Author Topic: Episode #647  (Read 4841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4858
  • mooh
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2017, 05:59:02 AM »
LOL. Medical doctors are generally well compensated by industry.  Pharmacuetical companies outspend their alternative counterparts by an order of magnitude to get their way.

I don't know whether that is true or not, but it wouldn't be surprising, given that the industry is also roughly an order of magnitude larger. Big industries will lobby when they can. Would be great if they couldn't, but that's the world we live in.

Also a lot of times the big pharmaceutical companies are their own alternative counterparts, especially when it comes to supplements and diet.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 06:03:34 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2017, 09:36:01 AM »
LOL. Medical doctors are generally well compensated by industry.
In what way?

They are paid to attend conferences but that's about it as far as I can tell. It's hardly a sizeable part of their regular income, and if anything payment for attendance compensates for not being able to be paid for doing their regular work while they are attending.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/drug-firms-paying-doctors-millions-medicines-australia-report-reveals-20160901-gr6n2w.html

According to Charlie Ornstein, a senior editor for the independent, non-profit newsroom ProPublica, "It's illegal to give kickbacks to a doctor to prescribe drugs, but it is legal to give money to doctors to help promote your drug. Some doctors make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year beyond their normal practice just for working with the industry."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-your-doc-have-ties-to-big-pharma-how-youll-be-able-to-find-out/

https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

Ermygawd...my doctor has raked in a $1000 over three years!!! Steve has taken in over $1300!!! Big pharma shills!!! So "well compensated"!!!

I wonder how that compares to Mike Adams.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 09:40:27 AM by gebobs »

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 09:42:12 AM »

I don't know whether that is true or not, but it wouldn't be surprising, given that the industry is also roughly an order of magnitude larger.

Even so, the bang you get from that order of magnitude buck probably translates to several orders of magnitude in effectiveness.

Online Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 10:39:13 AM »
Thanks to moa's rant, I want to nominate "whataboutism" as the word of the year.

Of course he was doing this well before it became the backbone of an American political movement, but it's nice to have a new label for such obvious non sequiturs.

Offline Nigel

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • One man, one opinion
    • The Skeptical Review
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 01:18:23 PM »
While I agree with the desirability of an open unobstructed internet, I think the raising of this topic regardless of the production's strong personal and professional views on it was still blatant political soapboxing.  This is a realm the show has prided itself in avoiding since its inception.  Made me a bit sad. 

I found myself mostly agreeing with the goals and sentiments of opinions expressed, but keep shaking my head from where I was hearing it. 

Everything is getting polluted.


Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2017, 01:27:37 PM »
I never even remotely thought I’d ever find myself defending dowsing, but...

Might the ideomotor effect unleash what would otherwise be subconscious abilities of the dowser to find water?

In other words, they may possess the ability to “read” terrain and roads for the likely location of underground water and/or pipes but be unable to consciously access said ability.

Maybe?

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2017, 01:40:27 PM »
I never even remotely thought I’d ever find myself defending dowsing, but...

Might the ideomotor effect unleash what would otherwise be subconscious abilities of the dowser to find water?

In other words, they may possess the ability to “read” terrain and roads for the likely location of underground water and/or pipes but be unable to consciously access said ability.

Maybe?


Since there is water everywhere, if you dig deep enough, I'd say, no, the dowser is not doing anything "subconsciously" to "find" water. Other than standing on the surface of the Earth. And I think it highly unlikely that "roads and terrain" provide any useful indications of where water will be found. Except, of course, that they, too, are on the surface of the Earth, and therefore have water underneath them.

One could, of course, make the far funnier suggestion that dowsing does not work, but the dowser is telepathic and the ideomotor effect is responding to the telepathic abilities that he was not aware of. ;D
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2017, 03:48:47 PM »
Oh, the science of fiction couldn't have been easier... the study was on RNZ, The Press and Facebook.
They didn't mention aquatic mammals in discussion of general mammalian intelligence in the post quiz chat.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2017, 04:50:59 PM »
Hmm.  My doctor was taken out to lunch/dinner by pharmaceutical reps 168 times (an average of over three times per week) in 2015 at a total cost of $3,068 and an average cost of about $18 per meal.  That does seem like rather a lot.

Steve's payments seem to be limited to a consulting fee of $667 from Merck in both 2014 and 2015.  I wonder what he was consulting about.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 04:53:35 PM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Darb

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2017, 05:03:22 PM »
Not to be a pronunciation nazi.......  did it drive anyone else crazy when she kept pronouncing "confiscate" as "confinscate".    As in "the FDA confinscated the drug".... 
Like when people pronounce "supposedly" as "supposably"...  eh, I'm sure I do it to...
I did enjoy her story though...

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8596
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2017, 06:03:58 PM »
My previous doctor got $71 worth of food and beverage in 2015, and nothing since. My present doctor is not listed, so either he hasn't gotten anything from drug companies, or Pro Publica doesn't know he exists.

Kind of hard to make an argument for a conspiracy of all doctors when mine hasn't gotten anything and my previous one got $71.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2017, 08:45:23 PM »
Hmm.  My doctor was taken out to lunch/dinner by pharmaceutical reps 168 times (an average of over three times per week) in 2015 at a total cost of $3,068 and an average cost of about $18 per meal.  That does seem like rather a lot.

Steve's payments seem to be limited to a consulting fee of $667 from Merck in both 2014 and 2015.  I wonder what he was consulting about.
It seems like a high price to pay to listen to a sales/marketing rep's bullshit 3 times a week.

Seriously, even $10k+ on attending conferences is chicken feed in the scheme of things, especially when it's time and earnings lost at their practice.

In context of a GP's annual revenue, this is not exactly supplemental income. Barely a fringe benefit.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4961
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2017, 03:44:21 AM »
Quote
According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2799
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2017, 06:31:11 AM »
I love the one-sided view offered by the hosts of the show about net neutrality, and also love how awesome government regulation of the communication market is. It's kind of odd that with all those regulations in place there still be so little competition in the IPS market.

The government needs to regulate, and the government needs to be regulated.

Jay did go into the problem of having a small number of ISPs. I didn't hear them praise the government. The government is responsible for this continued failure to defend net neutrality. The government needs to be defeated, removed, improved, whatever, to put in place government regulations that serve the people rather than the corporations.

Offline thelaker

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #647
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2017, 08:43:13 AM »
The SGU guys really went off the rails on their one-sided diatribe regarding net neutrality.  For a more nuanced look at the situation, I suggest this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-internet-had-already-lost-its-neutrality

"....our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook.  The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear, and read."

"The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision."

 

personate-rain