Esau of Isaac Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 And I know that there are vast amounts of people on the USA who would also want their gun laws tightened. I am offended that you seem to think that I think Americans are fine with seeing people murdered. I can't think of an instance where I have mentioned anything of the sort or even conveyed such a thought through my posts. If that's the impression you're getting from me, then that's your problem. I'm not going to be sorry for my posting style and attitude towards these lax gun laws while the bodies of 20 kids are lying in a morgue.[/color] "Crusade". You'd swear I was going around holding up banners in front of the White House. More like "opinion". One of those things I'm entitled to. People always jump to assumptions when I mention this. You being no exception. I believe the amendment needs to be changed for use in today's society, not totally removed from existence. Fuck, if it was totally removed, the USA would probably implode on itself overnight. But no, everyone's too proud of their 'Murikan roots to even modify a 300 year-old law. I'm not saying all of your posts revolve around this notion that Americans are stupid or something, but over the time I've seen you post you put the vibe out pretty strongly. You criticize constantly, arguing for stronger, tighter gun control, without realizing that even with the ideals that many espoused in this topic the infamous shootings of the past few years would still have happened. And in the event that the government magically made all the guns disappear, there would be some other form of terrible method of murder instead. Arguing for some form of tighter gun control is understandable. Branding guns as the reason this happened is not. Murderers aren't murderers by owning guns. They are murderers because they murder people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redturtle806 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You do realize that most medicines undergo years worth of clinical trials before they're put on the market right? Right? How many years? Look at what happened with Tobacco and Asbestos. Those were considered safe at one point because those cancers ussually don't surface till 15-20 years later. Granted they weren't drugs, but you get the point. You can't even watch TV without one of those commericals that goes like, "If you were given X drug call now for a free consultation. You may be entitled to a legal settlement." Plus what about companies that just straight lie about the results of testing? Also what's wrong with not wanting to put synthetic crap in your body? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 With all due respect, the tone of your post does not convey a hint of respect. please do not be a hypocrite. are you fucking kidding me? I've been trying to post numerous example of proper gun usage, and all I ever get is "guns kill, guns are bad mkkaaaayyy?" are you going to address the fallacies that i have pointed out, or are you going to evade them? if you do the latter, then i am going to assume that you don't have a proper rebuttal and concede the argument. to address the point specifically stated in the above quote, you are misrepresenting the opposition. advocates for gun control recognize examples of "proper gun usage" but argue that negative consequences outweigh the positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 How many years? Look at what happened with Tobacco and Asbestos. Those were considered safe at one point because those cancers ussually don't surface till 15-20 years later. And at one point phrenology was a credible science. What's your point? You can't even watch TV without one of those commericals that goes like, "If you were given X drug call now for a free consultation. You may be entitled to a legal settlement." What does this have to do with drugs not going through extensive medical testing? Are you saying that because there are some law firms out there seeking to assist victims of some medicine that the majority or indeed all of modern medicine is faulty? Plus what about companies that just straight lie about the results of testing? Are you being serious right now? Also what's wrong with not wanting to put synthetic crap in your body? Because being synthetic is not automatically equivalent to being bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Sage Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 How many years? Look at what happened with Tobacco and Asbestos. Those were considered safe at one point because those cancers ussually don't surface till 15-20 years later. Granted they weren't drugs, but you get the point. Thanks for undermining your argument for me without me having to do anything You can't even watch TV without one of those commericals that goes like, "If you were given X drug call now for a free consultation. You may be entitled to a legal settlement." Plus what about companies that just straight lie about the results of testing? You really have no right to make baseless accusations about the testing of medicines when you quite obviously don't know the first thing about how they work. Not only are there strict ethical guidelines on clinical trails but they are closely monitored by the appropriate authorities such as the IRB. Btw the reason why trials often take years to conclude before being put on the market is so the testers can get a full picture of the medication; not just side effects but the effectiveness