alg

Dear God I hope you are not right. What's next? A civil war?

As a comedian, you are correct, he has no other obligation then to be funny. You fail to see, however, that he ceases to be a comedian when he uses his show to promote a particular political agenda. Making fun of the president is one thing, "sniffing John Kerry's throne" is entirely another. He cannot have a succession of Clinton's and Kerry's on his show, offer them his bully pulpit, and pretend he is a comedian. At that precise moment he became a partican promoting his own political agenda. He also became fair game in our little cultural war as just another 'hollywood' type who thinks he has a right to lecture the rest of us, and to use his celebrity in a way that was not intended or appreciated. What does that mean? That we may laugh at or with him is in no way to be construed as empowering him outside his small dominion.

Nope, didn't say that, and your continuing sarcasm is very counter productive. If you must use it at least be funny. Try irony... Simply said people have failed to see the many shortcoming of the healthcare industry of which there is an abunance - and often with terrible consequences. Scientific understanding is the basis for most of my comments, though you will not read them in your local doctors office, or see them on the phoney drug ads. I acknowledge the contributions, I simply do not worship at the alter of health care. Nor am I an elitist on the subject. I am just one really pissed off customer who found out how much I was being lied to. Someone who started being proactive and educated on the subject. This is my soapbox to warn others of what I found out. No way no how did I want to take precious time away from the rest of my life worring about whether someone else was doing their friggin job. After your last 2 posts I doubt that we actually disagree as much as you profess. You are personally aware of the shortcomings of the "prescription age" and have 1st hand experience w/ a particular disorder. There is much I could say on the particulars (in an anecdotal sort of way of course) but that would be too personal. Suffice to say that you agree with exactly 1/2 of my rant based on your experience with doctors. It is the shortcomings of the pharms where we seem to have our differences. I understand that, with your success in treating a disorder, that you are quite natually protective of your benefactors. Imagine what it would mean, however, if in 50 years science could tell you how it originated, why you experienced it, and what measures that would prevent it. Granted, genetics play a big part, and some things are simply outside our control, but my rant is one, ultimately, of optimism. That we are not just a bag of decease waiting to happen, and that all this stevestojan is out of our control. Oh, and that it is not always enough to find a drug to manage a condition, but to understand its source, prevention and complete elimination. Sure Im no expert on brian chemistry and all, but I know with a certainty that it constantly changes its spots based upon the multitudinal conditions of living. I will never be satisfied with the diagnosis "well, you have this decease." I do know in my experience that we are far from being victims of our condition. And that is really the bottom line here - for people to stop seeing conventional medicine as the final word on anything.

Actually you have it backwords. The ones usually spouting off are the ones overly confident in their myopic views. A case of not seeing the forest thru the trees. I spoke to a doctor last year who was equally agitated with me, and insisted my wife re-start the meds I had encouraged her to discontinue. This after telling me how well she was doing. He was indignint that a laymen would question his great learning. Much as yourself. He went on to say that there were other issues that required the drugs. Ones that were serious but naturally occuring in our age braket, ones that had no cure. He could not fathom that I challenged him on all counts. What good is learning when you see life thru the darkness of disease? Two weeks later my wife received a letter stating that she in fact did not have any other condition, and the one she did have was markedly improved. You see, I am not writing this for my benefit, but for people such as yourself that hold such arrogance around the subject that they cannot see outside their small range of understanding. For example the folowing "...written by someone who clearly does not understand the issue. Show me a case where an SSRI was "the source of suicidal behavior", and I'll show you a case where the underlying condition for which the drug was prescribed was a source of suicidal behavior" that involved either improper prescribing or improper monitoring by the prescribing physician." is so much stevestojan that I do not know where to begin. You bandy about a statement that sounds more significant then it is, but with no clue as to underlying causes of health. You are so focused on the small bead of truth that you "own" that you have paralized your capacity to actually ask the right questions. So before insulting someone else, which I have maticulously avoided until now, you may ask yourself on what planet does the issue of "improper prescribing or improper monitoring" actually come before having a clue what is wrong with someone? What went wrong? I don't want your " proper prescribing or monitoring". I want to stop eating or breathing or doing or feeling whatever the hell it is that's causing the f#@king problem in the first place. That is a concept that seems to allude all too many. So kick back and lecture us about the wonders of your drugs that only seem to go wrong when other "learned" medical practitioners give it to the wrong people, or when they forget to set their egg timers for quality and performance. You can't because the whole field of which you speak, above all others, is just now moving beyond the practice of leaching... alg

