Consequences/Concerns of LA Fires

[Loyal Coug1]

And the earth was super hot 3.5 billion years ago.

Y'all keep missing the point...seemingly intentionally. Human factors are CONTRIBUTING (like never before to this extent) to the increased temps. No one disputes past cycles of warming and cooling. And no one who is reputable is claiming its the sole cause. We are the accelerant at most.

Aside from all that, even if was zero from humans...should we just continue to not make preparations for the coming likely climate crisis and all that is associated with that?

Actually I think our feckless future (4 days away now) leader IS preparing. Why else would he covet Greenland? It will be a perfect place for Americans to move to once global warming really hits hard. Canada as well for that matter. Genius.

Take off to the Great White (and soon to be green) North, hosers.

mckenzie brothers - Search Videos

www.bing.com

mckenzie brothers - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Coug90]

And the earth was super hot 3.5 billion years ago.

Y'all keep missing the point...seemingly intentionally. Human factors are CONTRIBUTING (like never before to this extent) to the increased temps. No one disputes past cycles of warming and cooling. And no one who is reputable is claiming its the sole cause. We are the accelerant at most.

Aside from all that, even if was zero from humans...should we just continue to not make preparations for the coming likely climate crisis and all that is associated with that?

The idea of “saving the earth” is funny. The earth will be fine, it will eject us and heal.

People need to ask themselves if they are good being wiped out in miserable fashion whether that’s in our lifetime (probably not) or is it your great grandkids being exposed to a global famine.

 

[Stretch 74]

And the earth was super hot 3.5 billion years ago.

Y'all keep missing the point...seemingly intentionally. Human factors are CONTRIBUTING (like never before to this extent) to the increased temps. No one disputes past cycles of warming and cooling. And no one who is reputable is claiming its the sole cause. We are the accelerant at most.

Aside from all that, even if was zero from humans...should we just continue to not make preparations for the coming likely climate crisis and all that is associated with that?

No, we actually do NOT keep missing the point. We understand that humans can have a contribution to a warming climate. Most likely a small contribution.

I submit that it is the zealots of the climate change religion that do not accept/admit/understand that there are likely factors much greater than humans that affect, even control, the global climate.

Over and over humans think that they can control Mother Nature and time and time again Mother Nature kicks our ass.

 

[Coug90]

No, we actually do NOT keep missing the point. We understand that humans can have a contribution to a warming climate. Most likely a small contribution.

I submit that it is the zealots of the climate change religion that do not accept/admit/understand that there are likely factors much greater than humans that affect, even control, the global climate.

Over and over humans think that they can control Mother Nature and time and time again Mother Nature kicks our ass.

I dunno, we pump millions of barrels of oil a day, think we’re doing a pretty good job of controlling Mother Nature. She eventually gets pissed off and fights back though. Different perspective.

 

[Stretch 74]

I dunno, we pump millions of barrels of oil a day, think we’re doing a pretty good job of controlling Mother Nature. She eventually gets pissed off and fights back though. Different perspective.

That isn't controlling Mother Nature, it is simple taking advantage of one of her benefits.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

It’s like he’s talking directly to Uber

View embedded media

sweet, Burr is in the Walden camp of "if you've never done it you're not entitled to an opinion", I. spite of a person's eyes and brain telling them something g is deperately wrong with what they're seeing.

 

[CougEd]

That isn't controlling Mother Nature, it is simple taking advantage of one of her benefits.

Stretch ... just out of curiosity, if there are 1000 scientists whose career is studykng global warming, the cause and effect, and also man's participation, are they split like 55/45 that man's participation has a big impact vs those who believe this is a course of nature. Is the data pretty split on eaxh side of the discussion ?

 

[UberCougars]

The more you know…

This video is from 1961

 

[Stretch 74]

Stretch ... just out of curiosity, if there are 1000 scientists whose career is studykng global warming, the cause and effect, and also man's participation, are they split like 55/45 that man's participation has a big impact vs those who believe this is a course of nature. Is the data pretty split on eaxh side of the discussion ?

