XPost: alt.suicide.holiday   
   From: jonnybox@gmail.com   
      
   Twice Broken, I notice you getting into a few arguments as of late. It   
   would be nice for all if everyone were calmer and polite about   
   expressing opinions, especially since anyone is capable of making   
   logical errors. I know it can be hard when dealing with Barbara Scwarz!   
      
   Twice Broken wrote:   
   > "Barbara Schwarz"  wrote in message   
   > news:1122496773.833869.108290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >>Twice Broken wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>"Barbara Schwarz"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:1122491666.021068.280150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>>You saw the Wellbutrin anti-depressant commercial on TV. The woman with   
   >>>>the horse is so weird.   
   >>>>She says: "It is nice that there is a low risk of sexual side effects."   
   >>>>   
   >>>>What is nice about any sexual side effects?   
   >>>   
   >>>Yes, those commercials are lame. No one takes them seriously.   
   >>   
   >>Perhaps not you, but I am sure that people go to the doc and ask for   
   >>the garbage.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>However,   
   >>>you've missed the point completely. The woman wasn't saying that there's   
   >>>anything nice about sexual side effects, she was saying that it's nice   
   >>>that   
   >>>Wellbutrin has a _low risk_ of sexual side effects. Isn't low risk   
   >>>better?   
   >>>This was mentioned because antidepressants are notorious for their sexual   
   >>>side effects.   
   >>   
   >>Duh! I got that one. It nevertheless sounds stupid what she says.   
   >   
   >   
   > What you initially said indicates that you either didn't get it or were   
   > purposely distorting it.   
      
   Her original use of english made the point well to me, but I can see why   
   you could misconstrue it. If you were to remove the image of   
   antidepressants having sexual side effects, then bringing them up in an   
   advert appears ludicrous. It appears like they're unnecessarily drawing   
   attention to the fact that side effects exist. If a tobacco company   
   advertised as "now causes less cancer and heart disease" that might also   
   seem odd; they prefer to be indirect.   
      
      
   >>>>Did it ever occur to anybody that the pharma industry makes drugs with   
   >>>>"dual" or even more purposes?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Just as Siemens made switches for kidney machines that can be used to   
   >>>>detonate nuclear bombs, I came to the conclusion that the pharma   
   >>>>industry produces deliberately drugs with side effects to sell more   
   >>>>other drugs.   
   >>>   
   >>>This statement is a perfect example of your delusional, distorted   
   >>>thinking,   
   >>>Barbara.   
   >>   
   >>Thanks for the insult, jerk.   
   >   
   >   
   > That was not an insult, it was a description of the way you think. It says   
   > nothing about you as a person.   
      
   Which is still an insult even if accurate.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>It's impossible to make drugs without side effects.   
   >>   
   >>And what makes you to an expert?   
   >   
   >   
   > I'm not an expert, but I'm willing to bet that I have more of an education   
   > in biology than you do. And that it's impossible to make a drug without side   
   > effects is common knowledge. No expertise required.   
      
   That's not logically consistent at all. It would be nice if common   
   knowledge automatically equated to facts but that's not the case.   
      
   I guesss it's theoretically possible that all effects of a drug are   
   desirable and intended and hence none are "side effects". But I'm not an   
   expert either!   
      
      
   >>Just because the pharma industry lies   
   >>that to us, doesn't mean it is true.   
   >   
   >   
   > Ask a biochemist who doesn't work in the pharmaceutical industry if it's   
   > possible to make a drug without side effects and tell me what he or she   
   > tells you.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>I'm very   
   >>>critical of psychiatry and of the pharmaceutical industry (at least the   
   >>>people involved in making and selling psychiatric drugs), but to think   
   >>>they   
   >>>purposely make people worse with side effects is just baseless, absurd   
   >>>speculation. Do you have any evidence to back up this accusation?   
   >>   
   >>Evidence is everywhere. These culprits don't come forward and admit   
   >>that they do it. Just look at the papers in the prescriptions and what   
   >>else you get, including death, while popping these drugs.   
   >   
   >   
   > It's unlikely that a psychiatric drug will kill you, even in overdose.   
   > They're legally required to give written warnings about potential adverse   
   > effects. Patients can't claim to be ignorant. They should know what they're   
   > getting themselves into. "But my doctor didn't tell me!" isn't a very good   
   > excuse. The doctor probably assumes you can read and aren't stupid enough to   
   > put something in your body if you don't know what it could potentially do to   
   > you.   
      
   Older psychiatric drugs have killed and newer ones allegedly kill by   
   causing suicidal zombies. Personally, I take issue with your repeated   
   assertions, here and elsewhere, that everyone is responsible for their   
   actions. This is not true and it doesn't make sense philosophically. It   
   may only be plain to see in a patient who is mentally incapable but   
   that's not the point.   
      
   >   
   > As for the evidence, I can see once again that you've not provided any.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>What would go along with Wellbutrin and the sexual side effects? Viagra   
   >>>>of course.   
   >>>   
   >>>Viagra is made by Pfizer, and Wellbutrin is made by GlaxoSmithKline--two   
   >>>entirely different companies.   
   >>   
   >>It doesn't matter. There are connections between these guys who are not   
   >>mentioned in the press and how they "help each other",   
   >   
   >   
   > Evidence?   
   >   
   >   
   >>moreover, Viagra is not the only brand somebody could use to get over the   
   >>sexual side   
   >>effects.   
   >   
   >   
   > Never said it was. And Viagra is for men. Men aren't the only ones who   
   > experience sexual side effects. The point I was trying to make is that   
   > Viagra and Wellbutrin are made by two different companies, so your implying   
   > that they make Wellbutrin have sexual side effects so that they could sell   
   > more Viagra is absurd, as is the idea that any company does this.   
      
   If Barbara's allegations were true, and I'm not saying they are or are   
   not, the rationale she provided is actually quite good and you're not   
   contradicting it. Intentionally causing side effects may create   
   dependence on non-specific drugs and manufacturers and simply boost the   
   whole industry. Competing firms could easily collude to this common goal.   
      
      
   >>>>And people poison themselves more and more with these drugs and the   
   >>>>pharma industry is getting richer.   
   >>>   
   >>>Are you against only psychiatric drugs or _all_ drugs? Psychiatric drugs   
   >>>aren't the only ones that are potentially dangerous.   
   >>   
   >>I just take drugs when there is no other way around, e.g. needed some   
   >>anti-botics in the past, but it's a long time ago and I use natural   
   >>remedies to get over what's bugging me or I wait till it is gone and   
   >>cope with the pain.   
   >   
   >   
   > So what would you tell a cancer patient? Or an AIDS patient? The treatments   
   > for those two diseases cannot be cured with natural remedies and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)