FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > The right to try.
The right to try.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy " Hi wildatheart, yes. I also agree that it is your body, your choice should be your choice too | |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy " If I hadn't had chemo / RT 9 years ago I'd be long dead, but hey ho, each to their own. | |||
"I suppose if you're terminal you'll try anything. I know I would " Hi nicecouple, yes, same here. I would also then try anything too | |||
"I don’t know anything about the proposed policy but based on your synopsis OP I would generally be in favour of people having the right to do what they want with their body - as long as they took _full_ responsibility for those actions. To me that would mean they paid for it and any side effects were their issue to deal with. I could see big issues down the road with people claiming companies had mislead them or that they had been coerced which is why it would need to be very clear anyone taking this course could find it go badly wrong." I heard about it from one of john campells video where he talked about what plan trump had in mind about it, yes. I am also in favour of it too  | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy " Bet you would | |||
"I suppose if you're terminal you'll try anything. I know I would " Same here. | |||
| |||
| |||
"On another unrelated subject, Iran has the highest cohort of smokers in the world and the lowest occurrence of lung cancer. Have you got related proof of this comment? You seem to be advocating that smoking isn’t related to lung cancer. #batshitcrazy " That is not what I’m saying. Smoking is clearly related to lung cancer. Yet it is a fact that Iranians have the worlds largest cohort of smokers and the lowest occurrence of lung cancer. A cold hard fact. I have read translations of the white papers that studied the phenomena. | |||
"On another unrelated subject, Iran has the highest cohort of smokers in the world and the lowest occurrence of lung cancer. Have you got related proof of this comment? You seem to be advocating that smoking isn’t related to lung cancer. #batshitcrazy That is not what I’m saying. Smoking is clearly related to lung cancer. Yet it is a fact that Iranians have the worlds largest cohort of smokers and the lowest occurrence of lung cancer. A cold hard fact. I have read translations of the white papers that studied the phenomena. " Maybe the Iranians don’t report the truth. | |||
| |||
| |||
 etc. The most experienced people may seem to be the ones who you can save the most from, when you fire them. Once the expertise is gone, it's lost forever.
Superficially, some aspects of giving people the legal ability to try out alternative treatment options But if they are recognised as having sovereignty over themselves, why have you not enshrined this legally in fuller scope? Where freedoms are seemingly freely given or taken away, we should be questioning of the motivations and repercussions - as well as whether there are some even better approaches.
And medicine should primarily follow the scientific method, as has been standard process for some time. A new wild west, in medicine?
Meanwhile, we should be looking at what's happening with the CDC there, as they have responsibility for the monitoring of health, including surveillance for emerging issues and threats. Plus the FDA the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees foods and medicine safety etc. How's their resourcing? Is it improving, should the public potentially be exposed to increased risks? Should the public, mere laypeople, need professional expertise to support their choices - will it be fully available for them, including for their medical professionals, who will likely have their hands full?
The pandemic did highlight how people who are sometimes desperate, during medical challenges, may pursue wrong and often very dangerous options. ivermectin was one example Shag the OP, mentioned. An antiparasite treatment, a huge volume of people took veterinary treatments, many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning. A little knowledge can be dangerous! | |||
| |||
"If it's absolutely any policy from Trump, you know that it's only purpose is for the benefit of himself and his rich friends. In this particular case, my guess is that it's a lead up to allowing drug trials on human subjects with zero protection for the subjects. Tell people who can't afford health insurance that they can try this new miracle drug that the evil FDA didn't want them to have. Just sign this form disallowing them from claiming if their skin falls off... Drug companies get to test new stuff without having to bother with all the safety costs, and when the poor people die then hey, it doesn't matter... I'm guessing that all the trump supporters who scream blue murder about "evil big pharma vaccines" will now be totally in favour of feeding untried drugs to human guinea pigs..."
Smoke and mirrors! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Have any of you watched RFK’s announcement that he made yesterday. He gave lots of praise to the government funded scientists. How dedicated they are. How they are driven by altruism. And how their work is misused or ignored for financial benefit. He highlighted how poor American health is and how poor American health outcomes are for a first world economy. It ended really positive. I hope he can succeed in his ambitions." Sadly, I'm sensing the altruism was amongst those people who are getting sacked. It wasn't in abundance around Trump and his lot  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Did you hear what trump will do soon? He will introduce the right to try, so people with cancer, terminal diseases will have a right to try a new drug, or a repurposed drug, that means that they should be available on prescription only in the usa for the moment. The positive thing with this is, is that when they start this, they can collect data and show if it works and is a good idea and no doubt the rest of the world will be given the right to try too. In their wildest dreams. What is your view about it and do you think it is a good idea? I think it is good on the surface, because then people can choose what they want to try with of course advice, things like ivermectin which is proven to work too "I've edited the question. it appears forward thinking but essentially it's creating a fast track from development to market and those who exercise their right to try as it's being called are essentially engaging in clinical trials but without the big cash incentive. Big pharma just got knighted. He's rolled out a red carpet into a cage in a laboratory. Trump is going to change a lot. I fear he's going to realise a world in which a lot of distopian novels will need be read in the future like an account of the good old days. | |||
"Did you hear what trump will do soon? He will introduce the right to try, so people with cancer, terminal diseases will have a right to try a new drug, or a repurposed drug, that means that they should be available on prescription only in the usa for the moment. The positive thing with this is, is that when they start this, they can collect data and show if it works and is a good idea and no doubt the rest of the world will be given the right to try too. In their wildest dreams. What is your view about it and do you think it is a good idea? I think it is good on the surface, because then people can choose what they want to try with of course advice, things like ivermectin which is proven to work too
I've edited the question.
it appears forward thinking but essentially it's creating a fast track from development to market and those who exercise their right to try as it's being called are essentially engaging in clinical trials but without the big cash incentive. Big pharma just got knighted. He's rolled out a red carpet into a cage in a laboratory.
Trump is going to change a lot. I fear he's going to realise a world in which a lot of distopian novels will need be read in the future like an account of the good old days. "All he would do is to allow people to come forward as Guinea pigs, freeing big pharma from responsibility. Having said that, is this real or is it the usual disinformation and bs? sources please | |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy " A common misconception. The physcian has a duty to offer approproate therapy and yours is to choose which is right for you - if any. Under "first do no harm" they should never offer anything inappropriate | |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy A common misconception. The physcian has a duty to offer approproate therapy and yours is to choose which is right for you - if any. Under "first do no harm" they should never offer anything inappropriate" When I was diagnosed with cancer my oncologist recommended RT and Chemo. I asked what would happen if I declined, she said I’d most likely die, painfully. 9 years on I’m glad I took her advice as I’m still here. | |||
| |||
" I would imagine with their hyper processed diet and general lifestyle, most Americans will suffer cancer at some point. His proposal is an effective way to unload otherwise unsold drugs. No way an anti vaccine conspiracy theorist like him. is doing it for the common good." He was initially a little reluctant to do anything, when they had a recent death from measles. It's perhaps some of the children's parents who he'd influenced, before this role, to discourage them getting their kids vaccinated . | |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy Hi wildatheart, yes. I also agree that it is your body, your choice should be your choice too "Your body, your choice, but if any long term injuries result from such a trial you are on your own. The rest of us should not shoulder the burden of your risk taking. | |||
"Women: I want to try having an abortion before I die Maga: no! Not you!" I was thinking the same | |||
"Did you hear what trump will do soon? He will introduce the right to try, so people with cancer, terminal diseases will have a right to try a new drug, or a repurposed drug, that means that they should be available on prescription only in the usa for the moment. The positive thing with this is, is that when they start this, they can collect data and show if it works and is a good idea and no doubt the rest of the world will give the right to try too. What is your view about it and do you think it is a good idea? I think it is good, because then people can choose what they want to try with of course advice, things like ivermectin which is proven to work too "Was not aware. On its face it seems to have some merit but... Wonder if it's a back door way to deregulate the pharma world. I mean he isn't the most trustworthy of people and his track record of supporting humanity v supporting corporates is not strong. But getting treatments to people who need them seems a good thing. | |||
"But also let's not forget, this is the guy who wanted people to take bleach for COVID instead of the vaccines." No come on. I'm no fan of his but he absolutely did not say that. Lets not just make sound bites up. | |||
"But also let's not forget, this is the guy who wanted people to take bleach for COVID instead of the vaccines. No come on. I'm no fan of his but he absolutely did not say that. Lets not just make sound bites up. " He said "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" Not a million miles away. | |||
| |||
"But also let's not forget, this is the guy who wanted people to take bleach for COVID instead of the vaccines. No come on. I'm no fan of his but he absolutely did not say that. Lets not just make sound bites up. He said "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" Not a million miles away." So you comprehend that as saying don't take vaccines but take bleach instead? OK then. | |||
"I don't know the proposal but it does concern me that Trump is attacking the state, with thousands of experienced staff laid off, which in itself doesn't bode well for the protection of its citizens. The state apparatus is responsible for all of the protective infrastructure that citizens rightly expect, everything from ensuring safety, standards setting enforcement, which of course requires monitoring on an ongoing basis; national infrastructure planning and maintenance - too bad, if you cut bridge operations management and you happened to be crossing it, when it collapsed etc. The most experienced people may seem to be the ones who you can save the most from, when you fire them. Once the expertise is gone, it's lost forever.