Again, given the format I am using broad strokes. Perhaps you are right, but I would suggest that you are wrong in more cases then not. And it is not so important that I am 100% right in this discusion. It is important for me, I feel, to share my research and experience as a wake up call to those who have not looked outside the conventional AMA/pharm box. Stuff/knowledge is changing dramatically, and everyone needs to begin the process of becoming proactive in their own health care issues. With what I know now, I will never again turn my health over to someone else - regardless of fancy titles. Find out about what ails you. Compare the research from many sources. Hell, try reading the research. You will be amazed at what you find. Just don't believe everything you hear. Once you discover some of the 'truisms' that have not made it into the public awareness, you will feel liberating and unafraid.

Agreed. Many a waco selling second rate stuff. That does not mean, however, that the underlying principles are incorrect. Natural remidies also generally have this wonderful side benefit of not undermining our health 10-30 years down the road.

Don't blame the doctors for this one. Yes, I am painfully aware of the fact that many "specialists" are not aware of current research - that is my personal experience. But they prescribe these drugs for the same reason they did for the intended uses. Marketing. Do you know how many lobster dinners and Carribean junkets the drug companies had to poney up to get them to use their stuff in the 1st place? Now just imagine how profitable it will be if they can come up with even more 'uses' for those drugs without the upfront R&D. A whole new lobster and cruise tour...

First of all let me say that yes, I am painting with a wide brush - given the forum. Let me also say that I do not discount the importance and efficacy of all drugs. Nor do I doubt that many in the industry beleive that they are making important contributions. As to some of your specifics: 1."What about chemotherapy? Worthless?" I watched 2 people die on chemo and believe that all it did was make death faster and more certain. So yes, I believe chemo is one of the great lies of the health industry. I would not take chemo under any circumstance, and have actually sat at a table of doctors (including 1-2 oncologists ) who said the same dang thing. What does that tell you? That your wife survived BC, thank God, does not tell the whole story. I believe we able capable of healing in spit of chemo. I have friends who have gone thru this who believe that everyone reacts differently and some things work for some but not others. I can accept that, but when did the medical community start offering wholeistic alternatives? Maybe just, because of the growing evidence of the failure of drug regimenes and increasing support of alternative medicine. 2. "My company spends $7.9 billion a year." Your company spends $7.9 billion a year searching for patentable cures to make a profit. Is profit in and of itself bad? No way. When drug companies cross-sell drugs for unintended conditions? That do not really work? Hell yeah, that's the very definition of evil. 3. "I work for a large drug company, doing research in psychotherapeutics." No doubt many good things have come of such research. But many bad things have as well. We have a bunch of drugged out kids and babies in this country, and adults for that matter, who have been given a pill to make things nice. Life isn't always about being easy or nice, and much evidence is surfacing that prozac and other drugs have actually been the source of suicidal and/or homicidal behavior. Columbine anyone? No disrepect intended NG, but the profit motive moves men in strange ways, and often in the exact opposite direction of the evidence.

He doesn't hate America. He's is just another !@#$ partisan pretending not to be an !@#$ partisan.

