FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

The right to try.

Jump to newest
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
10 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ildatheart30Couple
10 weeks ago

Gorebridge

I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
10 weeks ago

East Sussex

I suppose if you're terminal you'll try anything. I know I would

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
10 weeks ago

Cheltenham

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
10 weeks ago

East Sussex

I did a very quick Google search and this appears to have been something he did in 2018. Have I misunderstood?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
10 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogandher1962Couple
10 weeks ago

Reading


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
10 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
10 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enelope2UWoman
10 weeks ago

Doesn't matter cant block distances

Waivers signed over the treatment.. policies in place that the family can't then sue for the damages of the treatment. Full medical disclosure and documentation. Possibly even requiring them to have weekly in person medical consultants at home or hospital to record the results.

Ohh like clinical trials.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *vaRose43Woman
10 weeks ago

Forest of Dean

I have some fairly strong views on this.

Before the right to try act there was the expanded access system

Same basic premise with some key differences. Expanded access still exists.

Under expanded access, companies and doctors were required by law to report regularly on adverse affects, patient outcomes (eg did it even help them) and all the same nitty gritty detail needed as if they were taking part in a medical trial.

The right to try act removes those. There is one annual report required and nowhere does it say that patient outcomes must be reported.

From 2018-2023 only 16 types of treatment were given through this act. We have no idea if the hundreds of patients that recieved these treatments were helped or not.

Under expanded access reports are essential as is the fda approval for the treatment - to help prevent ethical and other types of abuse. If the evidence suggests it will help they’ll approve it. The number of treatments approved in this manner annually is in the hundreds and the number of patients in the hundreds of thousands. The fda approve 89% of applications, and this is evidence based.

The only people protecting the patients on the right to try scheme is if the company themselves deny treatment. That’s it. It leaves it really open to abuse. That abuse though they’re immune from as the act gives immunity to the doctors and companies supplying the treatment.

Huge amount of red flags.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anonfire96Man
10 weeks ago

Mansfield

The right to try if you can afford it, or have the insurance to cover it. Just another Trump policy for the rich.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bitofaslutWoman
10 weeks ago

Cannock

Women: I want to try having an abortion before I die

Maga: no! Not you!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
10 weeks ago

Ilkley

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...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *vonne5exMan
8 weeks ago

Doncaster


"I think it's your body and should be your choice, I would personally never have chemotherapy or radiotherapy "
Bet you would

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orny PTMan
8 weeks ago

Peterborough


"I suppose if you're terminal you'll try anything. I know I would "

Same here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury

The cancer act of 1939 causes problems in the UK today. It forbids the promotion of non pharmaceutical cures. It was written in good faith to protect from charlatans selling snake oil. It’s still applied today and has even blocked people gathering in conferences discussing alternative therapies.

Natural tumour treatments from folk medicine around the world have been tested and proven to work by Pharma companies. They then keep it secret while they spend years synthesising the natural compounds and changing them just enough to make them patentable. They are then marketed as medications “complimentary” to chemo or radiotherapy. Because they are modified they have side effects not found in the natural compounds.

If I could give you a short list of natural compounds it would be a crime for me to tell you.

On another unrelated subject, Iran has the highest cohort of smokers in the world and the lowest occurrence of lung cancer.

Another unrelated fact, they don’t chew gum in Iran they chew frankincense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogandher1962Couple
8 weeks ago

Reading

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogandher1962Couple
8 weeks ago

Reading


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury

It’s how boswellic acid was discovered to be a “complimentary” cancer treatment. Look it up. PubMed has plenty of studies on it now. All thanks to Iranian science.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury

Inositol ip6 is a compound extracted from rice bran oil. It’s an iron chelator which binds to a particularly volatile form of iron only found in tumours, making it unavailable to the cancer cell. It’s used as a “complimentary” treatment to chemotherapy. Rice bran oil has been used as a tumour treatment in Chinese medicine for centuries.

Inositol IP6 also supports healthy insulin secretion, prevents kidney calcification and vascular calcification.

As a natural compound we are familiar with it has very few contraindications.