Superficially, some aspects of giving people the legal ability to try out alternative treatment options But if they are recognised as having sovereignty over themselves, why have you not enshrined this legally in fuller scope? Where freedoms are seemingly freely given or taken away, we should be questioning of the motivations and repercussions - as well as whether there are some even better approaches.
And medicine should primarily follow the scientific method, as has been standard process for some time. A new wild west, in medicine?
Meanwhile, we should be looking at what's happening with the CDC there, as they have responsibility for the monitoring of health, including surveillance for emerging issues and threats. Plus the FDA the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees foods and medicine safety etc. How's their resourcing? Is it improving, should the public potentially be exposed to increased risks? Should the public, mere laypeople, need professional expertise to support their choices - will it be fully available for them, including for their medical professionals, who will likely have their hands full?
The pandemic did highlight how people who are sometimes desperate, during medical challenges, may pursue wrong and often very dangerous options. ivermectin was one example Shag the OP, mentioned. An antiparasite treatment, a huge volume of people took veterinary treatments, many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning. A little knowledge can be dangerous! "Ivermectin is a safe drug over 4 billion doses worldwide...not one death ..it's widely used in Africa as a preventative drug for various viruses.... Ivermectin is on the WHO,s top 100 must have drugs ..your information is incorrect | |||
"I don't know the proposal but it does concern me that Trump is attacking the state, with thousands of experienced staff laid off, which in itself doesn't bode well for the protection of its citizens. The state apparatus is responsible for all of the protective infrastructure that citizens rightly expect, everything from ensuring safety, standards setting enforcement, which of course requires monitoring on an ongoing basis; national infrastructure planning and maintenance - too bad, if you cut bridge operations management and you happened to be crossing it, when it collapsed etc. The most experienced people may seem to be the ones who you can save the most from, when you fire them. Once the expertise is gone, it's lost forever.
Superficially, some aspects of giving people the legal ability to try out alternative treatment options But if they are recognised as having sovereignty over themselves, why have you not enshrined this legally in fuller scope? Where freedoms are seemingly freely given or taken away, we should be questioning of the motivations and repercussions - as well as whether there are some even better approaches.
And medicine should primarily follow the scientific method, as has been standard process for some time. A new wild west, in medicine?
Meanwhile, we should be looking at what's happening with the CDC there, as they have responsibility for the monitoring of health, including surveillance for emerging issues and threats. Plus the FDA the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees foods and medicine safety etc. How's their resourcing? Is it improving, should the public potentially be exposed to increased risks? Should the public, mere laypeople, need professional expertise to support their choices - will it be fully available for them, including for their medical professionals, who will likely have their hands full?
The pandemic did highlight how people who are sometimes desperate, during medical challenges, may pursue wrong and often very dangerous options. ivermectin was one example Shag the OP, mentioned. An antiparasite treatment, a huge volume of people took veterinary treatments, many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning. A little knowledge can be dangerous! Ivermectin is a safe drug over 4 billion doses worldwide...not one death ..it's widely used in Africa as a preventative drug for various viruses.... Ivermectin is on the WHO,s top 100 must have drugs ..your information is incorrect "You are wrong about no deaths, not that is very dangerous at recommended levels. Ivermectin is fine and safe to use for what is supposed to be used for I.e a deworming tablet. There is pretty much zero evidence of any effect on any virus despite there being loads of studies. | |||
"I don't know the proposal but it does concern me that Trump is attacking the state, with thousands of experienced staff laid off, which in itself doesn't bode well for the protection of its citizens. The state apparatus is responsible for all of the protective infrastructure that citizens rightly expect, everything from ensuring safety, standards setting enforcement, which of course requires monitoring on an ongoing basis; national infrastructure planning and maintenance - too bad, if you cut bridge operations management and you happened to be crossing it, when it collapsed etc. The most experienced people may seem to be the ones who you can save the most from, when you fire them. Once the expertise is gone, it's lost forever.
Superficially, some aspects of giving people the legal ability to try out alternative treatment options But if they are recognised as having sovereignty over themselves, why have you not enshrined this legally in fuller scope? Where freedoms are seemingly freely given or taken away, we should be questioning of the motivations and repercussions - as well as whether there are some even better approaches.