Obviously not. However that does not automatically mean that they are correct. Remember two things:
1. Way back when, pretty darn close to 100% of the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat.
2. Science is not ruled by consensus.

 

[CougEd]

Obviously not. However that does not automatically mean that they are correct. Remember two things:
1. Way back when, pretty darn close to 100% of the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat.
2. Science is not ruled by consensus.

So what is the percentage of scientists that have it wrong in your opinion .

And what happens in the slim chance you are wrong ?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Obviously not. However that does not automatically mean that they are correct. Remember two things:
1. Way back when, pretty darn close to 100% of the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat.
2. Science is not ruled by consensus.

So what is the percentage of scientists that have it wrong in your opinion .

And what happens in the slim chance you are wrong ?

Would you guys just stop? Global warming will not be proven or disproven on this site no matter how many posts you two make.

 

[UberCougars]

Obviously not. However that does not automatically mean that they are correct. Remember two things:
1. Way back when, pretty darn close to 100% of the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat.
2. Science is not ruled by consensus.

That isn’t what Obama says. I can find dozens of videos of him saying it for you if you’d like.

 

[Stretch 74]

So what is the percentage of scientists that have it wrong in your opinion .

And what happens in the slim chance you are wrong ?

1. I am NEVER wrong. But it will likely be after I am dead and burned up before it is ever confirmed.

2. What, in your opinion, is the percentage of scientists that bias their research in order to obtain grants to do further research?

 

[Stretch 74]

Would you guys just stop? Global warming will not be proven or disproven on this site no matter how many posts you two make.

Will you please stop peeking in the steamy window as we are making out in the back seat at the drive-in? Leave us alone!

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

1. I am NEVER wrong. But it will likely be after I am dead and burned up before it is ever confirmed.

2. What, in your opinion, is the percentage of scientists that bias their research in order to obtain grants to do further research?

This right here IS conspiracy thinking. You believe that a vast majority of researchers in this field are collaborating to fix the science to their pocketbook. That is conspiratorial and you have no basis to support that OTHER than your idealogy-which is driving your viewpoint.

And correct...acience isn't "ruled" by consensus. Consensus comes about thru data and evidence...evidence that is supportive or hypotheses. "Consensus" follows the data and evidence.

Your side gathers no evidence, makes no hypotheses, and publishes nothing to support a counter-claim to the rationally arrived at consensus. If you have something to share please do so now.

 

[UberCougars]

1. I am NEVER wrong. But it will likely be after I am dead and burned up before it is ever confirmed.

2. What, in your opinion, is the percentage of scientists that bias their research in order to obtain grants to do further research?

💯

 

[UberCougars]

Stretch ... just out of curiosity, if there are 1000 scientists whose career is studykng global warming, the cause and effect, and also man's participation, are they split like 55/45 that man's participation has a big impact vs those who believe this is a course of nature. Is the data pretty split on eaxh side of the discussion ?

It’s hard:

Here's a comparison of total carbon output for the top 10 carbon-emitting countries, along with an indication of whether their carbon output has been increasing or decreasing based on recent data:

### Top 10 Carbon Emitting Countries by Total Carbon Output:

1. **China**:
- **Total Emissions**: Approximately 11-12.6 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Increasing**. Despite pledges for cleaner energy, China's emissions have been on an upward trajectory, with industrial and power generation activities being major contributors. However, recent years have shown some stabilization or slight decrease due to policy changes and renewable energy investments.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)[](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)

2. **United States**:
- **Total Emissions**: Roughly 4.5-5.1 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Decreasing**. The U.S. has experienced a reduction in emissions, thanks to a shift towards natural gas, renewable energy, and efficiency improvements, although there have been fluctuations.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022)

3. **India**:
- **Total Emissions**: About 2.7-3.1 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Increasing**. India's emissions are growing due to rapid industrial growth, urbanization, and increased energy demand, predominantly from coal.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)[](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)

