3 ms·

> "big pharma wants to make big profits by killing us" There's a big difference between distrusting drugmakers and thinking they want to kill you. The last th

> "big pharma wants to make big profits by killing us" There's a big difference between distrusting drugmakers and thinking they want to kill you. The last thing they want is to kill you. It's bad PR, to say the least. But more importantly, killing you takes away one of the medical plan's customers. It's the only thing worse than curing you, because they'll never again get money for something prescribed to you. This position is totally unreasonable and no one who considers the situation for even 30 seconds can seriously believe it.

mikeash 11y ago
There are a lot of people who believe totally unreasonable things. And yes, there are a ton of people who think that, for example, vaccines are deadly, and that they are being pushed by big pharma anyway because of profit motive. No, it doesn't make any sense. That's not a prerequisite for being believed.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  The vaccine situation is somewhat different, because of the government's involvement in it. If and when there is a government mandate to have chemotherapy, we can talk about them together. Until then, it is reasonable to be more skeptical of vaccines that are required by law than of other treatments. History supports very strongly the idea that you should avoid anything the government tries to force upon you, and that evidence offered by or on behalf of the government is to be ignored. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer", but I find nothing more abhorrent than the government dictating that something go into your body. It's the darkest of the dark, makes V For Vendetta look like rainbows and unicorns, etc. I would almost certainly believe that vaccines are overwhelmingly beneficial and that the benefits outweigh the risks for nearly everyone, if not for the government's involvement. Once the government is involved, I simply can't trust anything.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure the government mandates lots of good things, as well as bad things. I could see saying that a government mandate gives you no information about whether something is good, but outright saying that you should avoid anything mandated by the government as a matter of course just sounds like a way to shut down your brain and avoid having to think for yourself. Anyway, how is it different? You said above that it's a completely unreasonable position to think that big pharma wants to make big profits by killing us. Lots of anti-vaccine people believe precisely that, and now you're saying you don't find it unreasonable.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      Well, killing people is pretty bad for business, as I explained elsewhere under this article. So I'm pretty skeptical of that motive... normally. Once you have the government mandating that everyone buy your product, it doesn't really matter any more whether it's a good product or has good PR or is otherwise viewed as beneficial. A drugmaker selling something to the willing has an incentive to make sure it's not lethal, if for no other reason than that the most profitable business is repeat business. A drugmaker selling something the government mandates has no such incentive. This applies, actually, to anything of which purchase is mandated on threat of violence, not just drugs.

mikeash 11y ago

There are a lot of people who believe totally unreasonable things. And yes, there are a ton of people who think that, for example, vaccines are deadly, and that they are being pushed by big pharma anyway because of profit motive. No, it doesn't make any sense. That's not a prerequisite for being believed.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
The vaccine situation is somewhat different, because of the government's involvement in it. If and when there is a government mandate to have chemotherapy, we can talk about them together. Until then, it is reasonable to be more skeptical of vaccines that are required by law than of other treatments. History supports very strongly the idea that you should avoid anything the government tries to force upon you, and that evidence offered by or on behalf of the government is to be ignored. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer", but I find nothing more abhorrent than the government dictating that something go into your body. It's the darkest of the dark, makes V For Vendetta look like rainbows and unicorns, etc. I would almost certainly believe that vaccines are overwhelmingly beneficial and that the benefits outweigh the risks for nearly everyone, if not for the government's involvement. Once the government is involved, I simply can't trust anything.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the government mandates lots of good things, as well as bad things. I could see saying that a government mandate gives you no information about whether something is good, but outright saying that you should avoid anything mandated by the government as a matter of course just sounds like a way to shut down your brain and avoid having to think for yourself. Anyway, how is it different? You said above that it's a completely unreasonable position to think that big pharma wants to make big profits by killing us. Lots of anti-vaccine people believe precisely that, and now you're saying you don't find it unreasonable.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Well, killing people is pretty bad for business, as I explained elsewhere under this article. So I'm pretty skeptical of that motive... normally. Once you have the government mandating that everyone buy your product, it doesn't really matter any more whether it's a good product or has good PR or is otherwise viewed as beneficial. A drugmaker selling something to the willing has an incentive to make sure it's not lethal, if for no other reason than that the most profitable business is repeat business. A drugmaker selling something the government mandates has no such incentive. This applies, actually, to anything of which purchase is mandated on threat of violence, not just drugs.