3 ms·

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_ prescript

• mh- 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.