of it as well. For example in the case of cancer medicine, it takes months or even years for the medication to have apparent effects. There's also stuff like placebo groups to further test a medicine's effectiveness. Also what's wrong with not wanting to put synthetic crap in your body? You don't have to take medicine if you don't want to but don't get on your high horse and say stupid shit like "all synthetic medicine is bad for you" because its simply not true and it makes you look like a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redturtle806 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Quite frankly Horsebird, your terrible wording turned me off from your post instantly. Here's a friendly piece of advice: Learn to use complete sentences and proper grammar if you want people to take you seriously in the real world. Anyway moving on... redturtle, your arguments are disgraceful strawmen at best. - stating edge cases where gun ownership may be a potential benefit? You missunderstand. Rather than talk about broader issues, I was focusing on things that I have personal experience with. - asserting that there is a relationship between economic policies of two disparate states and gun ownership? I was refuting Defeastist Elist's claim that I (an obvious conservative) was not in fact destroying the country. - implying that the general political environment of china (which definitely has its problems, in addition to its merits) is relevant to the occurrence of violent crime? What? I was stating that solutions that "work" for China will not work here due to rampant smuggling from Mexico. - citing articles that do not thoroughly explore the relationship between various factors (aside from passage of individual gun control laws) and gun crime? Did you even read them? - quoting historical figures out of context and with complete disregard to reality? That is still a relevant quote. Whether you choose to belive it is your opinion. And at one point phrenology was a credible science. What's your point? I'm saying that just because something doesn't affect you now, doesn't mean that it won't down the road. What does this have to do with drugs not going through extensive medical testing? Are you saying that because there are some law firms out there seeking to assist victims of some medicine that the majority or indeed all of modern medicine is faulty? It shows that accidents happen, even with the extensive screening. Why would these commericals exsit if all modern medicine is perfect. Are you being serious right now? Really? You don't think that a company might fudge some results to increase profits? Because being synthetic is not automatically equivalent to being bad. Let me rephrase that. I try to avoid synthetics if possible, but I will take them for serious health problems that don't go away naturally over time. I would not force this choice on anyone else though. Edited December 17, 2012 by eclipse merged double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm not saying all of your posts revolve around this notion that Americans are stupid or something, but over the time I've seen you post you put the vibe out pretty strongly. You criticize constantly, arguing for stronger, tighter gun control, without realizing that even with the ideals that many espoused in this topic the infamous shootings of the past few years would still have happened. And in the event that the government magically made all the guns disappear, there would be some other form of terrible method of murder instead. Arguing for some form of tighter gun control is understandable. Branding guns as the reason this happened is not. Murderers aren't murderers by owning guns. They are murderers because they murder people. It is impossible to tell whether or not these things would have happened in the past if it had been harder for these murderers to get their hands on guns. The events may well have happened, albeit with different results due to different methods of execution. Or they might not have happened at all. or they may have happened, but at a later time. Who truly knows. As for my "the USA would implode on itself" comment, I was imagining scenes of mass protests throughout parts of USA (not sure where is pro or anti-gun), maybe even some rioting. It happens. Hell, British students went on a riot in London last year over an increase in student fees at universities, I dread to think what would happen if millions of responsible Americans were forced to hand in their guns made illegal by new, stricter gun laws because of maniacs going wild with them every so often and killing people. However, personally, I think this would a small price to pay for the sake of making it more difficult to obtain firearms, which would in turn drastically reduce "spur of the moment" massacres. People are free to disagree, but this is what I think. However I do realise that it would be a hell of a task to have so many people simply give up their guns. I don't mean to brand guns as the sole reason for mass murders. I realise that there are many other factors within each case. However I believe the lax gun control laws of the USA are a primary reason behind such things, even if they are not the sole reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 If this is true, then, well... http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/adam-lanza-did-he-preview-school-shooting-on-4chan/ Honestly, I find that... kinda funny. I guess I just have a taste for black