Page 24 of 58 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 579

Thread: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

  1. #231
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-10-15 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    971

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    First I'd like to say it really pisses me off that I'm basically having to do your work for you because all you did was a 2 minute search in google books without even reading them and called it your "proof." But, since I'm convinced that you have absolutely no argument to make here, I took the initiative to bury your argument before you could even make it.


    So let's see here, you give me three books the first from 1981 and the third 1993. The first is just about as ridiculous as I've ever heard. How allopathic medicine became the model? As opposed to what? Homopathy? Acupuncture? When a guy quotes Marx more then he does any actual science on a subject about scientific medicine, that's usually the first sign of someone talking out of his ass.

    The third isn't far behind, looking at "the reasons for the rise of molecular biology" in the 1920s an attempt to prove a some alternative view of biology. Give me a break, no where in the book does it actually disprove any of the current theories of biology, and instead tries to talk as if we were still in the 1960s. Skiming through the book I couldn't find any actual talk of biology in the first 60 pages, this book is more about self-promotion of the Rockefeller Foundation rather then actually containing reliable piece of information.

    The second isn't as bad as the other two, and he's making a little more of a fair argument. He seems to be criticizing how the drug business runs through the pharmaceutical and medical industry. His example is how one actually has to be diagnosed as depressed in order to get SSRI's, where are St. John's root, and herb, is available over the counter. He's basically asking why do drugs have to be sold with a prescription and run through the medical industry? Well, because that is supposed to be the point of the medical industry anyways, to make a diagnosis and follow the best course of action. He asks why are they able to patent compounds that occur naturally, to which I would say because they discovered it and researched its properties. He also criticizes how protocol forces doctors to prescribe drugs that may be less effective then advertise because drug companies don't have to release their raw data. Its a good argument to make, but it doesn't actually prove one way or the other whether chemo is worse then cancer. Nor does his argument apply across the board either, presumption of guilt isn't something to be made without hard evidence. Often enough, when a pharmaceutical company covers up a drug's side effects and/or lack of efficency, it comes out at some point or another. How do you think he got the info for his book in the first place? Asking for more transparency in the drug making process is fair, claiming that some how all drugs are inheritantly tainted because of a small number of cases is quite a stretch. And a stretch that I don't see him make.

    Oh, and by the way, I don't see anywhere that they claim that chemo is worse then cancer. The first tries to quote a social critic who thinks that medicine has made us sicker then we would've been without it (notice how he doesn't actually produce any evidence to back this up, it's just his "argument" based on his Marxian worldview.) Even IF that were true in 1981, that doesn't make it true today with the invention of thousands of breakthrough pharmacueticals such as anti-retrovirals for HIV patients, gene therapy, or stem cell treatments for just about..... well .... quite possibly anything. And still no proof on how your part, or any of your book's part, chemo is worse then cancer..... not a single scientific paper. So unless you're claiming that thousands of research papers, lab experiments, and double blind human trials done by both industry and public organizations are wrong about the effectiveness of chemotherapy vs. cancer, it seems you do not have a leg to stand on here.
    Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...

    http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

    Check out page 2

    New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
    What is this lecture about?
    Marx(ism)
    is dead !?
    “Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
    Belsey 2002
    2

    Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

    Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

    Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

    Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology. I think Marx is going to be more accepted in the future, after the anti-communism trends.



    The books were too provide a context of our medical industry..... The molecular vision of life is about how the Rockefellers bought up medical institutions to improve their image. But instead they found out they could make a lot of money in the medical field. Eugenics, genetic determinism, surface chemistry are used to control science in the educational institutions. Keeping the students from finding other facts


    The third book is about how the Rockefeller's tried to fund science in order to gain popularity among the masses. However they figured that the money made in medicine is far to much to back out. So they buy up all the institutions and put their "people" in and transform the medical culture. Genetic determinism, Eugenics, surface chemistry ( Irving Langmuir) had removed any real science from the mainstream.

    The books were not to show to hard evidence that chemo is dangerous. I was only trying to fit the books within the context of the medical control under a capitalistic ideology. The problem with competition is that it eliminates the other, which happen in this case. However Soviet Science was by far the most advance in most fields.

    Here is evidence on how the cancer treatments inflict more damage than people know.

    Treating the Treatment: Toxicity of Cancer Chemotherapy

    Many cancer chemotherapeutic agents can produce toxicity, even at the usual therapeutic doses.

    CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: what... [Radiology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

    It is imperative that radiologists be aware of these toxicities and that they learn to recognize the relevant findings so that they can provide a complete differential diagnosis and thus play an important role in patient care.

    Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    Such therapy may raise the risk of leukemia, particularly in association with certain types of adjuvant chemotherapy. Lung cancer risk is also increased, especially in cigarette smokers, and there are some indications that the risks of esophageal cancer and sarcomas may be elevated as well.

    Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    Many studies of radiation for treatment of benign diseases and a few studies of diagnostic radiation exposure have yielded much of the information on the risk for radiation-related cancer in children. Although most cancers can be induced by radiation, these studies demonstrate dose-related increased risks of cancer of the thyroid, breasts and brain, non-melanoma skin cancer, and leukemia.

    Intensive weekly chemotherapy is not effective i... [Br J Cancer. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    The outcome of this intensive chemotherapy regimen does not support its use in pancreatic cancer.

    Even Fox news has similar stories about the dangers of chemo

    Does chemotherapy do more harm than good? | Fox News Video

    Pharmageddon

    Page 52

    " Millions of people have died during this period after having radical surgery, intense radiotherapy, or intense chemotherapy."

    I think the evidence is clear, The medical institutions are owned by corporations that only have their self interest. Not really helping people, however conservatives are so pro-business they should have a new slogan....I love Chemo

    There have beed many researchers that have been dismiss for their work. Dr. Burzynski know for his antineoplaston therapy. Which corporations call psuedo-science

    Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Series
    Sometimes - history needs a push.
    Vladimir Lenin

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...

    http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

    Check out page 2

    New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
    What is this lecture about?
    Marx(ism)
    is dead !?
    “Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
    Belsey 2002
    2

    Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

    Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

    Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

    Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology. I think Marx is going to be more accepted in the future, after the anti-communism trends.



    The books were too provide a context of our medical industry..... The molecular vision of life is about how the Rockefellers bought up medical institutions to improve their image. But instead they found out they could make a lot of money in the medical field. Eugenics, genetic determinism, surface chemistry are used to control science in the educational institutions. Keeping the students from finding other facts


    The third book is about how the Rockefeller's tried to fund science in order to gain popularity among the masses. However they figured that the money made in medicine is far to much to back out. So they buy up all the institutions and put their "people" in and transform the medical culture. Genetic determinism, Eugenics, surface chemistry ( Irving Langmuir) had removed any real science from the mainstream.

    The books were not to show to hard evidence that chemo is dangerous. I was only trying to fit the books within the context of the medical control under a capitalistic ideology. The problem with competition is that it eliminates the other, which happen in this case. However Soviet Science was by far the most advance in most fields.

    Here is evidence on how the cancer treatments inflict more damage than people know.

    Treating the Treatment: Toxicity of Cancer Chemotherapy

    Many cancer chemotherapeutic agents can produce toxicity, even at the usual therapeutic doses.

    CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: what... [Radiology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

    It is imperative that radiologists be aware of these toxicities and that they learn to recognize the relevant findings so that they can provide a complete differential diagnosis and thus play an important role in patient care.

    Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    Such therapy may raise the risk of leukemia, particularly in association with certain types of adjuvant chemotherapy. Lung cancer risk is also increased, especially in cigarette smokers, and there are some indications that the risks of esophageal cancer and sarcomas may be elevated as well.

    Carcinogenic effects of radiothera... [Oncology (Williston Park). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    Many studies of radiation for treatment of benign diseases and a few studies of diagnostic radiation exposure have yielded much of the information on the risk for radiation-related cancer in children. Although most cancers can be induced by radiation, these studies demonstrate dose-related increased risks of cancer of the thyroid, breasts and brain, non-melanoma skin cancer, and leukemia.

    Intensive weekly chemotherapy is not effective i... [Br J Cancer. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

    The outcome of this intensive chemotherapy regimen does not support its use in pancreatic cancer.

    Even Fox news has similar stories about the dangers of chemo

    Does chemotherapy do more harm than good? | Fox News Video

    Pharmageddon

    Page 52

    " Millions of people have died during this period after having radical surgery, intense radiotherapy, or intense chemotherapy."

    I think the evidence is clear, The medical institutions are owned by corporations that only have their self interest. Not really helping people, however conservatives are so pro-business they should have a new slogan....I love Chemo

    There have beed many researchers that have been dismiss for their work. Dr. Burzynski know for his antineoplaston therapy. Which corporations call psuedo-science

    Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Series
    Well, your books did not do that, for the reasons I stated. Talking about Marx theory is deviating from the subject at hand, which was your claim.

    Um, yeah Chemo is dangerous. The entire point of the thing is that it is supposed to be more cytotoxic to cancer cells then human cells. Its not 100% effective all the time, but some chance is better then the inevitable death that cancer WILL bring if left untreated. So your claims that it is more dangerous than cancer are unfounded and rooted in ignorance. Its like saying millions of sick people die in a hospital, so therefore sick people shouldn't go to hospitals. Fallacious thinking, and too be honest I really wouldn't expect anything less from you at this point.

  3. #233
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-10-15 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    971

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Well, your books did not do that, for the reasons I stated. Talking about Marx theory is deviating from the subject at hand, which was your claim.