4. **Russia**:
- **Total Emissions**: Approximately 1.7-2.2 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Slightly Increasing**. While there have been fluctuations, overall emissions have seen a slight increase, with energy production being a significant factor.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)

5. **Japan**:
- **Total Emissions**: Around 1-1.1 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Stable to Decreasing**. Japan has had a relatively stable output, with some decreases attributed to energy efficiency and a shift towards renewables, though there are challenges due to nuclear energy phase-out.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)

6. **Indonesia**:
- **Total Emissions**: About 0.7-0.9 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Increasing**. With deforestation and coal power expansion, Indonesia's emissions have been on an upward trend.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)

7. **Iran**:
- **Total Emissions**: Roughly 0.7-0.9 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Increasing**. Due to oil and gas production, Iran's emissions have been increasing, though economic sanctions might influence this.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)

8. **Germany**:
- **Total Emissions**: Approximately 0.6-0.7 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Decreasing**. Germany has been reducing emissions through coal phase-out and increasing renewable energy use, though the pace has varied.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)

9. **South Korea**:
- **Total Emissions**: Around 0.6-0.7 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Increasing**. With industrial growth and reliance on coal and gas for energy, emissions are generally increasing.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)

10. **Saudi Arabia**:
- **Total Emissions**: About 0.6-0.7 Gt CO₂ per year.
- **Trend**: **Stable to Increasing**. Given its role in oil production, emissions are significant and have been stable or slightly increasing.[](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)[](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/)

**Notes:**
- The trends are based on recent data and general patterns but can change with new policies, economic conditions, or technological advancements.
- The emissions data provided are from sources like the International Energy Agency (IEA), various web resources, and posts on X, which might have slight variations year by year or due to different methodologies in calculating emissions.
- These trends can be influenced by short-term factors like economic downturns, policy changes, or global events such as pandemics, which can cause temporary decreases in emissions.

 

[UberCougars]

This right here IS conspiracy thinking. You believe that a vast majority of researchers in this field are collaborating to fix the science to their pocketbook. That is conspiratorial and you have no basis to support that OTHER than your idealogy-which is driving your viewpoint.

And correct...acience isn't "ruled" by consensus. Consensus comes about thru data and evidence...evidence that is supportive or hypotheses. "Consensus" follows the data and evidence.

Your side gathers no evidence, makes no hypotheses, and publishes nothing to support a counter-claim to the rationally arrived at consensus. If you have something to share please do so now.

!

 

[95coug]

This right here IS conspiracy thinking. You believe that a vast majority of researchers in this field are collaborating to fix the science to their pocketbook. That is conspiratorial and you have no basis to support that OTHER than your idealogy-which is driving your viewpoint.

And correct...acience isn't "ruled" by consensus. Consensus comes about thru data and evidence...evidence that is supportive or hypotheses. "Consensus" follows the data and evidence.

Your side gathers no evidence, makes no hypotheses, and publishes nothing to support a counter-claim to the rationally arrived at consensus. If you have something to share please do so now.

Wait….you mean this isn’t evidence and research?

There have been almost 800M cases of COVID reported to WHO.
As many as 1 in 20 people took hydrochloroquine or ivermectin for Covid. Most of them lived.
So, hydrochloroquine and ivermectin cure Covid.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Wait….you mean this isn’t evidence and research?

There have been almost 800M cases of COVID reported to WHO.
As many as 1 in 20 people took hydrochloroquine or ivermectin for Covid. Most of them lived.
So, hydrochloroquine and ivermectin cure Covid.

Not just cures covid for ivermectin, but also cures cancer according to Mel Gibson as platformed on the gullible Joe Rogan podcast.

 

[Stretch 74]

This right here IS conspiracy thinking. You believe that a vast majority of researchers in this field are collaborating to fix the science to their pocketbook. That is conspiratorial and you have no basis to support that OTHER than your idealogy-which is driving your viewpoint.

And correct...acience isn't "ruled" by consensus. Consensus comes about thru data and evidence...evidence that is supportive or hypotheses. "Consensus" follows the data and evidence.

