Why is there no mention of Don Quixote (1605) the first modern novel? It was divide into chapters, long before the Victorian era, which the author claims is when chapters in novels became accepted?
Also, I believe that heat is one of the big factors when thinking about pfas - meaning coffee in a coffee cup is not ideal.
But I'm personally not too worried about ingesting pfas from pfas lined products!
First off - the water cycle has already been infiltrated by them, you can look it up, but rainfall all over the world contains significant pfas, I think the strong image people keep is that it's raining pfas in the Himalayas. This has been going on a few years if I recall right.
So it's already pretty bad - you're ingesting them in water( water treatment does treat those away in most of the US and Canada (from what I'm aware of)) But also in everything that ingests that water, like plants and the ground. This also means that any food that is transformed has a good chance of concentrating PFAS into itself.
Second reason is that the reason we use PFAS is because they are very strong and hard to break down. It's unlikely that your coffee cup will infuse a large amount of pfas in the coffee because it was put there to be a barrier, if it shed material easily it wouldn't be a good surface treatment.
The issue is what the article talked about : PFAS in waste breaking down into very small particles that are tough to handle and are very mobile in the environnement. By using more and more PFAS in manufacturing, we're creating more waste that will emit PFAS particles into the environnement - meaning the water cycle, and then we poison the whole world.
We need regulation! People don't even know they are participating to the problem.
> But I'm personally not too worried about ingesting pfas from pfas lined products!
The fact that we've poisoned the rain wouldn't make me feel any better about the PFAS I'm getting from packaging. There's research showing that the chemicals do leach into food from packaging and that it causes significant increases in the amount found in people's blood. Look up the findings on PFAS and microwave popcorn for example. It not looking good for coffee cups either https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
There's loads of precedent pointing to commercial speech such as marketing as having some specific carve outs on the right to free speech. After all we have limits on tobacco marketing and food labeling requirements.
The politicians are getting funded/paid (lobbying/donations) by the very same people/companies that pay the ad revenue to those media. Why on earth would politicians legislate against their actual bosses? (As a real life reminder - a dog that bites the hand that feed him is put down). Courts btw don't make up shit.. they 'judge' (verb) with the criteria of 'what does the law define'. So if politicians legislate wisely, courts will enforce any 'parliamentary' and/or executive order to ban the advertisements of medicine.
But they won't. Not until push-comes-to-shove, and the true bosses will reposition to 'the next thing' (smoking, sugary-foods, medicine) and then they will allow the politicians to finally block meds ads. In which case the 'next wave' will begin. Story as old as time...
The problem here is the drugs that are advertised as generally considered "good things". Anybody attempting to regulate the display of these ads would likely need to prove the ads are more harmful than any positive from the ads.
The ads (and it's been debated) is (imho as well) a way to 'buy out those who can keep then in check'. Media/journalists are supposed to be doing that. But when your chief editor tells you "hey, 70% of our network's revenue comes from XYZ" even if you don't want to, you self-censor.
Anyway I have commented many times on the 'legalized bribing' called 'lobbying'. The dishonest ones always week because those with $$$ know very well who can they buy and who can they threaten.
Consumers can directly buy alcohol and tobacco, they cannot buy prescription drugs directly. If there is a problem isn't the primary culprit the prescriber?
If consumers can't even buy these drugs, why do the direct marketing at all? Are you trying to suggest the consumer doesn't have much weight in the prescribing decisions of their doctors?
Clearly the pharmaceutical companies think there's a strong reason to directly market these drugs to consumers even if they can't directly purchase these drugs. The ads almost always say "ask your doctor about..." not "think about prescribing x to your patients..." If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them.
>If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them.
Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.
You're acting as if people shopping around for doctors to get whatever pills they want isn't a thing. That consumers will ask their first GP about a drug, get told no, and then drop it to never ask again.
What's not speculative is consumers will find a way to buy the things they want to buy, and advertising has some amount of influence on purchasing decisions of most consumers.