    Um, yeah Chemo is dangerous. The entire point of the thing is that it is supposed to be more cytotoxic to cancer cells then human cells. Its not 100% effective all the time, but some chance is better then the inevitable death that cancer WILL bring if left untreated. So your claims that it is more dangerous than cancer are unfounded and rooted in ignorance. Its like saying millions of sick people die in a hospital, so therefore sick people shouldn't go to hospitals. Fallacious thinking, and too be honest I really wouldn't expect anything less from you at this point.
    My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
    Sometimes - history needs a push.
    Vladimir Lenin

  4. #234
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,817
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
    My wife and I are cancer survivors. My mother and sister are cancer survivors. You are wrong, and if anyone believes your posts then you are likely to cause needless deaths.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #235
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-10-15 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    971

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    My wife and I are cancer survivors. My mother and sister are cancer survivors. You are wrong, and if anyone believes your posts then you are likely to cause needless deaths.
    I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.
    Sometimes - history needs a push.
    Vladimir Lenin

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    My claim are not out of ignorance but out of truth. I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics. Again the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, you protect them with your life just because of your political ideology. There have been safer alternatives but again, corporate interest pays off the fda to go after people like Burzynski. Let me say this again. Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money not for helping people. Just remember its business. Nothing personal......
    So where is this phantom study of yours? And that is your grand evidence, a single study that probably shows that a single chemotherapy drug didn't work for a single cancer? Get out of here, you're bull****ting no one.

    I protect no one with my life. But as someone who studies biomedicine, I know BS when I see it. First off, Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only ones involved in cancer research. Much of cancer research, and chemo research, is actually done using public resources. Do you really think that thousands upon thousands of researchers who are not employees of the a pharmaceutical company, many of whom had a friend or family member who died to cancer, would simply be paid off to push a drug that doesn't work onto the market, and every single one of them would be QUIET about it? It seems my friend, that you are the one blinded by ideological dogma.

  7. #237
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.
    You are wrong because they would be DEAD following your advice.

    You have been wrong every step of the way.

  8. #238
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,817
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    I am glad that your family is ok, but what am I wrong about ? I am multiple statements in that post.

    Dangerous nonsense: "I have actually seen a study that shows that if you don't get treatment. Your chances of survival are better than going to cancer clinics."
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #239
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-10-15 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    971

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    So where is this phantom study of yours? And that is your grand evidence, a single study that probably shows that a single chemotherapy drug didn't work for a single cancer? Get out of here, you're bull****ting no one.

    I protect no one with my life. But as someone who studies biomedicine, I know BS when I see it. First off, Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only ones involved in cancer research. Much of cancer research, and chemo research, is actually done using public resources. Do you really think that thousands upon thousands of researchers who are not employees of the a pharmaceutical company, many of whom had a friend or family member who died to cancer, would simply be paid off to push a drug that doesn't work onto the market, and every single one of them would be QUIET about it? It seems my friend, that you are the one blinded by ideological dogma.
    I am an average guy who rather research topics than to allow a greedy doctor decide for me. I didn't list a single study I listed many. The reason why they didn't oppose to chemo is because they would lose their jobs. However most researchers are in that mindset, they rather follow the status quo than to do real researcher. Your nothing more than feeding into the corporate pockets as you defend a therapy that is known to cause health problems. What about medical marihuana, all the ergot derivatives that are extremely similar to LSD ( which was studied and now being study to cure migraine Bromo-6, lisuride.) But Again its takes courage to dismiss those who pay you well.
    Sometimes - history needs a push.
    Vladimir Lenin

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    re: McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

    Quote Originally Posted by jag2594 View Post
    I am an average guy who rather research topics than to allow a greedy doctor decide for me. I didn't list a single study I listed many. The reason why they didn't oppose to chemo is because they would lose their jobs. However most researchers are in that mindset, they rather follow the status quo than to do real researcher. Your nothing more than feeding into the corporate pockets as you defend a therapy that is known to cause health problems. What about medical marihuana, all the ergot derivatives that are extremely similar to LSD ( which was studied and now being study to cure migraine Bromo-6, lisuride.) But Again its takes courage to dismiss those who pay you well.
    Um no, they wouldn't lose their jobs. They would still have surgery and radiation therapy. Not to mention, haven't you ever thought about professional integrity? If doctors were just in it for the money, they wouldn't have survived the 16 years of secondary education and the 60-80 hour work weeks.

    You may do your own research, but you really do a bad job at it. Original thinking doesn't make it good thinking, I'm afraid, and here you are absolutely in the wrong. But do whatever you want. When you get cancer, refuse to go to the greedy doctor, and instead go to your local homopathogist. My heart will break for your loved ones who lost you based on your own stubborn stupidity.

    Oh, and LOL. You do realize that these same researchers who are studying LSD as a treatment for migraines are the same kind of researchers who looked developed chemotherapy drugs to kill cancer? I love how you are so quick to diss them on that subject but suddenly when they say something that might get your drug of choice legalized, you're all in for it. Unfortunately, it seems you're the one who is feeding into lies.

Page 24 of 58 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •