Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 595778" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Could you provide a source or link to confirm such assertion? My reading sez that penicillin was first discovered by French physican <strong>Ernest Duchesne</strong> while studying at the Military Health Service School of Lyon in 1896'. The next major advance towards penicillin was the work of Alexander Fleming whose work as I can see at no time took place on the North American continent. The last major hurdle to modern pencillin took place in the 1940's as discussed in the video by the duo of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231100/http://chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/antibiot/readings/flocha.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Howard Walter Florey and Ernst Boris Chain</span></a> who picked up Fleming's work to produce an actual clinical drug but again, this did not take place anywhere in North America although their work was heavily subsidized by the Rockerfeller Foundation of NY.</p><p></p><p>The speaker in the video in fact never made any such claim as to the location but you twisted his context in order to find fault as you disagreed with his over all POV.</p><p></p><p>As to co-ops being local, yes that's correct. As for co-ops owning clinics, hospitals, etc. yes, advocating that as well. Ever heard of St. Judes, Scottish Rite in Atlanta or many, many more hospitals either owned by private charitible/faternal organizations or did you ever hear the term <a href="http://www.comhs.org/ways_to_give/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">"community hospital"?</span> </a>Gee, wonder who owns that? Damn, what a concept!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital#cite_note-0" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Non-Profit Hospital</span></a></p><p></p><p>As for situations that could happen that overwhelm local conditions? Sure, happens all the time even in our modern centralized state. Remember the positively effective response to Katrina? But let's ignore the very fact that it was high risk to every build that city there to begin with and one of the main reasons people found themselves sadly in the horrible situation to begin with was that they trusted gov't claims of being able to keep the water out no matter what. It just seems unrealistic on our part to accept the fact that you can build a house on the side of an active volcano and by decree of the majority via gov't collective, the volcano gods will be held in check no matter what. Shall we throw common sense to the wind?</p><p></p><p>I contend that state intervention actually amplifies negative outcomes because it hides the realities of the nature of the true risks involved. You might read <span style="color: red">Number 5: The Problem of Security</span> and even though the point concerns the idea of free market economics, the truths still apply elsewhere that when gov't intervenes it hides the true risk involved. Had the gov't been truthful with New Orleans all along about their inability in all situations to keep the water out, the after effects of Katrina might have been a lot less because people might not have been as comfortable living there knowing the risks involved.</p><p></p><p>At the same time gov't can also over explode risks as it may be doing with the threat of swine flu. Annually we have (sadly too) <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">36k deaths</span> </a>from flu complications. Most of these are a result of persons with depressed immune systems caused by one thing or another. Early swine projections was for 30k to 90k deaths and then the 90k number seemed to stick in the public space but even now the <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009737656_swineflu26.html?syndication=rss" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">CDC itself</span> </a>is starting to back off that 90k number. Is swine flu headed towards a typical flu year after all?</p><p></p><p>I wonder if we will be told of the 1976' outbreak and the associated <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Guillain-Barré syndrome to the vaccine plan then</span></a> or will that history and other potential risks be hidden on the grounds of the "greater good being served?"</p><p></p><p>For a gov't having run on the idea of transparency, it will be interesting to see how much they truly believe in the idea of a truly informed patient or citizenry for that fact. I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good in blue!</p><p></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 595778, member: 2189"] Could you provide a source or link to confirm such assertion? My reading sez that penicillin was first discovered by French physican [B]Ernest Duchesne[/B] while studying at the Military Health Service School of Lyon in 1896'. The next major advance towards penicillin was the work of Alexander Fleming whose work as I can see at no time took place on the North American continent. The last major hurdle to modern pencillin took place in the 1940's as discussed in the video by the duo of [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231100/http://chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/antibiot/readings/flocha.htm'][COLOR=red]Howard Walter Florey and Ernst Boris Chain[/COLOR][/URL] who picked up Fleming's work to produce an actual clinical drug but again, this did not take place anywhere in North America although their work was heavily subsidized by the Rockerfeller Foundation of NY. The speaker in the video in fact never made any such claim as to the location but you twisted his context in order to find fault as you disagreed with his over all POV. As to co-ops being local, yes that's correct. As for co-ops owning clinics, hospitals, etc. yes, advocating that as well. Ever heard of St. Judes, Scottish Rite in Atlanta or many, many more hospitals either owned by private charitible/faternal organizations or did you ever hear the term [URL='http://www.comhs.org/ways_to_give/'][COLOR=red]"community hospital"?[/COLOR] [/URL]Gee, wonder who owns that? Damn, what a concept! see [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital#cite_note-0'][COLOR=red]Non-Profit Hospital[/COLOR][/URL] As for situations that could happen that overwhelm local conditions? Sure, happens all the time even in our modern centralized state. Remember the positively effective response to Katrina? But let's ignore the very fact that it was high risk to every build that city there to begin with and one of the main reasons people found themselves sadly in the horrible situation to begin with was that they trusted gov't claims of being able to keep the water out no matter what. It just seems unrealistic on our part to accept the fact that you can build a house on the side of an active volcano and by decree of the majority via gov't collective, the volcano gods will be held in check no matter what. Shall we throw common sense to the wind? I contend that state intervention actually amplifies negative outcomes because it hides the realities of the nature of the true risks involved. You might read [COLOR=red]Number 5: The Problem of Security[/COLOR] and even though the point concerns the idea of free market economics, the truths still apply elsewhere that when gov't intervenes it hides the true risk involved. Had the gov't been truthful with New Orleans all along about their inability in all situations to keep the water out, the after effects of Katrina might have been a lot less because people might not have been as comfortable living there knowing the risks involved. At the same time gov't can also over explode risks as it may be doing with the threat of swine flu. Annually we have (sadly too) [URL='http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm'][COLOR=red]36k deaths[/COLOR] [/URL]from flu complications. Most of these are a result of persons with depressed immune systems caused by one thing or another. Early swine projections was for 30k to 90k deaths and then the 90k number seemed to stick in the public space but even now the [URL='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009737656_swineflu26.html?syndication=rss'][COLOR=red]CDC itself[/COLOR] [/URL]is starting to back off that 90k number. Is swine flu headed towards a typical flu year after all? I wonder if we will be told of the 1976' outbreak and the associated [URL='http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm'][COLOR=red]Guillain-Barré syndrome to the vaccine plan then[/COLOR][/URL] or will that history and other potential risks be hidden on the grounds of the "greater good being served?" For a gov't having run on the idea of transparency, it will be interesting to see how much they truly believe in the idea of a truly informed patient or citizenry for that fact. I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good in blue! :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
Top
