Headaches are probably the number one most frustrating illness there is. I myself have spent countless hours with doctors and specialist, not to mention thousands of dollars. I have been scanned head to toe and yet when I ask the one question that everyone ask's, I get a blank look like deer in the headlights.
So what is the one question that doctors can never answer? What is causing the headache and how can I cure it? What I usually get is," We really don't know, but we can try this or that." Like I or anyone else want to be guinea pigs for their pharmaceutical. Are they afraid that if they told me the cause, that I might go out and find my own cure?
Great questions are not always answered, but great questions can change the world. Philosophical questions that sometimes answer themselves. From religion to scientific to questioning our reality. Only dishonest people fear questions.
Translate
Showing posts with label pharmaceuticals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pharmaceuticals. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2016
Monday, February 29, 2016
One pill or two pills?
One pill, two pill, three pills, or the bottle?
I had a headache and the aspirin bottle gave instructions of 1 to 2 pills for adults. I looked at a package of pills for my dog and it said based on weight give this dosage. Now both people above are adults but one is nearly 6'8" and the other is only 5'6". So is one person going to be under medicated and the other over medicated? This is a prescribed dosage set by the FDA, so can you trust what the FDA says? What else did they get wrong? If the dosage is so general, do we really need the pills in the first place? Are our pets getting better medication than we are? Is everything an illusion?
Labels:
aspirin,
conspiracy,
conspiracy theory,
doctors,
dosage,
drugs,
FDA,
government,
illusion,
medication,
medicine,
over-the-counter medications,
pharmaceuticals,
philosophical,
philosophy
Friday, February 26, 2016
Are placebos the miracle drug we've been looking for?
If placebos work as well as they say, why do we need drugs?
The key to a placebo is how it is presented and how believable the presentation is (I. E. How good are the actors administering the placebo? In other words if the mind believes that it is being given a pill to kill pain then that is what happens. Placebos work 60% of the time or better, but even these results can be questioned. The doctors and scientists responsible for the testing of placebos are some of same doctors that test pharmaceutical drugs. So are test results going to lean towards a drug that doesn't make them any money or towards pharmaceutical drugs that makes them billions?
I have met people that have never used an over-the-counter painkiller in their life and will tell you they've never needed it, why is that? These people are generally from third world economies where over-the-counter medications are not necessarily readily available. Is the food they eat, the reason they do not need painkillers or is it a cultural thing that is taught to them?
Doctors give placebos on a regular basis to patients asking for illegal painkillers they don't need, and strangely enough you never hear of a patient suing a doctor for being given a sugar pill.
Studies have also shown that placebos given in place of antidepressants can work just as well as pharmaceutical drugs, but what you won't hear is that the placebos had no ill side effects, why is that? At the same time if the placebo is presented to the patient with a list of possible side effects, strangely enough those side effects will appear. Does that mean that we should stop listing side bad effects. I'm sure that pharmaceuticals would love to be able to produce pills they do not have to be accountable for.
It would seem that the mind is capable of manufacturing any drug or chemical that it thinks it needs. In fact if you take pain pills on a regular basis for headaches and then stopped taking the pills the mind will literally create a headache (rebound headaches ) in order to get its fix of painkiller.
So if placebos work 60% of the time, could we cure 60% of the world with a placebo pill? Would drug dealers be more selling a placebo and get less complaints about their illegal drugs? If a person is given a placebo and told that it is an illegal drug would it show up in a drug test?
I have met people that have never used an over-the-counter painkiller in their life and will tell you they've never needed it, why is that? These people are generally from third world economies where over-the-counter medications are not necessarily readily available. Is the food they eat, the reason they do not need painkillers or is it a cultural thing that is taught to them?
Doctors give placebos on a regular basis to patients asking for illegal painkillers they don't need, and strangely enough you never hear of a patient suing a doctor for being given a sugar pill.
Studies have also shown that placebos given in place of antidepressants can work just as well as pharmaceutical drugs, but what you won't hear is that the placebos had no ill side effects, why is that? At the same time if the placebo is presented to the patient with a list of possible side effects, strangely enough those side effects will appear. Does that mean that we should stop listing side bad effects. I'm sure that pharmaceuticals would love to be able to produce pills they do not have to be accountable for.
It would seem that the mind is capable of manufacturing any drug or chemical that it thinks it needs. In fact if you take pain pills on a regular basis for headaches and then stopped taking the pills the mind will literally create a headache (rebound headaches ) in order to get its fix of painkiller.
So if placebos work 60% of the time, could we cure 60% of the world with a placebo pill? Would drug dealers be more selling a placebo and get less complaints about their illegal drugs? If a person is given a placebo and told that it is an illegal drug would it show up in a drug test?
Here is the best question of all, if a patient is given a placebo pill and told that it is poison would they die from it?
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Artificial sweeteners, safe or unsafe?
In the 1970s saccharin was found to be unsafe for human consumption as research studies indicated that it caused cancer in lab rats. I remember that the initial response was the FDA banning the product product from store shelves, but that idea was rescinded with the argument that there was no alternative for diabetics to use at the time. So it was kept on the shelves but every product containing saccharin was required to have a warning label letting people know that it may cause cancer. In 2000 warning labels were removed because supposedly cancer was only found in laboratory mice or rats because their biology was slightly different.
Questions
If there is a difference between the biology of the rats and humans, shouldn't there be questions about all other products that were tested using this method? Why are food products tested by the manufacturer and not an independent laboratory? Mice and rats are used for testing food and drugs because their biology is similar to ours, but if this is not the case then how can we trust anything that the FDA has to say? If this same method is used to test other artificial sweeteners, are exemptions being made for these products as well? If a product is found to be carcinogenic but can still be sold so long as it has a warning label on it, does that mean mass murder is okay so long as you have a warning label? Euthanasia is considered to be illegal in this country, but it's okay to buy a product that will kill you?
Labels:
artificial sweeteners,
aspartame,
chemicals,
ethics,
FDA,
food,
food safety,
government conspiracy,
justice,
laboratory testing,
life and death,
pharmaceuticals,
Question,
saccharin
Monday, December 14, 2015
Question everything, is there a conspiracy on vitamins and supliments.
Question everything; is there a conspiracy to remove vitamins and supliments ?
If vitamins and supplements are hazardous, then shouldn't they be removed from all our food? If vitamins and supplements are made illegal, should vitamin B shots also be made illegal? Are doctors and pharmaceuticals just looking to eliminate their competition? Which would you rather take, a pharmaceutical drug with hundreds of side effects, or a supplement that has few if any? If your food is safe and healthy, why should you have to add a vitamin supplement? Should we be more concerned with what is in our food than what is not, or is it just as important?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


