4 ms·
Let’s trade: I’ll take your aversion to snake oil salesmen, and you can have my cancer. Deal?
by cobbzilla 3y ago
Let’s trade: I’ll take your aversion to snake oil salesmen, and you can have my cancer. Deal?
- melling 3y agoHow about we simply fund more real medical research so we can cure all those diseases that you might eventually get?
- ogogmad 3y agoHow does throwing more money at the problem help? How you spend it matters. Otherwise you're just setting it on fire.
- melling 3y agoNo one said “throw money at it mindlessly“. I said “fund more real medical research” I’m a little busy to explain it for the 100th time. Can you do a little research instead of putting words in my mouth? There was a time when scientists thought HIV would never be curable. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/5th-person-confirmed-cured-hiv/story?id=97323361 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/5th-person-confirmed-cured...
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoI find it strange that people advocate that people who are facing serious disease are not allowed to try experimental therapies. How does it hurt?
- bsder 3y agoHCQ? Ivermectin? Shall I go on? I have no problem with Right to Try. But it needs to have rules. Pre-registration. No charge or payments to anybody (doctor or patients). Forced publication of even negative results. etc. And, guess what, once you add the safeguards, that looks an awful lot like what we have right now.
- tim333 3y agoI took HCQ for covid before the test results on that were in. It probably did nothing. I'm not sure how I would have benefited from it being prevented.
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoI think his Ive and HCQ points are pretty bad. I mean, it's cancer vs covid. Covid has a low mortality (very low) compared to cancer. Also, as you said it's not like those drugs killed you.
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoYou want to deny people the right to try unless it's by your rules. Bizarre that you want to enforce your rules on people who are potentially dying.
- david-gpu 3y agoWe are all already dying, but we only allow doctors to prescribe drugs and other treatments to patients. Sometimes we enact regulations to protect vulnerable people, and the more fearful somebody is about their health the more at risk they are to be preyed upon, as has been proven through history. That's why it would make sense to require such last-chance measures to be provided free of charge. This would remove the monetary incentive to swindle people. Picture a severely ill family member giving away all of their savings to some unscrupulous person that has been swindling terminal patients for years without actually helping anybody. Would you not want to prevent that?
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoRegardless of all that, ultimately, you are advocating that people can't make their own decisions, that you and others should be in charge of what they can, or cannot do. There are millions of patients where they want to be on clinical trials with drug companies but cannot due to the laws. It seems strange to me that people will advocate for people not having a choice when they have so little chance.
- mortureb 3y agoThe best research is experimenting on people directly.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]