Text 15766, 81 rader
Skriven 2007-07-05 13:55:39 av Richard Fallstrom (2237.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a cure for cancer and the energy crisis?
========================================================
In article <1183600213.472168.122380@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
lizardgirl <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 4:21 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > lizardgirl wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 8:49 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> Matt Ion wrote:
> > >>> John W. Kennedy wrote:
> > >>>> Matt Ion wrote:
> > >>>>> Wesley Struebing wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:34:52 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"
> > >>>>>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Matt Ion wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Ed wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> btw, the best thing about this potential cancer cure, it has
> > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely zero ties to the pharmaceutics industry, instead it's
> > >>>>>>>>>> all technology.
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm sorry but is this what passes as critical thinking now days.
> > >>>>>>>>> Are you
> > >>>>>>>>> claiming that pharmaceutical industry doesn't use technology???
> > >>>>>>>> Holy selective reading, Batman!  How do you get "the
> > >>>>>>>> pharmaceutical industry doesn't use technology" out of that???!
> > >>>>>>> Ummm.... because it's the only grammatically possible reading of
> > >>>>>>> the word "instead"?
> > >>>>>> ....except you're ignoring the word "all".  The implication there is
> > >>>>>> that the "cure" is all technology.  Whereas, while "evil pharms" may
> > >>>>>> use tech, they're not ALL tech.  however, that doesn't fly with the
> > >>>>>> "zero ties"... That's what disassociates pharms from tech, imho.
> > >>>>>> (amounts to the same thing as your parse, though...)
> > >>>>> Like I said... "selective reading".
> > >>>> No, the words quoted absolutely and precisely demand that the reader
> > >>>> accept that there is a dichotomy between pharmacology and
> > >>>> "technology". The fact that the idea is idiotic does not mean that it
> > >>>> isn't what the sentence (for lack of a better word -- it resembles a
> > >>>> sentence, in places) says.
> > >>> "btw, the best thing about this potential cancer cure, it has
absolutely
> > >>> zero ties to the pharmaceutics industry, instead it's all technology."
> > >>> The only possible way I can see to read that is, "it's a 100%
> > >>> technological solution, with no pharmaceuticals involved."  How you get
> > >>> that this claims the pharm industry doesn't use technology is simply
> > >>> beyond me.
> > >> Pharmaceuticals /are/ technology.
> >
> > >> But the great American consumer prefers magic, anyway.
> >
> > > oh?  explain to me the mechanism of action of the top 20 drugs
> > > available to consumers in the US.
> >
> > > i'm ok with magic  :^)
> >
> > Just try to find /one/ American pharmacy ethical enough not to carry the
> > magic-based nostrums of homeopaths and other murderers.
> 
> not the same thing.  the notion that science and 100millions dollars
> of research can completely strip a drug of its 'magic' is incorrect.
> the 'mechanism of action' of most drugs is 'unknown.'  they seem to
> work predictable but no one knows how, exactly, or why.
> 
> priming antigens with metals is a pretty nuts and bolts approach based
> on real chemistry/mocrobiology.  may take a while to get right but its
> do-able.
> 
> as for homeopaths and other murderers....there's truth in all
> things.
> 
> ethics?  is it wrong for a retail pharmacy to sell yohimbine along
> with viagra?  'natural remedies' are huge business.  crazy big and
> many a legitimate pharma's are in on it.
> 
> .......whats the latin for buyer beware?
> 
> lg
> 

Caveat Emptor

Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)