Im actually pretty conservative, but personal experience and research have led me in an entirely new direction. 3 times in 2003 (just in my family) drugs either exacerbated a problem or actually caused it. Alternative, non-wacka healing thru herbs and diet, and the elimination of pills in all 3 cases solved the problems. The doctor's refused to acknowledge the connection, but their own research showed that their drug regimens were not effective. Point in fact, some were actually no more effective then placebo. This from their own medical journals. So on the surface it looks like I do indeed wear a tinfoil hat, but the reality is that the medical community has been undermined and lied to by the drug companies, and wined and dined to pimp their pills. (I have docs in my family and know how it works.) I was correct in 100% of the cases (3) that my family faced, and historically I have had very poor results from the establishment for anything that was not easily diagnosed and corrected. Why is it that every friggin drug we see on TV these days (that can supposedly only help a condition by 10-25%) say that patients with liver issues should not take their pills? Because drugs are toxic to the human system outside of the small window they are intended for. They invariably put stress on the body's cleansing/elimination systems, and make us more susceptible to even larger problems. Case in point, our vet gave our cat a drug to help a skin irritation. The poor guy got a UTI and was left borderline diabetic. I took him off all meds, refused to let them treat him with more antibiotics, and returned him to better then normal health within 3 months using herbs and diet. If I had left him in the hands of the veterinary establishment, he may very well be getting insulin injections every day, or worst - be dead. BTW, the drug in question actually listed one side effect as diabetes. To cure a skin problem? One that turns out to be nothing more then an allergic reaction to flee bits? I have other, more personal stories, but they had the same results - both cause and cure. This goes on all the time, and more then likely effects someone in your immediate family. I do not want to play doctor, I have a job, but I will be damned if I sit back and let societal expectations and prejudices stand between me and my families health - including the cats. We have been sold a bill of goods, and the good that comes from the drug industry has been buried beneath a horrendous record of abuse. I know, they spend billions to find cures and aids to various conditions. What they don't tell you is that it costs this much so they can extract a patent from cures and aids already existing in nature. You see, there is no money in cures if they can't get a patent, and they cannot get a patent for something that grows freely in nature. Its about profit, people, and it is getting worst all the time. Anyone read the story of the hired 'researcher" forced to help cross-sell drugs for other conditions? That actually led to severe depresion and suicide? Yeah, I wear a tinfoil hat, and if your lucky and figure it out before a terrible incident, you will too...

I for one am glad he is doing it. In spite of his left wing politics MM has indeed done a service in going after corporate looters. Unfortunately I cannot imagine MM attacking the real threat to American health care - the greed and manipulation that has sold us a bill of goods. The lie that more and more drugs are actually making us healthy. When the drug industry pitches their drugs for outragious profits - drugs that may have meager statistical positives over placebo's, what they fail to answer for is the overall physical polution and stunting of natural healing capabilities in the human body. I believe that - someday - real medicine will acknowlege that decease is systemic, and that the vast majority of drugs, when used for any reason beyond last hope, serve to do little else then poison the takers.

Your a bright fellow, and certain enough of your 'fair' mindedness to include it in your alias. If you step back from your near rabid liberal perspective you will see that statement is EXACTLY what it has been made out to be - an indictment on Bush thru grotesque inuendo: "if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk" translates to: "if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- (the work that George Bush is preventing) -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk." Besides being a gross misrepresentaion, it suffers for other and obvious reasons. The very fact Edwards is speaking on this subject in the first place is to contrast Kerry policies from Bush's. Too suggest that he is just making happy-faced chitchat with potential voters is to refuse to see the simplist of logical decontruction. In this you are only kidding yourself. That Edwards suggests such things will be different w/ Kerry's "plan", and that people like Reeves will walk again is pandering on the most dangerous of levels. A classic apppeal that circumvents true reason and thinking, and goes directly to the great source of manipulation - the emotions. In other words, Edwards at his finest - the master ambulance chaser / trial lawyer.

I now live in Colorado, and I am seriously concerned about Prop 36. Success of this prop will divide CO electorit based on the popular vote. We could theoretically wait for a month of court battles to decide this outcome before declaring a winner. Its a bad move, mucking with constitutional balance for short term political gain. A state that does this loses influence in elections - period. I should mention that, apparently, this CO effort is being financed by a California Dem. (Funny how they are not doing this in CA.) Be carefull what you ask for. If CO splits the electorit look for New York and CA to have similar challenges in the coming years - by Reps. If they won in those states Democrates would not be able to elect another candidate for years - until Spanish becomes our predominant language.

Fair enough. Your new name should henceforth be: Kelly, the Fair and Balanced Liberal Democratic Partisan Dog.

