Companies are trying to suppress green technology.

Well, that's definitely true.

I used to have a very similar opinion to you. Because I was researching all the medicinal effects Cannabis has.
I thought the only reason it wasn't being sold now as a pharmaceutical is because it has dogma associated with it and they can't patent it.
The truth is, if it works, someone will make it, whether they can patent the compound/material or not.
And someone did, GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK patented a method for extracting the active ingredients from the plant, and they now sell it in several countries and
are working on getting it recognised in many more.

It takes about 10 years for a chemical to go from first testing phases to released product. Because it takes so long to test its effectiveness and safety.

However I know there ARE things which work, but no one will touch them, they say due to the dogma associated with them, but it's really obvious that it's just because they can't patent it, because it's already been used for different purposes for 50 years, and the patent's expired.
But that doesn't mean that they won't be manufactured for this purpose by someone, somewhere, eventually.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, that's definitely true.

I used to have a very similar opinion to you. Because I was researching all the medicinal effects Cannabis has.
I thought the only reason it wasn't being sold now as a pharmaceutical is because it has dogma associated with it and they can't patent it.
The truth is, if it works, someone will make it, whether they can patent the compound/material or not.
And someone did, GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK patented a method for extracting the active ingredients from the plant, and they now sell it in several countries and
are working on getting it recognised in many more.

It takes about 10 years for a chemical to go from first testing phases to released product. Because it takes so long to test its effectiveness and safety.

However I know there ARE things which work, but no one will touch them, they say due to the dogma associated with them, but it's really obvious that it's just because they can't patent it, because it's already been used for different purposes for 50 years, and the patent's expired.
But that doesn't mean that they won't be manufactured for this purpose by someone, somewhere, eventually.

But the truth is also that products that can make money with patents have a more lubricated ride through the testing phase. I'm not trying to imply that pharmaceutical companies hold some sort of monopoly. All I am saying is that medicine which cannot be patented is mislabeled alternative medicine by the Big Pharma PR machine.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But the truth is also that products that can make money with patents have a more lubricated ride through the testing phase. I'm not trying to imply that pharmaceutical companies hold some sort of monopoly. All I am saying is that medicine which cannot be patented is mislabeled alternative medicine by the Big Pharma PR machine.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that for the most part.
If they stand to make a shitload of money from it, they will do anything they can to get it past all the trial stages.

It's also a telltale sign when literally every person in the regulating agencies have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But the truth is also that products that can make money with patents have a more lubricated ride through the testing phase. I'm not trying to imply that pharmaceutical companies hold some sort of monopoly. All I am saying is that medicine which cannot be patented is mislabeled alternative medicine by the Big Pharma PR machine.

Photolysis just patiently dealt with this idea. Like an additional 25% of their income comes from unpatented drugs. Medicines that are genuinely cheaper and work better simply can't fail to be produced under market forces. You dismissed pretty much the whole post as an ad hominem.

Incidentally, free energy is nothing to do with green energy.

Originally Posted by Solarflare

Boy Dies After Choosing Prayer Over Medicine

Do I show any sympathies for the 16 year old...

no.

Couldn't help but notice this article is 4 years old. How did you stumble across this in the first place?

Originally Posted by Xei

Photolysis just patiently dealt with this idea. Like an additional 25% of their income comes from unpatented drugs. Medicines that are genuinely cheaper and work better simply can't fail to be produced under market forces. You dismissed pretty much the whole post as an ad hominem.

Incidentally, free energy is nothing to do with green energy.

If photolysis wanted a better response he should have included less personal attacks in his argument. Besides, that has nothing to do with my point. My point remains valid and photolysis did not say anything that contradicts it.

I love how a large majority of people believe pharmaceuticals are evil corporations suppressing medicine and solutions for cancer.

Truth is, CEOs get sick too, and no doubt one of them has a friend or family member who has died from cancer in the past. So I doubt there would be any suppression of Medicine or solutions for health related problems. In reality, what happens is researchers are paid by pharmaceuticals to research medicine, a drug or solution is created and vigorously tested in controlled laboratories, government approval for human trial, human trial takes place, government approval for mass-production, a group of financial planners assesses whether or not a "drug" or medical solution is feasible for financial gain, 9 times out of 10 it is feasible especially if it is a large medical advancement, production, sale on consumer market.

Keep in mind as well that pharmaceuticals are Oligopolies which are heavily backed by Government. An effective Government controls the spending of taxes and better medical solutions leads to a decrease in medical spending by Governments. Therefore, emphasis is usually focused on the advancement of medical technology and solutions for pharmaceuticals.
However, whether this is applicable for the United States is questionable due to private healthcare and ineffective Government.


Source: Economics Student + Personally know someone who worked for Glaxo.

Originally Posted by Xei

Look, there is really no way an intelligent decision can be made to reject conventional medicine for new age rubbish. A priori, it makes you a pillock. Stop defending stupidity.

Yes there is

The medication I was prescribed for simple stomach ulcers increased the chances of stomach cancer, how retarded is that? I did my own research and found way too many horror stories over the medication, which needed more medications to fix. Instead I turned to "new age" which told me stress was the root cause of stomach ulcers. After six months of pain, I finally sat down and meditated. I had no ulcer symptoms after.

Cancer.... The truth is the survival rate of conventional treatment isnt as high as we would like. There are stories of people taking conventional treatment and live. There are stories of people taking conventional treatment and die. Just as there are stories of vegan diets curing cancer patients, and there are stories where it doesnt work. By your logic because the vegan diet wasn't a 100% fool proof cure, well we should also toss out conventional cancer treatment by those same standards.

I really dont have anything to say concerning this tragedy, but I think the parents are suffering enough from their loss. This illness sounds painful, and Im having a hard time understanding how someone can bare with that pain and remain such a positive outlook on prayer. As for the christians criticizing this case, this goes back to the why doesnt God heal amputees? The bible maintains that faith alone heals. Christians need to ask why these prayers aren't being answered.

It doesnt make any sense to me to claim to be Christian while also simultaneously saying praying doesnt work and God aint healing you. Something is seriously wrong with that picture.

Originally Posted by Quantiq

I love how a large majority of people believe pharmaceuticals are evil corporations suppressing medicine and solutions for cancer.

Truth is, CEOs get sick too, and no doubt one of them has a friend or family member who has died from cancer in the past. So I doubt there would be any suppression of Medicine or solutions for health related problems. In reality, what happens is researchers are paid by pharmaceuticals to research medicine, a drug or solution is created and vigorously tested in controlled laboratories, government approval for human trial, human trial takes place, government approval for mass-production, a group of financial planners assesses whether or not a "drug" or medical solution is feasible for financial gain, 9 times out of 10 it is feasible especially if it is a large medical advancement, production, sale on consumer market.

Government doesn't approve medicine. There are regulatory agencies which consist entirely of people either from the pharmaceutical industry, or with direct monetary ties to the pharmaceutical industry (i.e bribes).

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some drugs don't get through approval simply because another rival company doesn't want it to.

I never said medicine which can't get patented is banned (marijuana is an exception, though) but what I was arguing was that if medicine can be patented, its testing process gets lubricated by Big Pharma and researchers are too busy working on all the crap that Big Pharma is trying to make a profit from to research medicine which cannot be patented.

Then again, you can patent an extraction process. Which is what GW Pharmaceuticals are doing for the countries where it appears medical marijuana is never going to be legalised *sigh*....

Originally Posted by juroara

Yes there is

The medication I was prescribed for simple stomach ulcers increased the chances of stomach cancer, how retarded is that? I did my own research and found way too many horror stories over the medication, which needed more medications to fix. Instead I turned to "new age" which told me stress was the root cause of stomach ulcers. After six months of pain, I finally sat down and meditated. I had no ulcer symptoms after.

This is hardly convincing evidence that new age medicine is more effective than "western medicine". Besides stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium in the gut not stress. If stress is correlated in any way with the presence of ulcers, I would imagine that the evidence would be dubious at best; considering that people who have ulcers have a disposition to be effing stressed in the first place. Where there is smoke there is fire as they say.

Originally Posted by juroara

Cancer.... The truth is the survival rate of conventional treatment isnt as high as we would like. There are stories of people taking conventional treatment and live. There are stories of people taking conventional treatment and die. Just as there are stories of vegan diets curing cancer patients, and there are stories where it doesnt work. By your logic because the vegan diet wasn't a 100% fool proof cure, well we should also toss out conventional cancer treatment by those same standards.

One reason why "the survival rate of conventional treatment isnt as high as we would like" is because cancer is a very diverse disease reflecting the diversity of cells in the human body. We have no found a cure-all method yet...there are different treatments depending on the type of cancer, the stage the cancer is in, body location, etc. What is more beneficial to mankind: investing in "alternative health" treatments and preventions or investing in the research based medicine that has been integral to the extension of human life expectancy in the past 100 years? Compare the average lifespan, in for instance Africa where some countries do not have direct access to pharmaceutical medicine with say Japan or even America and tell me their is no correlation between life expectancy and the access to western medicine?

Consult the chart


Life Expectancy, Food and Hunger, Access to Safe Water, AIDS, Population, and Human Conditions - Earth Web Site

Holistic healing or alternative medicine is dandy if that is what floats your boat but it is not a viable alternative to actual medicine.
Seriously now.