politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The way I see it is this: sure there are millions of reasons to hate drug companies. To be distrustful of them. But if my doctors say that something is the best course of action, of course I will do that. My doctor said that Covid vaccines are abundantly safe, as are flu vaccines. My doctor is great. I have great trust in her opinion. Therefore, I will get my Covid and flu vaccines as often as I need to.
I don't know fuck all about the way these things work. But I do know I trust my doctor because she has been through all the education and has a decade plus of being a family health doctor. I trust her. And I think people should be more inclined to trust their doctors rather than random weirdos on the internet.
Tbh this is the same reasoning that medical providers utilize for their own healthcare. I specialize in orthopedics and rehabilitation......
Yes I know more than the average Joe, but med school was a long time ago, and you aren't really proficient in a field you aren't actively practicing.
When I want to know if a vaccine is safe and medically necessary I look to my esteemed colleagues from the department of infectious disease. I don't really see how anyone with an MD behind their name can really attempt to fool themselves that they know more about a disease and how to treat it than the entirety of specialized departments.
If my buddies from infectious disease are taking a vaccine, I'm not going to second guess it. To me, it's the equivalent of seeing a bomb tech sprinting away from a ied, and then deciding that there's no rush because you've never seen a bomb go off before.
I absolutely agree, and yet for years we've been seeing unmasked infectious disease experts at infectious disease conferences that (surprise surprise!) become super-spreader events.
It would be funny if it weren't so distopian.
(FWIW, I think most conferences for aerosol scientists have remained remote or respirator required)
Thats not how masks work. But Im guessing you believe your "common sense" is better than years of epidemiology research...
Given a bucket of ping-pong balls, how many could you throw and hit a dartboard on the wall 10 feet away? Now put a chain-link fence in front of the board, say, about 5 feet. We all know that a ping-pong ball is easily small enough to fit through a chain-link fence. Now how many could you hit the dartboard with, through the fence? How many would get through at all?
Obviously, the fence would have no effect, right? You just have to think about the size of the balls for a few minutes, and apply some common sense.
https://youtu.be/eAdanPfQdCA
In their defense humans practically run off of cognitive dissonance, just cause ya know something on paper often doesnt mean ya know it in practice. On paper I know how to make an IED, but if im being honest id probably blow myself up if I tried.
But what about Dr. Chiropractor on Facebook that says that vaccines actually change your DNA?: "Through the RNA transcriptase of the aortic Golgi bodies?". He's a doctor. Those are big words. Plus, it involves me being victimized by a shadowy organization. It must be true!
Chiropractors are not doctors. They're scam artists.
Cracking your back might make you relax your muscles and as a result feel less pain for a short time but medically, it's of no more benefit than taking a hot bath.
My wife's cousin was married to a woman (and he still brings her to family functions for some reason) who worked for her chiropractor father. She always calls him a doctor and it annoys the fuck out of me.
Well, you can get a doctorate in anything and still be referred to as doctor.
"This man is having a seizure! Is there a doctor on board?!"
"I'm a doctor of anthropology."
"Good. You'll be helpful after he's dead and buried."
Sure. My dad had a doctorate. He was a professor. Some students even called him Dr. [My last name]. But he would never have called himself a doctor. That's different.
Paging Dr. Jacuzzi
Ah, good ol' perpetuation of bullshit.
Just like in Western medicine, sure, there exists a handful of quack Chiro's that give the profession a bad name. And many who have not evolved with the research.
Modern Chiro's are not just focused on spinal manipulation. They incorporate a diverse set of techniques, including a lot of PT rehabilitation overlap.
However... Some of us do require that temporary relief that only an adjustment can provide. I myself joint disorders that lead to an uncomfortable increase of pressure that needs release. I can pretty much 'pop' nearly every bone in my body. I hate it, but that's how my body is. They are all different. Chiro's have a place, maybe they don't work for you, but they are Doctors, and for many of us, they provide relief that others cannot.
Lol, the one time I went to a chiropractor (because my boss agreed to pay for it while not agreeing to pay for me to see a real doctor) the "diverse set of techniques" included taking an x-ray of my back while I stood on a sloped chair and then telling me one leg was shorter than the other, and pointing a copper cone at my stomach and rubbing it so it squeaked and telling me he was "reading my internal vibrations".
Do not confuse MDs for Chiropractors or vice versa. Most chiros only go to graduate school for four years, and do not learn most of what MDs do. It's part of the scam - they get to use "doctor" and people think that means medical professional.
It's the Vitamins of Medical Practices. There's no proof it works, but if you feel like it does, you do you.