Your side gathers no evidence, makes no hypotheses, and publishes nothing to support a counter-claim to the rationally arrived at consensus. If you have something to share please do so now.

Is there anything out there that proves 100% absolutely, with certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt that humans are the cause of climate change, not that humans are simply one of several reasons why the climate is changing? I haven't seen it, yet politicians and media types and message board posters spout off that humans are 100% the cause of global warming/climate change.

If climate science is so definitive, why is it so often wrong? Why are polar bears flourishing? Why isn't the Artic Sea all ice free by now as forecasted? Why did I recently see an article discussing the actual growth of Antarctic ice? Why does the IPCC constantly have to revise its forecasts and data?



It isn't worth wasting a lot of time on, but I will just through a couple links out there.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

97%???

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

Some folks changed their minds

<b>Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics</b>

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made...

www.epw.senate.gov

 

[CougEd]

Would you guys just stop? Global warming will not be proven or disproven on this site no matter how many posts you two make.

Jesus Christ nanny... only post on the subject, just curious . You think I have the skills to change Stretch's mind?

 

[Stretch 74]

Wait….you mean this isn’t evidence and research?

There have been almost 800M cases of COVID reported to WHO.
As many as 1 in 20 people took hydrochloroquine or ivermectin for Covid. Most of them lived.
So, hydrochloroquine and ivermectin cure Covid.

Do those two things actually "Cure Covid" or do they simply treat the symptoms, easing them and make it easier to survive the virus?

 

[Observer11]

Not just cures covid for ivermectin, but also cures cancer according to Mel Gibson as platformed on the gullible Joe Rogan podcast.

Ozempic supposedly treated diabetes too until a new revenue stream for weight loss was uncovered.

Of course ivermectin doesn't cure cancer. There's no margin in it.

 

[95coug]

Is there anything out there that proves 100% absolutely, with certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt that humans are the cause of climate change, not that humans are simply one of several reasons why the climate is changing? I haven't seen it, yet politicians and media types and message board posters spout off that humans are 100% the cause of global warming/climate change.

If climate science is so definitive, why is it so often wrong? Why are polar bears flourishing? Why isn't the Artic Sea all ice free by now as forecasted? Why did I recently see an article discussing the actual growth of Antarctic ice? Why does the IPCC constantly have to revise its forecasts and data?



It isn't worth wasting a lot of time on, but I will just through a couple links out there.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

97%???

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

Some folks changed their minds

<b>Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics</b>

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made...

www.epw.senate.gov

There’s a fundamental problem with this question. Science provides probabilities and likelihoods - not “100% absolutely, with certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt” answers. Doing that closes the door to future discovery, which isn’t scientific at all.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Is there anything out there that proves 100% absolutely, with certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt that humans are the cause of climate change, not that humans are simply one of several reasons why the climate is changing? I haven't seen it, yet politicians and media types and message board posters spout off that humans are 100% the cause of global warming/climate change.

If climate science is so definitive, why is it so often wrong? Why are polar bears flourishing? Why isn't the Artic Sea all ice free by now as forecasted? Why did I recently see an article discussing the actual growth of Antarctic ice? Why does the IPCC constantly have to revise its forecasts and data?



It isn't worth wasting a lot of time on, but I will just through a couple links out there.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

97%???

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

Some folks changed their minds

<b>Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics</b>

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made...

www.epw.senate.gov

Scientific literacy is important. I call out your strawman argument that science only works if it can claim 100% certainty. That is something science never does. So the answer to your question is "no, there isn't "

Your arguments are not with me. Your arguments are with climate scientists. Go convince them. Go tell them your conspiracies. Good luck. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Ozempic supposedly treated diabetes too until a new revenue stream for weight loss was uncovered.

Of course ivermectin doesn't cure cancer. There's no margin in it.

You foolishly are believing there is no money being made in these alternative treatment markets.

Ivermectin came from "big pharma" and loons like RFK Jr. and his other cohorts at front line doctors are making very good money touting nonesense claims which aren't supported by any good studies.

 

[Observer11]

You foolishly are believing there is no money being made in these alternative treatment markets.

Ivermectin came from "big pharma" and loons like RFK Jr. and his other cohorts at front line doctors are making very good money touting nonesense claims which aren't supported by any good studies.

Like the Covid vaccine "studies".

 

[Stretch 74]

There’s a fundamental problem with this question. Science provides probabilities and likelihoods - not “100% absolutely, with certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt” answers. Doing that closes the door to future discovery, which isn’t scientific at all.

Then why are so many folks so vehemently denying that there is any chance that global warming is not 100% or primarily caused by humans? Instead of acknowledgement that there exists some reasons to question that, the person that is skeptical must be demeaned, made fun of and labeled as a "DENIER!". Why, are they frightened that they could be wrong? Scared of the possibility?

If somewhere down the line it turns out that I am absolutely wrong to be skeptical, to question things, or if it turns out that I am 100% right to question the effect of humans on the planet, it won't affect me one way or the other. I have been right before on things, and I have been wrong before on things, and it is damn good bet that I will be right and wrong in the future. So be it, my life will go on until the heart stops pumping, hopefully many years from now.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Like the Covid vaccine "studies".

Care to be a little more specific? Can you?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Then why are so many folks so vehemently denying that there is any chance that global warming is not 100% or primarily caused by humans? Instead of acknowledgement that there exists some reasons to question that, the person that is skeptical must be demeaned, made fun of and labeled as a "DENIER!". Why, are they frightened that they could be wrong? Scared of the possibility?

If somewhere down the line it turns out that I am absolutely wrong to be skeptical, to question things, or if it turns out that I am 100% right to question the effect of humans on the planet, it won't affect me one way or the other. I have been right before on things, and I have been wrong before on things, and it is damn good bet that I will be right and wrong in the future. So be it, my life will go on until the heart stops pumping, hopefully many years from now.

Who are these people? Who are these researchers and scientists saying absolutely 100%? Are you confusing public communicators with scientists.

It's another strawman. No one is frightened they could be wrong. If anything they're frustrated with the lack of scientific understanding on your side.

Let's simplify. You say your skeptical. Of what? Warming? Our contribution to that? The amount?

 

[95coug]

Then why are so many folks so vehemently denying that there is any chance that global warming is not 100% or primarily caused by humans? Instead of acknowledgement that there exists some reasons to question that, the person that is skeptical must be demeaned, made fun of and labeled as a "DENIER!". Why, are they frightened that they could be wrong? Scared of the possibility?

If somewhere down the line it turns out that I am absolutely wrong to be skeptical, to question things, or if it turns out that I am 100% right to question the effect of humans on the planet, it won't affect me one way or the other. I have been right before on things, and I have been wrong before on things, and it is damn good bet that I will be right and wrong in the future. So be it, my life will go on until the heart stops pumping, hopefully many years from now.

Same reason people ridiculed Copernicus, Aristotle, Lister, and Bretz. They internalize a theory and decide that it’s 100% true, and shut themselves off to other possibilities. This happens most often with lay people (and politicians, and historically, clerics), but scientists can be guilty of it too. It also happens in both directions, which is how we end up with people who claim that vaccines don’t work and want fluoride out of drinking water.

Skepticism is actually a good thing, and it what drive scientific progress. But the line between skepticism and denial is thin…and when one says they need 100% proof of something, that’s crossed the line.

The weight of evidence currently suggests that human activity has impacted the atmosphere and in turn, the climate. How significant that impact is is under debate, and the complexity and scale of the system mean that it’s not very likely we’ll ever be able to develop any research that can be more convincing than what we already have.

I do think someone could generate some much more clear evidence that deforestation is a bigger enemy than gas engines are….but that’s not where the money is.

 

[95coug]

You foolishly are believing there is no money being made in these alternative treatment markets.