Either way, can you draw this back to allowing or disallowing direct to consumer prescription drug advertising? Are you honestly suggesting the billions spent on drug advertising has no impact on drug sales?
Sure it might have an impact, but again the culpability of harm isn't on the consumer or advertiser. If people able to shop around for doctors to get any prescription then isn't that the problem, not the advertisement?
It doesn't matter if the adverts have an impact on sales, if it does then doctors are to blame, tv adverts cant prescribe people medication.
If we had heroin advertisements on TV showing how great life is while doing heroin, just ask your doctor, would you still say there is no culpability of harm on the company paying for the ads (the same company supplying all the heroin to the market)? And then remember, actually that was reality, they just didn't call it heroin.
If consumers didn't have in your face advertising about how this new magical wonderdrug will solve all your life problems and you'll be happy again just like all these paid actors, you think they'd still be shopping around doctors as hard? You think they'd even know to shop around for that wonderdrug or pressure their doctor to try it?
Do you think people's decisions to shop around for doctors has zero relation to the drug advertisements they see on TV, on billboards, on the side of busses, in magazines, on the radio, on websites, etc?
Do you think people would still buy as much Coca Cola if they stopped advertising?
With your logic we might as well allow marketing of tobacco to minors again. After all, stores aren't legally allowed to sell it to the minors, so it's just a fault of the stores and the kids.
Do you think we as a society are better off or worse off having pharmeceuticals directly advertised to consumers?
TV ads for cigarettes are not legal in the US at least. And alcohol ads have a bunch of weird regulations like they can’t show people in the act of drinking (holding the booze is fine).
> Merck published the first print DTC ad for a pneumonia vaccine targeting those aged 65 years and older, and Boots Pharmaceuticals aired the first DTC television commercial in 1983 for the prescription ibuprofen Rufen.
But that sentence was worded weirdly, so I checked the sources. This is one of the two for that part:
> While 2006 marks the 10-year anniversary of the Claritin ad, it was actually 24 years ago that the FDA unwittingly opened the door to DTC. Speaking at the American Advertising Federation conference and addressing the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council, then-FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. summarized the state of drug advertising, saying it "may be on the brink of the exponential-growth phase of direct-to-consumer promotion of prescription products."
> Drug companies jumped on the phrase "exponential growth" and took it to mean the FDA, however tacitly, supported DTC.
> 'Opening a closed door'
> "It was viewed by the industry as FDA opening a closed door," said Kenneth R. Feather, a former associate FDA commissioner.
> A year later, in 1983, Boots Pharmaceuticals aired the first direct-to-consumer TV ad when it promoted its prescription ibuprofen medication, Rufen. The company also ran newspaper ads at the same time. That was in May; by September, the FDA asked the industry for a voluntary moratorium on drug advertisements. (Ibuprofen actually went over the counter a year later.)
> In 1984, Upjohn sponsored a major conference on DTC advertising in Washington, D.C., where it made no bones about expressing its opposition to the practice. But less than five years later, Upjohn was touting the merits of DTC after its hair-restoration medication, Rogaine, was approved by the FDA and needed to be marketed.
The biggest war advertising ever won was manipulating us into classifying their manipulation as speech.
Convincing people to buy things they don’t want or need shouldn’t be protected speech.
Convincing people to take medication they don’t need is the pinnacle of idiocratic capitalist absurdity.
I know I'm coming to the discussion late, but actually there is good evidence that improvements in nutrition, working conditions, and sanitation are a big factor in improving resistance to infectious diseases.
Look at "The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the
Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century", by Mckinlay and McKinley (1977). I know it's an old paper, but it has some fascinating and, to me, very persuasive time series. Those plots show mortality from various infectious diseases over the 20th century.
Example: death rates (per 1000) from scarlet fever dropped from 0.1 in 1900 to effectively 0 in 1940. There is NO VACCINE for scarlet fever.
Example: death rates from measles (lately very much in the news) dropped from 0.12 in 1900 to 0 in 1960 (a vaccine for measles was introduced in 1960).