How the fuck do we still have quacks that are allowed to be called Dr. in this day and age? The Catholic fucking church is advocating for acceptance of gay marriage, is funding science, and is making other rational decisions, and our politicians and bureaucrats are like, "Well, let's preserve bone ~~pooping~~ popping and expensive water in our medical system!"
Edit: a word
The Catholic Church has always supported education, science, and the arts. They didn't like Galileo because of the Inquisition (it was nuts), not because of any actual reasons. After that died down the celebrated him as a hero.
Dafuq?
Chiropractic (bone popping) and Homeopathy are my guesses
I think he meant popping, then again given some of these folks into quakery its entirely possible at least one of them has shit out a bit of bone. They drink bleach for fucks sake.
Well the answer to that is rather multifaceted, but a few significant patterns seem to emerge:
Is there a solution to all this? Not really. I guess educating the general public on the significance of academic titles could help, better global alignment in title laws as well. Preventing pseudo-sciences, or whatever someone considers as such, from establishing their own branches of science and academic titles seem highly dangerous though. Just think what this would imply for gender studies in the current political climate for example. Pseudo-science is just the price science has to pay for freedom of research, and when it bore theology being a branch since its inception than it will survive the D.C. as well.
I agree, we should probably trust the doctors more than the crazies on Facebook or wherever they get their nonsense. But I think it's also dangerous to place blind faith in doctors, who themselves are susceptible to misinformation and advertising. Oxycontin adverts appeared in NEJM, doctors went "wow I should prescribe that", and that didn't go well.
I think trusting Science is most important. Read peer reviewed articles and read them critically.
I feel like people gloss over clinical trials and how difficult it is to get from Drug Company has a drug to doctor prescribes it. Nothing is full proof, but the Process is quite involved, even the emergency use provision that was used during Covid.
You're right, and an upvote for you. I've seen colleagues who encounter a 90% drop in efficacy when making the leap to Phase 1 trials (and this is excluding safety concerns!).
It is rigorous and thank everything the Process is put in place. But I specifically used Oxycontin as an example for a pertinent reason. Rigour isn't applied to everyone equally, and I think that itself underscores a need to think critically.
They did so plenty with the Trump administration. Fauci had to constantly correct what Trump said.
What?! You mean you actually trust the professional in their profession to be professional? The nerve! Do you actually trust pilots and believe they even know how to fly a plane?!
I used to think people who were skeptical of global warming would at least listen to the expert when it came to their health, but no. They'd let a politician operate on them out of belief.
Some of the issue in the US at least IMO is how the system turns patients into customers. People do have negative experiences with doctors for valid and invalid reasons, and if they can just pay for a "doctor" who does some BS pseudoscience, they see those credentials and they are getting much more "compassionate" care, they might even feel legitimately better after an experience like that. Doctors I think can become desensitized to patients sometimes or they just aren't good at social skills. Like you have a potentially life threatening tumor removed and ask your doctor why you got it, and they just say "meh you're just unlucky," which is absolutely true, but it's not at all sensitive to the patient's experience to be that blunt. Go in to the happy naturopath office and it's much different, "oh well lets look at your diet to assess your toxicity profile, we can come up with a plan and some steps etc etc." I totally see why people go for that.
I try not to blame people for their choices within this system because despite all the pseudoscience bs that they're paying for there's often perfectly rational reasons behind it, and I fully accept the placebo effect as legitimate. The placebo effect isn't just a trick that works on dumb people it's a very real physiological thing. If people are primed by an incredibly compassionate doctor who practices naturopathy or homeopathy, and despite the financial incentive they have maybe actually cares about the patients, they will actually feel better and it will actually benefit them. That's a huge complication for treating everyone who does this as simply stupid and misinformed, which they may be but that alone wouldn't explain a lot of this.
So blaming stupid patients I don't think helps and I believe the solution to healthcare and the mental health crisis (popular term for it) is ultimately political.
I would like to trust doctors more, however they often offer stuff like homeopathic treatments or over prescribe medications, where I am wondering if they are just payed to do so by the pharma industry.
IMO the financial incentives of doctors sort of run counter with offering the best treatment of patients, which then in turn destroys the trust in them.
Again capitalism ruins everything.
Doctors being paid to push a particular medication seems to be a mostly American issue and should be legislated against.
In most countries it's illegal for drug companies to incentivise doctors to push a particular medication. Same as how in my country it's illegal to advertise a prescription medication.
I believe the medical insurance companies, and what treatments they will approve/pay for, has a big factor in this.