comedy or something. But I have to say, my favorite line in that article was: The first Adam Lanza photos released last night, in all their boyish innocence, belie the violent thoughts he apparently harbored - and acted upon. Horrifying. It really shows the bias the media/society has at times where in the case of Adam Lanza, his photos of "boyish innocence" are immediately cast aside only wishing to portray a monster, where when Trayvon Martin got killed and the same thing happened with his innocent photos, no one even bothered to try and look at how he was a hoodlum and only wished to portray him as a martyr leading to even more bias in that case. Though Lanza probably doesn't deserve any sympathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Wow, what happened here? Anyway, three things I'd like all of you to keep in mind/fix if necessary. 1. DON'T HOTLINK. Either reupload the image to another image-sharing site (imgur/imageshack/etc.) OR use a plain old URL and point to the image in question. 2. DONT'T DOUBLE POST. This isn't FftF, this is Serious Discussion. I have a couple more posts to clean up. 3. KEEP IT CIVIL. If you've stooped to name-calling, you've already broken this one. Cut it out, for the sake of my sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) When we're talking about smuggling, did that come up in regards to drugs or guns? Because IIRC it's much easier to get guns in (parts of) the US than anywhere in Mexico, or definitely Canada. I seem to remember hearing that the Mexican gangs actually come here to get their weapons. Blademaster, to what extent was Trayvon Martin a hoodlum? I'll admit that's a new one to me. Edited December 17, 2012 by Rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You do realize that most medicines undergo years worth of clinical trials before they're put on the market right? Right? You do realize that human trials are so small in test subjects that the results gained are not even close to being representative, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 It is impossible to tell whether or not these things would have happened in the past if it had been harder for these murderers to get their hands on guns. The events may well have happened, albeit with different results due to different methods of execution. Or they might not have happened at all. or they may have happened, but at a later time. Who truly knows. No one. But we can presuppose that the firearm in all likelihood did not make Adam Lanza mentally unstable, and so in its absence he probably would have done something rash anyways. It's noble to seek to reduce harm by just making sure everyone including people like him have no way to get a firearm, but it doesn't fix the problem while also harming people who are perfectly rational and safe to allow ownership. As for my "the USA would implode on itself" comment, I was imagining scenes of mass protests throughout parts of USA (not sure where is pro or anti-gun), maybe even some rioting. It happens. Hell, British students went on a riot in London last year over an increase in student fees at universities, I dread to think what would happen if millions of responsible Americans were forced to hand in their guns made illegal by new, stricter gun laws because of maniacs going wild with them every so often and killing people. Actually, the majority of murders that are done with firearms are carried out by handguns. Very few are carried out by those high-powered assault rifles that tend to later get constricted through stricter firearms-banning. Although I agree that in the event that the government out of the blue decided to have some sort of mandatory gun recall that it would cause problems. But it hasn't done that and it probably never will, for obvious reasons. I don't mean to brand guns as the sole reason for mass murders. I realise that there are many other factors within each case. However I believe the lax gun control laws of the USA are a primary reason behind such things, even if they are not the sole reason. The lax gun control can be argued to be a primary factor in gun crime, to be sure, but it's more difficult to argue that it's a primary factor in crime itself. I can easily obtain a bladed weapon and stab another person to death, but it's not because of that reason that I'd be a killer. You do realize that human trials are so small in test subjects that the results gained are not even close to being representative, right? Quite frankly Horsebird, your terrible wording turned me off from your post instantly. Here's a friendly piece of advice: Learn to use complete sentences and proper grammar if you want people to take you seriously in the real world. Anyway moving on... redturtle, your arguments are disgraceful strawmen at best. - stating edge cases where gun ownership may be a potential benefit? You missunderstand. Rather than talk about broader issues, I was focusing on things that I have personal experience with. - asserting that there is a relationship between economic policies of two disparate states and gun ownership? I was refuting Defeastist Elist's claim that I (an obvious conservative) was not in fact destroying the country. - implying that the general political environment of china (which definitely has its problems, in addition to its merits) is relevant to the occurrence of violent crime? What? I was stating that solutions that "work" for China will not work here due to rampant smuggling from Mexico. - citing articles that do not