Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Ray9

Core Member
  • Content count

    4,010
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Ray9

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    intj
  • Astrology Sign
    pisces
  • Brain Dominance
    4

Converted

  • Biography
    Direct and unapologetic
  • Location
    New Hampshire
  • Occupation
    Freelance writer.
  • Interests
    Running, cycling, bowflex
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,782 profile views
  1. Children have parents to act on their behalf so there is a moderating factor there. That said, we must trust doctors not to be paid shills for drug companies and doctors do a pretty good job of policing themselves because they realize that credibility is king in the medical profession. There are cases we never hear about where doctors will push out loose cannons in collective practices. It all goes back to the love of money being the root of all evil and we have a responsibility to be vigilant for our own good.
  2. A quarter century ago prescription pharmaceuticals were pitched to doctors only. This was important because the doctor was a filter through which the product had to pass before it ever reached the eyes or ears of the patient. Even inexperienced doctors could review these drugs with more experienced physicians before any decision was made to recommend them to patients. At one time there was a medical/cultural wall between prescription drug advertising and consumers because even though they can be seen as products they are fundamentally different from products like automobiles or umbrellas. Many of these compounds are functionally untested and have relatively short histories in public use. Let's face it. No one knows what the long-term use of some these drugs can deliver to patients. So the doctors were a modifying or governing agent that slowed the process until the drugs could develop a history for safe use. Some of these drugs were safe and even met approval for over-the-counter use. This is where the pharmaceutical industry realized huge profits as they advertised them on TV. They realized that they were losing vast sums of money by the slowing effect of doctor only advertising and so unleashed lawyers to lobby regulators and politicians to speed things up. Of course all of this greatly inflates the price of the drugs and at the same time exposes consumers to risks the doctors were protecting them from. This may all be moot anyway because Pandora's Box has been opened. If they lose TV they will just descend on social media. We won't be able to use our smartphones without seeing ads for diabetes drugs.
  3. Women's MMA is still in it's infancy. Rousey seemed invincible because she was better trained and more experienced than any of her early rivals. Now everyone has caught up to her and some superior talent and skills are coming to the fore. Ronda has trouble with fast footwork and accurate counter punching. She should make movies. This is my guy.
  4. There could be an argument that television advertising is necessary to fund research but it's a weak argument. There is a thin line between research and human experimentation which is essentially what's been going on. Let's not forget that the biggest money makers for the pharmaceutical industry are lifestyle drugs like Viagra and other erectile dysfunction remedies. They also need to set aside money for lawsuits-American television is crawling with lawyer ads as well. But pain relief is where the real money is. But as with many things that provide miracles there are real-life consequences.
  5. Fair enough, but did you read the content of the post or did you just focus on the apparent conflict of the first sentence in the response? Do you think we should return to the days when the lines between medicine and pharmaceuticals were blurred and doctors just dispensed toxins out a suitcase? There are huge sums of money at stake here and the public is being led like obedient Jews to first dig their own graves and then just stand there ignoring the danger while they are harvested and slaughtered like cash cows to make corporations wealthy. This is why healthcare is so expensive here. It has nothing to do with making people healthier and happier. Sick people are incredibly profitable.
  6. What medications are you on? That's likely the problem since what you are describing is probably a reaction or an allergic response.
  7. You would make an excellent, compliant citizen for censorship. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue. The forum is headed as science and health. The politics forum is closed but that does not mean no one can write about anything else. The piece was not very good so I rewrote it: By the time US doctors get through medical school they already have their work cut out for them because Americans are among the sickest people in the developed world. In the United States an aging population is now coming to grips with the fact that decades of tobacco use, alcohol and drug abuse, poor diet and lack of exercise has produced an epidemic outcome of diabetes, COPD, heart disease and a host of indigenous cancers many of which are preventable by screening, lifestyle and diet changes. Today’s physicians are not only swamped with patients due to a doctor shortage but they are now faced with an industry that is making billions by mining the desperation and suffering of the public for no other purpose other than to enrich itself. Corporate drug cartels otherwise known as Big Pharma have been flooding television with advertising to the extent that they now dominate commercial air time. In 1970 Richard Nixon signed legislation banning cigarette advertising on television and radio. By the 1970’s tobacco commercials had become so ubiquitous on the tube that doctors across the country began ringing alarm bells that these ads were like a siren song for new smokers and warnings on the packaging had been routinely ignored since 1966. Prior to 1992 the American Medical Association opposed direct-to-consumer drug advertising because they pre-empt and dilute the advice of personal physicians who are the first line of defense for their patients. In 1992 apparently influenced by a requirement by the FDA that DTC ads inform the public of possible negative side effects, the AMA caved to pressure from pharmaceutical company lawyers. Apparently the doctors forgot about the lesson they learned about tobacco advertising. In 2015 the AMA once again voted to oppose these ads but two decades of damage has already been done and today direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising has reached a television saturation point that equals or exceeds tobacco advertising in its heyday during the 1960’s. And some of the products are far more dangerous than tobacco because the pharmaceutical industry is essentially using American consumers as guinea pigs for their next big money-making breakthroughs. The chemical make- up and molecular structure of the ingredients in some of these high tech potions can compromise the human immune system, block essential nutrients, destroy liver function and introduce lethal mutations into DNA. A consumer could easily duplicate the effect of these dangerous, last-resort drugs by moving to a retirement community in Chernobyl. The drugs are cleverly pushed by the same Madison Avenue screen advertising that was designed to make cigarette smoking appealing to the public and they are a huge money maker for the pharmaceutical industry. While no one, including doctors or patients, is arguing against pharmaceutical research, serious concerns are being raised about the motives behind all this advertising. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to researchers like Alexander Fleming (penicillin) and Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) but these dedicated individuals were driven to improve the human condition not by corporate profits. There are only two countries in the world that allow DTC prescription drug advertising, the US and New Zealand-and for good reason. It subverts the intent of the “do-no-harm” aspect of the Hippocratic Oath by bypassing the doctor as a first advisor in personal health matters. Busy doctors are now confronted with increasing numbers of medical Manchurian candidates demanding snake oil that’s been peddled to them on their TV sets and if the doctor says no some are likely to go doctor shopping until they get it. These ads very coyly turn doctors into parents and patients into nagging children. The history of ethical medicine and drug companies is a long and storied saga of experimentation and exploitation and a lot of people who trusted the system have been poisoned in the process. Hippocrates is losing and PT Barnum is winning. The pharmaceutical giants disguise themselves as champions of consumer’s rights-something the cigarette manufacturers tried but failed at. It’s time for reasonable people to put the brakes on this travesty and lobby congress to put an end to something that is making suckers out of all of us.
  8. The true evil is that they are creating a demand for expensive super drugs that are experimental in nature and that is not adequately conveyed to the consumer. Oddly a lot of drug commercials are followed by ambulance chasing lawyers encouraging patients to sue for the side effects. Everyone is making big money off these drugs while people are dying at the same rate they were before. It's all about the dollar not about the welfare of patients. Some doctors can now argue that the patient came in asking for the drugs so you can't sue me. This is a travesty that should be remedied but too many people are making too much money.
  9. It’s time for another ban on television advertising. In 1970 Richard Nixon signed legislation officially banning cigarette advertising on television and radio. Everyone knew that greed was the primary motivation of the tobacco industry and the health risks related to the use of their products were great but warnings had been displayed on the products packaging since 1966 and were well into the process of being routinely ignored. Just being informed of side effects was not enough to dissuade the public from using the product and the breadth and scope of television advertising was attracting generations of citizens to take up the addicting habit. Now there is a sinister new health threat emanating from the screen-direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. When we turn on our television sets today we are confronted with an onslaught of prescription drug ads aimed directly at the general public pre-empting and marginalizing the experience and advice of trained clinicians. And these medical ads are cleverly produced telling little stories with homespun humor or emotional intrigue. It’s 21st century Madison Avenue and it’s extremely rewarding to the profit margins of drug company shareholders. The tobacco companies knew the power of television and the pharmaceutical giants learned from it. But the Tobacco industry leaders were at a decided disadvantage in their relationship with the medical community. In the 1960’s physicians were beginning to herald a connection to smoking and preventable disease and cigarette manufacturers were seen as wolves at the door of public health. Large pharmaceutical prescription drug cartels have a publicly perceived attachment to medicine so they have the ability to cloak themselves in a kind of medical respectability and in doing so can purchase the advantage of being wolves in sheep’s clothing which they began doing as far back as the mid 80’s. Their largest obstacle was that they were required by law to sell their wares to doctors not directly to patients-a kind of last line of defense for consumers. The power and wealth of the drug industry dwarfs anything the tobacco companies could ever match and in 1992 the American Medical Association inexplicably dropped its opposition to direct-to-consumer advertising. Many wonder who in the AMA thought this was a good idea but it’s amazing what an army of lawyers and bribed politicians can accomplish. Sadly today the DNA-altering and immune system destroying chemicals being hawked on television rival many of the toxins cooked up in Chernobyl and just as with tobacco the warnings and side effects are routinely dismissed to the fine print. No one knows how many Americans are bleeding to death on the inside from all these blood thinners that are being pushed to prevent strokes. But if you’re already dead from internal bleeding the chances are pretty good you’ll never have a stroke. The only two countries on the planet that allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising are the US and New Zealand and for good reason. The practice is little more than biological experimentation on human beings by effectively bypassing the middlemen who are the doctors and other health professionals whose primary motivation is their patient’s health not their money. Of course all the ads have the usual disclaimer that says: “ask your doctor” but after all that televised brainwashing patients are more likely not