Health stores sell it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
8 weeks ago

Central

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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anonfire96Man
8 weeks ago

Mansfield

Yes this is good in theory, but the right to try will only be available for people who can afford it seeing as he got rid of Obama care , where everyone would have had the right to try.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
8 weeks ago

Central


"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!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anonfire96Man
8 weeks ago

Mansfield

But also let's not forget, this is the guy who wanted people to take bleach for COVID instead of the vaccines.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
8 weeks ago

Central


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
8 weeks ago

Didsbury

I think RFK is sincere. Trump just wants to be popular, remembered well and is a loose cannon. Musk could be the real danger to democracy. Like Trump, he’s not as smart as he is confident and entitled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
8 weeks ago

Horsham

I was asked to join a trial when I had cancer. As it was I got the usual route, that was 3 weeks of Radiotherapy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aringtogo00Man
7 weeks ago

glasgow

It’s not the “right to try” that will bother people in the USA or that Donald Trump can facilitate the right.

It’s if those and such as those that can afford medical treatments, especially those of cancers, the insurance companies treat many as experimental treatments which are not covered under there insurance policies, great get out clauses.

As for chemotherapy in the UK it’s not experimental treatments. It’s trials of chemotherapy which have been proven, as a cancer survivor I was on trials on a few drugs, had it not been for these I would have been long gone and on the wrong side of the grass , I can only thank the research scientists and pharmacists for putting these concoctions together.

However at the time I went through this, it was not without its problems via side effects from the drugs , I can acknowledge the fact that there very small prices to pay .

In today’s chemotherapy’s many are synthetic drugs, where they can elevate or reduce many of the side effects which take much of the stress and strain out of the system allowing the immune system to function far better .

I’ve read on various articles in magazines, newspapers and websites of people decrying chemotherapy and radiotherapy , this is one thing to remember without them there is no chance, I’ve known people who thought they’d try cannabis oil and various other products only to end up on chemotherapy and radiotherapy fighting cancer which has got a grip of them .

It’s just a pity media doesn’t report the cancer survivors as quickly as it reports on those that have succumbed to these diseases, just maybe people wouldn’t have the fear of cancers .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ondiego85Man
7 weeks ago

nottingham

Stuff with no scientific validation is usually just useless snake oil sold by grifters who take advantage of the desperation of people.

People have freedom of choice and if they want to try sheep urine to treat their cancer instead of a known therapy with known percentages of success, they can. As long as they pay for it and they don’t ask for sheep urine to be available in the NHS. Who am I to tell people not to lose their money, health and dignity?

Ah, the Americans. They deserve every thing that trump will bring them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *effdelightMan
7 weeks ago

Grimsby


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ondiego85Man
7 weeks ago

nottingham


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lusherCouple
7 weeks ago

bodmin


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogandher1962Couple
7 weeks ago

Reading


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ork man floatsMan
5 weeks ago

midleton

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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
5 weeks ago

Central


" 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 .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ada123Couple
4 weeks ago

glasgow


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenscentitCouple
4 weeks ago

barnstaple


"Women: I want to try having an abortion before I die

Maga: no! Not you!"

I was thinking the same

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
4 weeks ago

Tin town


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
4 weeks ago

Tin town


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Durham


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckurcumMan
4 weeks ago

Bishop Auckland

This from a man that told people to drink bleach during COVID !

The man flip flops from one thing to the next ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
4 weeks ago

Tin town


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nalleesaMan
4 weeks ago

Chester


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Durham


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *I TwoCouple
4 weeks ago

PDI 12-26th Nov 24


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Central


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otoBlue69Man
3 weeks ago

Stockport

I was promised a 40% chance of my chemo radiotherapy having a successful outcome so hell yes. I have had to shop in India for my Ivermectin & Fenbendasol. There have been hundreds of phase one studies in their effect on cancer and thousands have been cured using them. It is criminal that I am refused access to them in the U.K. Fenbendasol costs 2 cents a tablet in India. Johnson &Johnson import it to the U.S. And sell it for 4$. That isn't a big enough profit so knock one atom off the molecule and change it for something else, patent it and charge 400$ for mebendasol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *izandpaulCouple
2 weeks ago

merseyside


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atnip make me purrWoman
2 weeks ago

Reading

Do insurance companies have to cover it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogandher1962Couple
2 weeks ago

Reading


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustoassingMan
7 days ago

Blyth


"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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
7 days ago

Central


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ynamite500Man
5 days ago

Angus

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. 🤔

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
5 days ago

Didsbury


"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.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top