thoroughly explore the relationship between various factors (aside from passage of individual gun control laws) and gun crime? Did you even read them? - quoting historical figures out of context and with complete disregard to reality? That is still a relevant quote. Whether you choose to belive it is your opinion. To both of you, I am curious: What is your formal education on the topic of clinical trials and medical research in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) If this is true, then, well... http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/adam-lanza-did-he-preview-school-shooting-on-4chan/ Honestly, I find that... kinda funny. I guess I just have a taste for black comedy or something. But I have to say, my favorite line in that article was: It really shows the bias the media/society has at times where in the case of Adam Lanza, his photos of "boyish innocence" are immediately cast aside only wishing to portray a monster, where when Trayvon Martin got killed and the same thing happened with his innocent photos, no one even bothered to try and look at how he was a hoodlum and only wished to portray him as a martyr leading to even more bias in that case. Though Lanza probably doesn't deserve any sympathy. So you're saying that the media gives more favourable coverage to a person who was killed under suspicious circumstances than with a person who killed two dozen people, mostly children, in cold blood? Wow, what a shocker. Who would have expected such rampant bias from the media? You are full of shit. There is plenty of evidence supporting that law-abiding citizens owning guns lowers crime. http://guardianlv.com/2012/07/pro-gun-cities-have-less-crime/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/ http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gun-rights-advocates-see-social-benefits-3850120.php http://www.fightthebias.com/resources/gundebate/23_reasons_to_support_gun_contro.htm http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp In addition, people with concealed carry licenses have been shown as: Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000. Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000. Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324 You are just a typical liberal jackass who has no idea how the world actually works, and is completely closed minded to any view other than your own. Also here's an incident that happens two days ago. Funny how the media never covers these kinds of stories. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html For a start, the general decrease in violent crime that started in 1992 happened in every single state in the United States... including Illinois, which is still the only state in the union to not issue concealed carry licences. The murder rate in Illinois has dropped by almost half. And even though murder rates in the US are a lot lower than they used to be, they are still more than three times higher than in my country, which has a universal handgun ban. Moreover, your oversized graph doesn't make any sense. Washington DC had laws prohibiting handguns for ten years with no rise in murders. In fact, in the first ten years, the murder rate dropped. Then, crime rates skyrocketed: at the exact same time that crime rates were skyrocketing in almost every single state in the union. And they peaked at 1992, almost the exact same year that crime rates peaked in every single state in the union. And by the time the handgun ban was struck down, it was almost back at the same level as in 1996. If anything, your graph proves my point, that the dramatic and temporary rise in murder rates was due to reasons other than the handgun ban. Part of the nice thing about the United States, is because states vary in their laws, they act as so-called "laboratories of democracy". So we can see, clearly, that the massive decrease in violent crime in the 90s could not have been because of relaxed gun laws (as gun proponents often claim), because it happened all over the country rather in just the states that changed their laws. I personally don't think that concealed carry licenses have a large impact on crime rates (either positive or negative). I certainly don't expect them to have a large impact on murder rates. The majority of murders are not criminals barging into people's homes: in fact, less of 1% of robberies result in a homicide. Instead, the most common cause of homicide is people getting into arguments or fights. Edited December 17, 2012 by Anouleth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Blademaster, to what extent was Trayvon Martin a hoodlum? I'll admit that's a new one to me. There was a bunch of things on his facebook and twitter to suggest that he had gotten into fights at school, going so far as to attack a bus driver IIRC, was dealing weed, smoked pot, and was suspended from school three times (the reason he was where he was in the first place was because he was on suspension) for "weed", being late/missing school, and carrying potentially stolen jewelery and having "burglary" tools while making graffiti. From my point of view I would call someone like that a hoodlum, though not a gangbanger. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/26/10872124-trayvon-martin-was-suspended-three-times-from-school?lite Illinois, which is still the only state in the union to not issue concealed carry licences. Not anymore. The law just passed a couple of days ago to allow concealed carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redturtle806 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) There was a bunch of things on his facebook and twitter to suggest that he had gotten into fights at school, going so far as to attack a bus driver IIRC, was dealing weed, smoked pot, and was suspended from school three times (the reason he was where he was in the first place was because he was on suspension) for "weed", being late/missing school, and carrying potentially stolen jewelery and having "burglary" tools while making graffiti. From my point of view I would call someone like that a hoodlum, though not a gangbanger. http://usnews.nbcnew...rom-school?lite There was the store footage that showed him trying to by blunts too. I've never heard of anyone smoking blunts, they're emptied of tobacco and then weed is rolled up with the wrapper. To both of you, I am curious: What is your formal education on the topic of clinical trials and medical research in general? Little to none. I've watched people ruin their lives with legal drugs far too much though. Edited December 18, 2012 by eclipse merged double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Quite frankly Horsebird, your terrible wording turned me off from your post instantly. Here's a friendly piece of advice: Learn to use complete sentences and proper grammar if you want people to take you seriously in the real world. Anyway moving on... there is nothing wrong with my wording, and my grammar is perfect (actually, better than yours) aside from capitalization. plenty of other users on this forum will vouch that, capitalization aside, i go to great lengths to make my posts grammatically and orthographically accurate. in any case, this is an ad hominem argument that is not germane to the argument at hand, but i am not surprised that you had to resort to one. are big words too much for you to handle? You missunderstand. Rather than talk about broader issues, I was focusing on things that I have personal experience with. 1) please learn how to spell correctly. (if you can be a douchebag about grammar and orthography, then i can return the favor manyfold.) 2) however, it is the broader issues that eclipse the edge cases, so why you thought that they possessed relevance is beyond me. I was refuting Defeastist Elist's claim that I (an obvious conservative) was not in fact destroying the country. a claim that you did not have to refute, but in any case, the relevance between your opinions being pernicious towards the country as a whole and the economic conditions of two different states is suspect at best. What? I was stating that solutions that "work" for China will not work here due to rampant smuggling from Mexico. you also implied that chinese policies will not work because china is a "communist hellhole." (also, china is pretty notorious for having massive black markets for basically everything, so your argument doesn't hold water.) Did you even read them? i reviewed the source from which you obtained the graphs. those sources merely cite correlation between the passage of gun control laws and crimes committed with guns, but do not adequately prove causation between the two variables. for example: 1) in michigan, the murder rate was already steeply dropping before the right-to-carry law took effect, and does not drop very much after. the article attributes this decrease to the law, but that is clearly a poor conclusion. 2) same thing for texas. 3) the murder rate for DC was in steep decline before the handgun ban was struck down. 4) the murder rate in chicago actually drops for the approximate 8 years following the passage of the handgun ban. That is still a relevant quote. Whether you choose to belive it is your opinion. 1) please learn how to spell correctly. 2) many societies in the world, including ours, relinquish liberty to gain security. already is benjamin franklin's adage false; not only that, but an appeal to authority, such as quoting a historical figure whom you assume to be correct, is a fallacy. Edited December 17, 2012 by HORSEBlRD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 To both of you, I am curious: What is your formal education on the topic of clinical trials and medical research in general? I have been studying analytical chemistry with a focus on the farmaceutical sciences for four years now and have done a year-long internship at a research and development laboratory that focused on developing methods for, amongst others, monitoring interactions between drugs and binding sites on proteins, developing on-line systems for derivatization of known active compounds and monitoring response as well as the now upcoming -omics(proteomics, lipidomics etc) sciences, which might end up being a break through in diagnostics. Furthermore my father is in medicine registration, has to deal with clinical trial reports on a daily basis and from time to time we talk about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Not anymore. The law just passed a couple of days ago to allow concealed carry. Oh, ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the same decrease in violent crime happened in Illinois even though the law on handguns didn't change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh, ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the same decrease in violent crime happened in Illinois even though the law on handguns didn't change. Yeah, that's my bad for not mentioning that my statement didn't affect your argument. The law literally just passed five days ago, and now they're already starting to rethink things after this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You know what? I was gonna type up a huge reply all about why the 2nd amendment is bullshit and Right to Bear Arms is NOT a fundamental human right, but fuck that. Here, have an actual study on how gun laws lead to a fall in firearms crime, firearm suicides and guess what? A decade without mass shootings. http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Here, have an actual study on how gun laws lead to a fall in firearms crime, firearm suicides and guess what? A decade without mass shootings. http://tobacco.healt...juryPrevent.pdf Hilarious. You feel so strongly, yet what you bring to the table is bad at best. "Taking guns out of people's hands means they can't use them anymore!" How about you get something worthwhile like an actual reduction in total murder and suicide rates? EDIT: Okay so the authors of above paper apparently did do their homework. The statistics show a small, insignificant on a year-by-year basis but significant over multiple years, but otherwise steady decrease in total homicides(including firearm homicide) in 1997-2003(the data being used). The same applies to total suicide. Edited December 17, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I have been studying analytical chemistry with a focus on the farmaceutical sciences for four years now and have done a year-long internship at a research and development laboratory that focused on developing methods for, amongst others, monitoring interactions between drugs and binding sites on proteins, developing on-line systems for derivatization of known active compounds and monitoring response as well as the now upcoming -omics(proteomics, lipidomics etc) sciences, which might end up being a break through in diagnostics. Furthermore my father is in medicine registration, has to deal with clinical trial reports on a daily basis and from time to time we talk about it. So then can you give me a source that shows human testing in clinical studies for medicine is woefully unequipped to deal with our modern needs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) So then can you give me a source that shows human testing in clinical studies for medicine is woefully unequipped to deal with our modern needs? You're exaggerating my statement. And no, I am not capable of providing sources. And that's partially because these kinds of articles are hidden behind paywalls. EDIT: You know what, I'll expand on this using simple common sense, because a quick search doesn't show any useful links. Most to almost all drugs, medical equipment and procedures entering the clinical trial phase are meant for treatment of usually quite a specific group of patients. Per example, simple cancer does not exist. There's the commonly known types of where the tumors find themselves, but also subtypes to these, an example being the estrogen positive or negative breast cancer. In case of the estrogen positive variant, the presence of estrogens causes the tumor cells to multiply.(estrogens are hormones, which function as signal bearers in the body) Treatment for this type of breast cancer would be to halt estrogen production in the entire body (most of the estrogens are produced in the follicles, a little bit in the brain). The other type requires a completely different treatment, though I wouldn't be able to tell you what that is. So. It should now be dawning upon you that the amount of subjects you could possibly acquire for clinical trials is quite limited in and of itself. This is then further reduced because the clinical trial not being held at every hospital that treats patients with the disease, and because most patients already have a treatment plan. Another big thing is, that the disease they have might just be kind of rare(although this is separate of the aforementioned). All of these factors just keep decreasing the size of the patient pool partaking, and having a LOT of people in the trial is very important for the accuracy of the results you acquire. Getting a trial to be accurate is a big problem in and of itself. First off, simply the variations in our genetic make up cause a whole lot of variation in simple things like average body heat to even slight differences in protein make up. And as unfortunate as it may be, (some)biological processes (especially proteins) are heavily affected by these small variations. Furthermore, factors that do not have anything to do with the body directly cause even more variation. Examples of this are patients not taking their medication on time to mental health. All of these inaccuracies being present means one thing. You want as big a group of test subjects you can for the data to be reliable, and have a real idea of what drug side effects really are. But unfortunately, due to reasons mentioned earlier getting these large test subject groups is impossible. Edited December 18, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constable Reggie Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) http://www.destructo...ng-240775.phtml Can people get even more stupid? Edited December 18, 2012 by Constable Reggie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenlord Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.fi/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness. Read the whole thing if you actually care about the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.