And medicine should primarily follow the scientific method, as has been standard process for some time. A new wild west, in medicine?
Meanwhile, we should be looking at what's happening with the CDC there, as they have responsibility for the monitoring of health, including surveillance for emerging issues and threats. Plus the FDA the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees foods and medicine safety etc. How's their resourcing? Is it improving, should the public potentially be exposed to increased risks? Should the public, mere laypeople, need professional expertise to support their choices - will it be fully available for them, including for their medical professionals, who will likely have their hands full?
The pandemic did highlight how people who are sometimes desperate, during medical challenges, may pursue wrong and often very dangerous options. ivermectin was one example Shag the OP, mentioned. An antiparasite treatment, a huge volume of people took veterinary treatments, many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning. A little knowledge can be dangerous! Ivermectin is a safe drug over 4 billion doses worldwide...not one death ..it's widely used in Africa as a preventative drug for various viruses.... Ivermectin is on the WHO,s top 100 must have drugs ..your information is incorrect "Soo Did you try it ? Did it cure your worms  | |||
"I don't know the proposal but it does concern me that Trump is attacking the state, with thousands of experienced staff laid off, which in itself doesn't bode well for the protection of its citizens. The state apparatus is responsible for all of the protective infrastructure that citizens rightly expect, everything from ensuring safety, standards setting enforcement, which of course requires monitoring on an ongoing basis; national infrastructure planning and maintenance - too bad, if you cut bridge operations management and you happened to be crossing it, when it collapsed etc. The most experienced people may seem to be the ones who you can save the most from, when you fire them. Once the expertise is gone, it's lost forever.
Superficially, some aspects of giving people the legal ability to try out alternative treatment options But if they are recognised as having sovereignty over themselves, why have you not enshrined this legally in fuller scope? Where freedoms are seemingly freely given or taken away, we should be questioning of the motivations and repercussions - as well as whether there are some even better approaches.
And medicine should primarily follow the scientific method, as has been standard process for some time. A new wild west, in medicine?
Meanwhile, we should be looking at what's happening with the CDC there, as they have responsibility for the monitoring of health, including surveillance for emerging issues and threats. Plus the FDA the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees foods and medicine safety etc. How's their resourcing? Is it improving, should the public potentially be exposed to increased risks? Should the public, mere laypeople, need professional expertise to support their choices - will it be fully available for them, including for their medical professionals, who will likely have their hands full?
The pandemic did highlight how people who are sometimes desperate, during medical challenges, may pursue wrong and often very dangerous options. ivermectin was one example Shag the OP, mentioned. An antiparasite treatment, a huge volume of people took veterinary treatments, many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning. A little knowledge can be dangerous! Ivermectin is a safe drug over 4 billion doses worldwide...not one death ..it's widely used in Africa as a preventative drug for various viruses.... Ivermectin is on the WHO,s top 100 must have drugs ..your information is incorrect "
You state that, a few words following 'many of them subsequently had to get treated for poisoning'. Seems a little tiny bit of difference between a large number of people having to be treated for poisoning' and using the word 'safe'
Many people study the words being posted fairly thoroughly. It's really valuable | |||
| |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy " As someone who had the conversation that starts with something like "we've the results and I'm afraid it is cancer..." I really hope you never, ever have to sit and listen to those fateful words. | |||
| |||
"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy As someone who had the conversation that starts with something like "we've the results and I'm afraid it is cancer..." I really hope you never, ever have to sit and listen to those fateful words. " I had that exact conversation on 24/12/15 without chemo and RT I’d be long dead. | |||
"I don’t know anything about the proposed policy but based on your synopsis OP I would generally be in favour of people having the right to do what they want with their body - as long as they took _full_ responsibility for those actions. To me that would mean they paid for it and any side effects were their issue to deal with. I could see big issues down the road with people claiming companies had mislead them or that they had been coerced which is why it would need to be very clear anyone taking this course could find it go badly wrong.I heard about it from one of john campells video where he talked about what plan trump had in mind about it, yes. I am also in favour of it too "Is John Campbell a reliable source? | |||
"Do insurance companies have to cover it? " I'm assuming that the risks will be borne by the patients and that anything detrimental their outcome will be yet another reason to deny cover for care | |||
| |||
"If you can give your body to science after you have died, why can't you give it whilst your alive? (Albeit terminal) I think it's a reasonable step for those in that situation... absolutely nothing to lose. 🤔" These came up in a conversation recently. Why shouldn’t people with illnesses volunteer themselves to be monitored through alternative processes? It’s not a double blind study but valuable lessons could still be learned. | |||
