4 ms·

Well we know for certain that ionizing radiation causes cancer, whereas the link between pharmaceuticals and cancer is often based on unproven or speculative th

Well we know for certain that ionizing radiation causes cancer, whereas the link between pharmaceuticals and cancer is often based on unproven or speculative theories.

ein0p 2y ago
Well, let's see how "speculative" those theories are, shall we? I'm having a hard time believing that no one gets turbo cancer from e.g. 6.6 _billion_ prescriptions (month-equivalent), and 262 billion doses of prescription medication issued in the US per year. Shit's _way_ out of hand.
- mh- 2y ago
  I feel like you're making the opposite case. Given such large N, it would easier to detect positive correlations to aggressive cancers, no?
  - ein0p 2y ago
    To detect you have to actually collect the data in a robust way and then analyze it. Some areas of study seem to be off-limits either for political reasons, or because Big Pharma won't fund them, or both. The other day I told o3 to do deep research on the prevalence of SSRI use among mass shooters. It did compile a report which basically said the data is inconclusive because the current laws prevent conclusive data from being assembled in the first place. I frankly don't see why a mass shooter deserves HIPAA protection. Let's look into it.
- hsuduebc2 2y ago
  I didn't mean pharmaceuticals can't pose risks. Your concern about the scale of prescriptions is valid, especially given that the U.S. prescribes about 65% more medications per capita than the EU, which suggests genuine overprescribing issues. However, jumping straight from high prescription numbers to "turbo cancer" feels premature without concrete evidence therefore it is a speculation. Many of these prescriptions genuinely improve or even save lives, especially for chronic and psychiatric conditions. On the other hand, history gives us plenty of cautionary examples: leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation, pesticides or tobacco were all once considered safe until they very clearly weren't. So I hope your assumption is wrong.

Well we know for certain that ionizing radiation causes cancer, whereas the link between pharmaceuticals and cancer is often based on unproven or speculative theories.

ein0p 2y ago

Well, let's see how "speculative" those theories are, shall we? I'm having a hard time believing that no one gets turbo cancer from e.g. 6.6 _billion_ prescriptions (month-equivalent), and 262 billion doses of prescription medication issued in the US per year. Shit's _way_ out of hand.

mh- 2y ago
I feel like you're making the opposite case. Given such large N, it would easier to detect positive correlations to aggressive cancers, no?
- ein0p 2y ago
  To detect you have to actually collect the data in a robust way and then analyze it. Some areas of study seem to be off-limits either for political reasons, or because Big Pharma won't fund them, or both. The other day I told o3 to do deep research on the prevalence of SSRI use among mass shooters. It did compile a report which basically said the data is inconclusive because the current laws prevent conclusive data from being assembled in the first place. I frankly don't see why a mass shooter deserves HIPAA protection. Let's look into it.
hsuduebc2 2y ago
I didn't mean pharmaceuticals can't pose risks. Your concern about the scale of prescriptions is valid, especially given that the U.S. prescribes about 65% more medications per capita than the EU, which suggests genuine overprescribing issues. However, jumping straight from high prescription numbers to "turbo cancer" feels premature without concrete evidence therefore it is a speculation. Many of these prescriptions genuinely improve or even save lives, especially for chronic and psychiatric conditions. On the other hand, history gives us plenty of cautionary examples: leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation, pesticides or tobacco were all once considered safe until they very clearly weren't. So I hope your assumption is wrong.