From a friend on top of this stuff: Maybe the article about Republicans destroying Democratics voter registrations was not true. Below is the web site from the organization mentioned in the article. Looks like they are dems!! Go figure. The writer did not check his facts before printing the story. ********************************************************* Check their website...(they are ALL DEMOCRATS!) Cecile Richards, veteran labor and political organizer, has been elected President of America Votes. Ms. Richards, a native Texan, has worked as a labor and political activist for more than twenty years. She recently led a national program for the Turner Foundation to educate and organize reproductive choice supporters across the country. Before coming to America Votes, she served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. http://www.americavotes.org/ Gee, that would be a shock...

Have you considered a name change? Fair and balanced you are not.

Religion is not a church or a specific belief system. Religion is nothing more and nothing less then the experience of a personal relationship with God. That the word 'religion' has been corrupted to more often then not refer to 'theology' rather then true religious 'experience' is the thing that seperates those who know, from people who think they know something.

Thank you for reminding me not to take life too seriously.

1. Kerry will raise taxes on small business and, I believe, everyone else. 2. Kerry's plans for medicare and other issues, while reducing the deficit, are simply impossible with current governemnt revenue. 3. Kerry tells you what you want to hear, and has more money for just about everyone - money that simply doesn't exist. 4. Kerry wants a 'global test' on issues of America going to war in self defense or otherwise. Implied are larger role for France and Germany i the conduct of US international affairs. 5. Kerry will align himself more with current Euopean (socialist) governments in his approach to the economy, entitlement programs and general pacifism toward dealing with world threats. 6. Kerry, by virtue of his voting record, is the, or one of the most liberal "tax and spend' liberals in Congress. 7. Kerry lacks the convictions and certainty to be CIC. Attacked Howard Dean's anti war stance to win the Dem primaries. He is now against the war. He was also against the 1st Gulf war. He basicly beleives whatever it takes to get elected. Of course you may find some of this list a reason to vote for him...

Excellent point. We The People would rip apart any fool who had the audacity to speak the truth without filter. Viva la spin!

I was on that too. Outragious question, especially in light of how well (fair) the rest of the debate was handled.

There was a story in the Camera here in Boulder, CO - an extreeeeemely liberal locale. In response to a liberal rant about someone putting a Bush/Chaney sticker over his Kerry/Edwards one, someone pointed out the following: A guy in Teluride got verbally (and publicly) abused by a friggin waiter for his Bush/Chaney t-shirt. Went back to his car and found the window(s) broken. In Longmont just north of here the Bush campain headquarters was defaced: Vandals wrote F%$k over the word Bush on the sign, and then proceeded to smear animal excrement over the front of the building. Also locally it was pointed out the many police reports about theft or vandalism of Bush/Chaney signs in peoples' yards. It was also noted that no such reports have been filed for disappearing Kerry signs. Its ugly out there people. Once upon a time Dems/Liberals believed in treating people everywhere fairly. Now? Its seems you have to be a native, black, hispanic, or arab to inspire such consideration. White's and Christians and republicans beware...

Perhaps the lies are Kerry's? Our investments in stocks, holdings in trusts, etc, will be handled under capital gains/loses and in other ways that DO NOT require filing as a business (small or otherwise.) My DBA pays taxes for 1099 wages, my capital gains/loses, etc are handled differently. If GW were to get 1099 salary from a business interest as part of his small business then he most likely would be filing as a (small) business - but this is not possible as President of the US. Rules would require his investments to be placed in a blind trust. What does this mean? It is more then likely that GW would not be considered a small business. I am not an expert on all matters pertaining to this subject, but as an independant consultant with a DBA, I am more then familiar with the tax implications of running a small business. If there are accountants out there that have more specific knowledge about handling taxes for a trust then I am certainly open to being wrong on this issue. Until then, I beleive Kerry was doing nothing more then waving a big, fat and stinky red herring in the faces of the voting public. Even if GW were to be classified as such, however, Kerry is still misleading you and everyone else on the matter. $200k for a small business is nothing when deducting overhead etc. There are a whole lot of people operating this way, and GWs numbers actually sound about right.

You are most welcome, and I will continue to do my best. You must understand, however, that there is no antidote for some forms of ignorance, so success in your case is not assured.