to take no for an answer and like medical Manchurian Candidates march into medical facilities shopping for doctors who will give them the new, improved miracle drugs. What started as a trickle is now a tsunami and these medical ads now dominate commercial airwaves. Taking tobacco advertising off television was a good thing and today only about twenty percent of the American population lights up. Some older Americans remember cigarette machines in hospital lobbies, ash trays in emergency rooms and doctors with their feet up on their desk puffing on a Chesterfield-the clear choice of doctors everywhere according to early advertising. We didn’t know any better then but we do now-or at least we should. People should be up in arms over all this dangerous drug advertising on television and they should demand that the drug industry be held to the same standard as tobacco companies. We need to get these charlatans off our television sets. They’re no better than the cigarette manufacturers.
  10. Stress is essentially the result of a failure to properly address the fight-or-flight mechanism that arises in the brain when a human being is facing a threat. We must never forget that the brain and the body are biologically connected so a response with the body has an appropriate effect on the brain to deal with a perceived threat. It's the primitive areas of the brain that produce the stress because we learned that we must run when being chased by a lion. Modern threats like job loss, money worries, relationship issues et al produce the same amounts of cortisol and other stress hormones as ancient threats so they must be dealt with the same way and exercise heals the brain accordingly. Regular exercise starting slowly and building up intensity over time relieves stress. There is a wealth of information on this issue.
  11. http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_missing_the_joke_the_science_of_satire/ Let's take an example: The Neanderthals went extinct-why? The Neanderthals went extinct because they had no tax program to force everyday Neanderthals not to use products like wooden clubs and sharpened rocks to kill animals for food, upsetting the balance of biology. They were also burning some of the wood for heat affecting the atmosphere and causing the climate to change. The poor Neanderthals never invented government so they could not tax each other with a scientific consensus. They did however have science-if you hit an animal in the head hard enough you could kill it and grill it-that was repeatable through scientific rigor. If the Neanderthals had invented government they could have used settled science to tax the hell out of each other and some Neanderthals could have amassed a wealth of animal skins by conning others. Do you get it now?
  12. sat·ire [ˈsaˌtī(ə)r] NOUN the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. synonyms: mockery · ridicule · derision · scorn · caricature · irony · sarcasm
  13. A theory is an interesting phenomenon especially in contemporary science. First you take an assumption and develop it into a concept. The next step is to build the concept into a conjecture and then a supposition. After you have reached this stage you are ready to construct a premise and then an argument. You have now risen to the level of speculation supported by a presumption and are ready to make a postulation based on a notion. After you have satisfied the criteria above you are now in a position to make a presentation of an actual bad idea. The only thing left at this point is to convert the bad idea into dogma so you can get in on the ground floor of making some real money at the expense of the idiots who accepted your theory. Example: Climate Change.
  14. Sexual attraction is the instinctive element but the commitment part is more spiritual and thus more lasting. Females are physically weaker and need protection. In addition they are saddled with the biological responsibility of carrying a child to term. The character of the male is important because viewing himself and the female as something more than the sum of their parts is essential to the success of the relationship. In a civilization where there is a relatively equal distribution of males to females the male must see the female as vulnerable to her inherited biological burden and want to share that burden to ease her struggles. The male also needs the nurturing aspect of the female to ease his own struggles. When a male and a female commit to each other they forego the world to take care of each other. They develop a blended self-image and see themselves as a couple where loyalty, honesty and fidelity go without saying. That's the way it's supposed to work and generally it works very well. Children reared in successful relationships are almost always well adjusted and better equipped to deal with the challenges of the world because they tend to mirror the behavior of their parents. Children are not immune to problems that arise in family situations but they are attentive to how the problems are dealt with. If they see dad take off to sow his wild oats while mom becomes a serial bitch is a series of sexual encounters until the family becomes a repository for half siblings they develop a confused picture of relationships and sadly often repeat the mistakes. These cultural miscreants are still the exception but when the exception becomes the rule then civilization is at risk. There is hope because most reasonable humans develop the notion that they and their partner along with children are exclusively bonded to survive in a harsh world. So the answer to the question has to do with the character of the male who is armed with a fully functioning frontal cortex and the ability to distinguish between his basic animal drive and his higher obligation to take care of the female. Those that don't are commonly referred to as bums.
  15. Ah, I've heard a lot of this before. First we try to get what we want, then when we get what we need we throw it all away and end up getting what we deserve. The kids love it too as mom and dad go through several rounds of revolving door relationships. Holidays are the fun part as some go here and some go there. It's always the same as Hoffer pointed out-there is a difference between having nothing and wanting something opposed to having something and wanting more. It's the childish condition of always needing something new. it's ok for the user but bad for the used-the children I mean. But alas, we live in a throw-away culture so if the kids end up in jail we just get a new relationship.