A similar trend exists for many other infectious diseases: huge drops in mortality PRECEDE the introduction of vaccines or antibiotics for the disease. Surely we can't credit vaccines with such a drop in death rates. I don't see how anybody could come to such a conclusion.
No one is contesting the role of nutrition, working conditions, and sanitation in infectious diseases generally. What I asked was: what evidence is there that this is a significant contributor to infectious disease in countries like the US? (I should clarify that I'm referring to present-day US, because we're discussing in context of MAHA which is present-day US)
Yes, measles death rates had dropped precipitously (fortunately), however incidence (new cases) had only dropped a little. It wasn't until the vaccine was introduced that incidence dropped to nearly zero[1]. Yours is a common anti-vaxx talking point, and one that seems to neglect that death is not the only negative outcome from measles. It's understandable to take the talking point at face value when it appears to be scientifically-supported, though this is a good example of how a talking point uses a cherry-picked fact and reframes the issue for a presupposed conclusion (that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective), because the origin of that talking point had no interest in comprehensively informing people but converting them to believers.
Yes, the measles vaccine is effective. It reduces cases of measles. But the paper in question says that deaths were reduced to almost zero before the vaccine was introduced. The graph that you linked to shows the same thing.
For me the paper shows not just that good sanitation and nutrition help reduce deaths from many infections diseases, but that they are the primary agent in that reduction. I thought it was a very cool paper, although you don’t seem moved in the same way as me.
When I was a child, my parents weren’t upset when I got measles (I was, because it meant missing a trip to the seashore). It meant that you were going to be miserable for a week, but would be immune afterwards. So I became one more case, but not one more death.
I mean, that good sanitation reduced infectious disease incidence and mortality was something I was already aware of so I've already been "moved" so to speak. As for nutrition, the paper cites one researcher who concludes nutrition was a major factor, and it probably was a factor, though the magnitude of its impact is not firmly established by that one researcher.
On the other hand, since cell cameras don't filter out infrared, you can use them to detect spy cameras in your airbnb, which are using IR to illuminate the room.
You're right. Coming up with a proof is a creative process. Each major proof in mathematics is so unique, that it usually gets named after its inventor. So we have Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many primes, Euler's proof that e is irrational, and Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem.
This work by Gat and Gornish gives a great explanation for prostate enlargement. There's an article by Donaldson [1] that suggests a connection to vitamin K2:
A large study from 2014 by Nimptsch et al found a strong inverse correlation between intake of vitamin K2 and prostate cancer [2]. Dairy foods with K2 had the most effect (K2 is soluble in butterfat).
Vitamin K2 helps remove calcium from the elastin in artery and vein walls, reducing their stiffness. Donaldson hypothesizes that K2 improves venous flow, and hence might reduce the varicoceles that lead to too much free testosterone getting to the prostate and causing enlargement.
So eat more grass-fed butter, or take a K2 supplement. At worst, you might also improve your bone strength. At best, men might prevent prostate cancer.
I had my prostate removed six weeks ago due to Gleason 8 score cancer. The pathology revealed an aggressive cancer.
My prostate was not enlarged, my PSA at the end was 4.2. Only because my doctor was overly cautious about the slope of the PSA rise did he send me for an MRI starting the diagnosis. It remains to be seen if it escaped containment.
The point here is, I don’t think enlargement and cancer are that intertwined. Cancer happens for any number of reasons, pinning hope that it can be staved off by diet and vitamins seems to ignore tons of other environmental factors.
Wow, that sounds scary. I hope it doesn't come back. Weird about the 4.2 PSA; that wouldn't have raised alarms, normally. I guess acceleration is as important as absolute values.
All the best. I had a check up for prostate cancer recently, and fortunately have been told I don't have it, but until that moment I felt the stress of wondering and worrying, so you have my sympathy.
I'm also glad you found a good doctor, the first I found did no checks at all. Told me I'm too young to have any problems (I'm definitely not) and sent me away with some herbal medicine and all that stress I mentioned. The second doctor I found was thorough and reassuring, and shocked by the behaviour of the first.
reply