Isn't it capitalistically convenient that some prescription pills "treatments" are to be taken daily? And in the end, the so called "treatments" don't even cure you, they just ease your pains or prolong your life, to then get sick with somethin else and "treat" once more... Aren't there any other ways to treat patients other than taking a daily pill? Something, say, more natural, less invasive, with less side effects? I wonder if it is true that drug companies hold the cures to certain illnesses in order to keep the revenue they already get from their released drugs which, instead of healing, just keep the people alive enough to make them come back.
Have you noticed all the advertising for drugs that people don't really need? I mean, come on, how many people in the world cannot breath? I ask that because there is a new commercial on TV about some nasal thing that you shoot up your nose (DAILY!) to be able to breath. I'm sure that only a very small amount of population need this, but, since it is being advertised, everyone will want it. I'm not against TV advertising, at all, I just hate advertising of medicines. Public relations would argue that it is an easier way to give people information, and to give them a headstart over their physicians; but then, who is the doctor? The people, the advertising or the f-ing doctor?
You know what? No, I'm not against advertising of medicines... I'm against a particular kind of medicine being advertised: the ones that are supposed to be taken for prevention. Whatever. Don't take no pills to prevent an illness... but eat well and excersice ¡por Dios! Not only will the drugs make people sicker (on some random organ to which the drug is "side-affecting"), they will make people adicted to it... These preventive drugs have proliferated in recent years, because of the advertising and because of the fear in which people live. It is unethical to coarse perfectly healthy people into believing that they need a medicine (with side effects) to keep going, and to pay montly for it. Maybe I'm overreacting, and maybe you'd say: "Joel, well, most people wouldn't actually fall for it", but the less fortunate do, specially the elderly. Oh, because that's another issue: the health plan motherfuckers, bastards convince people into buying their horrid montly payment plans to then fuck you over when you go to the doctor or the pharmacy (but that's a subject for another day).
So again, maybe I'm overreacting (Joel, defender of the weak), or maybe not, maybe drug companies ARE keeping people sick. Think about it, I'm sure you have come to the same conclussion by now: it IS, as I said in the beginning, capitalistically convinient.
I wonder what they'll do when the cure for AIDS finally comes up (and other uncurable diseases)... Will they reveal it (like the rumor of the cure for cancers) or will they shut up to keep the sick buying the pill cocktails?
Have you noticed all the advertising for drugs that people don't really need? I mean, come on, how many people in the world cannot breath? I ask that because there is a new commercial on TV about some nasal thing that you shoot up your nose (DAILY!) to be able to breath. I'm sure that only a very small amount of population need this, but, since it is being advertised, everyone will want it. I'm not against TV advertising, at all, I just hate advertising of medicines. Public relations would argue that it is an easier way to give people information, and to give them a headstart over their physicians; but then, who is the doctor? The people, the advertising or the f-ing doctor?
You know what? No, I'm not against advertising of medicines... I'm against a particular kind of medicine being advertised: the ones that are supposed to be taken for prevention. Whatever. Don't take no pills to prevent an illness... but eat well and excersice ¡por Dios! Not only will the drugs make people sicker (on some random organ to which the drug is "side-affecting"), they will make people adicted to it... These preventive drugs have proliferated in recent years, because of the advertising and because of the fear in which people live. It is unethical to coarse perfectly healthy people into believing that they need a medicine (with side effects) to keep going, and to pay montly for it. Maybe I'm overreacting, and maybe you'd say: "Joel, well, most people wouldn't actually fall for it", but the less fortunate do, specially the elderly. Oh, because that's another issue: the health plan motherfuckers, bastards convince people into buying their horrid montly payment plans to then fuck you over when you go to the doctor or the pharmacy (but that's a subject for another day).
So again, maybe I'm overreacting (Joel, defender of the weak), or maybe not, maybe drug companies ARE keeping people sick. Think about it, I'm sure you have come to the same conclussion by now: it IS, as I said in the beginning, capitalistically convinient.
I wonder what they'll do when the cure for AIDS finally comes up (and other uncurable diseases)... Will they reveal it (like the rumor of the cure for cancers) or will they shut up to keep the sick buying the pill cocktails?
1 comment:
My family owns a chain of pharmacies, and I know exactly how you feel. There's a sort of paradoxical mischief in all of it, though. It's gotten to a point where costumers have become completely dependent. If you tell them that they don't need as many pills as they're taking, they become doubtful about your medical abilities and pharmaceutical knowledge. Anyway, they'll just end up in another doctor's office or pharmacy, until they finally get their fix.
Pharmaceutical companies have already done the damage. ¿Is it reversible? That's the real question.
Post a Comment