Ivermectin came from "big pharma" and loons like RFK Jr. and his other cohorts at front line doctors are making very good money touting nonesense claims which aren't supported by any good studies.

There’s no incentive to cure cancer. There’s much more money to be made in treating it. Especially if people remain afraid.

There actually are studies now that suggest that there’s some benefit to ivermectin on Covid, but it’s not clear there’s impact in human patients, or at what dose, and the strongest benefit seems to be in preventing the cytokine storm that sometimes occurs in severe cases. Most studies still end with “more study is needed.”

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

There’s no incentive to cure cancer. There’s much more money to be made in treating it. Especially if people remain afraid.

There actually are studies now that suggest that there’s some benefit to ivermectin on Covid, but it’s not clear there’s impact in human patients, or at what dose, and the strongest benefit seems to be in preventing the cytokine storm that sometimes occurs in severe cases. Most studies still end with “more study is needed.”

Your personal doctor overwhelmingly is not going to keep you on medication to prolong your treatment for cancer. They want to make you better. Otherwise get another doctor. The medical care comes down to the "local" level.

This macro "they want to keep you sick" especially with regards to cancer is...well, it's pure bullshit. Taihtsat

 

[Suudy]

Obviously not. However that does not automatically mean that they are correct. Remember two things:
1. Way back when, pretty darn close to 100% of the smartest people in the world thought that the world was flat.
2. Science is not ruled by consensus.

You have to go back to almost pre-history for #1. The written evidence that “smartest people in the world” knew the earth was round way back in 500BC. In 276BC, Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the earth within 1%. For most of written history man has known the earth is round.

(Sorry, I get frustrated when the “flat earthers” get trotted out as an example of ignorance.)

 

[Suudy]

Your personal doctor overwhelmingly is not going to keep you on medication to prolong your treatment for cancer. They want to make you better. Otherwise get another doctor. The medical care comes down to the "local" level.

This macro "they want to keep you sick" especially with regards to cancer is...well, it's pure bullshit. Taihtsat

There’s a kernel of truth in 95’s statement. If you’ve listened to Econtalk, find the one with the blood cancer doctor for 3-4 years ago (Vijay Prasad?). A huge chunk of cancer research dollars are going into drugs to marginally extend life. There is the “quality adjusted life” measurement used to qualify new drugs. Say you get diagnosed with cancer and the options are 3 years with a baseline, older drug or 4 years with the latest drug, what do you think the doctor recommends or you want? And BTW, the older drug is $1000 a dose but the newer is $10000 a dose? And 2 years into treatment a new drug comes out moving the prognosis to 4.5 years, but is $15000 a dose. What does the doctor recommend?

For those patients with terminal diagnoses, the goal isn’t getting better, but getting more years, cost be damned.

Fascinating talk. Look it up.

 

[Coug90]

There’s a kernel of truth in 95’s statement. If you’ve listened to Econtalk, find the one with the blood cancer doctor for 3-4 years ago (Vijay Prasad?). A huge chunk of cancer research dollars are going into drugs to marginally extend life. There is the “quality adjusted life” measurement used to qualify new drugs. Say you get diagnosed with cancer and the options are 3 years with a baseline, older drug or 4 years with the latest drug, what do you think the doctor recommends or you want? And BTW, the older drug is $1000 a dose but the newer is $10000 a dose? And 2 years into treatment a new drug comes out moving the prognosis to 4.5 years, but is $15000 a dose. What does the doctor recommend?

For those patients with terminal diagnoses, the goal isn’t getting better, but getting more years, cost be damned.

Fascinating talk. Look it up.

I’m not completely beyond the idea of conspiracies. Certainly anytime you intertwine corporate dollars with politics like we do in this country it’s a recipe for endless conspiracies.

My problem is everything is a conspiracy to some people and every conspiracy is oh the highest degree.

Do pharma companies and their political contributions give them way too much influence? Of course.

Is a cancer cure sitting on a shelf so a pharma company can make more money on life extending drugs? No way.

 

[UberCougars]