Doing your own research (16 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

On the upside for what a great doctor experience can look like, at my physical today we talked about me having a little tightness in my chest and possible next steps.

A standard stress test vs a more advanced test with a blood flow. He pulled up the laptop and googled some examples and showed some of the images from the newer test. We talked and he encouraged me to research it more and also talk to my best friend that's an MD. Excellent experience.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And good news that all my other numbers looked great he said. AC1 was down to normal where last year it was at bottom end of pre diabetic. He attributed that to me eating more clean. PSA good and cholesterol all good. Testosterone was in a good level he said for an old 61 year old guy like me. We talked a second on TRT stuff and he said no way he'd do anything if he were me with these numbers and if I felt as good as I feel.

 

[urbanhack]

That's not ok. Why weren't those part of the initial testing? Thank God there's doctors willing to challenge the status quo indeed.

Stories like this are a huge black eye. Nobody should wonder why people would want to be a little skeptical and take a look at all the options.

This may not be your local PCP intentionally misleading anyone, but nobody can wonder why trust isn't easy to come by and the stakes are pretty high when it's your life in someone else's hands.

You're right that it wasn't ok and it's why Purdue should be paying dearly if not completely bankrupted by the whole thing. The "why" and "how" behind it is pretty political and litigious. This thread is already off the rails from the original intent with snark, emotion and quipping. I'm not sure going into it would be allowed by a person like myself. We can take it to PMs if you like. It should also be pointed out that this event with Purdue is clearly an exception and not the rule. That's not making an excuse for them. It's to point out this sort of thing doesn't happen often at all.

Yeah, this thread took a turn from conversation and into train wreck, emotions are running hot. We're getting away from original intent going down this fork too. A link to a previous thread on opioids was provided earlier and I'll take a look when i get a chance.

I understand what you're saying and that forces stronger than data were at play. I think I've said all i have on this and the thread overall. This one seems to have run its course.

Agreed, this one turned into a train wreck. I apologize for my role in helping with that and I could’ve used softer and less challenging words.

Being able to question authority is something I feel strongly about. And I shared honestly.

And I felt there were some remarkable other opinions expressed. I think words matter, and with a written form, they are what we have to work with here. It’s why I always ask for a link to the quote when people claim a poster does this or that.

It seems people can sometimes quickly jump to assume everything medical disconnected to vaccines. I don’t think that at all. My main questions are about the medical industrial complex as a whole. And the roles and factors from the different components.

And mostly bottom line, my concern of how it seems we have as Americans a fairly low standard of overall health.

That feels like a serious problem to me. And pulling back to the big picture and asking questions of how we got here and what can be done to improve seems important.

I would hope everyone understands that’s not political and I assume the health of our population is important to most people.

Good timing as I have my follow up appointment for my annual physical today with my MD.

To add a thought to this, as I said, my main concern is overall health. Obviously the medical industrial complex is a huge factor, but one would also have to include the food industry in that discussion as well.

I was going to ignore this, and perhaps I should, but the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is triple-stitched to the INDUSTRIAL POLICTICAL COMPLEX (you know this, I know) - which we can't discuss here. It leads to a tilted conversation (second time I've used that expression in this thread) where you get to get all your shots in, and then all the rejoinders AND persuasive opinions land on the cutting room floor.

That's simply not true. The medical industrial complex is not inherently political. It exists (and seems to thrive) regardless of what party is in power. I think it's appropriate to question it and have said so repeatedly. That's not political. And to accuse us of putting all the non political rejoinders and persuasive opinions on the cutting room floor is simply not true.

Of course it is. Otherwise we'd have non for profit healthcare like the rest of the world.

I disagree that it's inherently political. Sure, one can turn it political with "the right wants this for healthcare" or "the left wants that for healthcare". Or "the government should change to make these changes to government healthcare programs". But the industry can be discussed without going there. And the industry as a whole is not inherently political.

And closely tied to the medical industry is the food industry. Again, that can turn political if people want it to be. But it doesn't have to be.

the food industry is deeply intertwined with politics. It engages in various political activities, including lobbying, campaign contributions, and shaping public perception, to influence policies and regulations that benefit their interests. This influence can affect everything from food safety and labeling to agricultural subsidies and international trade.

Here are some examples:

Lobbying and Campaign Contributions:

• The food industry spends significant amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence politicians and shape policies related to food production, processing, and marketing.
  
  
• For example, the meat and dairy industry donated over $1.5 million to political candidates and groups in the 2022 election cycle, with a majority going to Republicans.
  
  
• The sugar industry has a long history of lobbying to influence sugar policies in the United States.
  

Shaping Public Perception:

• Food companies and their trade associations use public relations and advertising to promote their products and influence public opinion on issues like health, addiction, and environmental impact.
  
  
• They may fund research or partner with third parties to undermine public health policies or promote their products.
  

Impact on Policy:

• The food industry's political influence can lead to policies that favor their interests, potentially at the expense of public health or environmental sustainability.
  
  
• For instance, lobbying efforts have delayed or weakened regulations related to food labeling, such as the implementation of traffic light labeling in Europe.
  
  
• Food industry influence can also affect policy decisions related to agricultural subsidies, international trade, and even disaster relief.
  

Examples of Specific Issues:

• GMO Labeling:
  The food industry has actively opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as seen in the defeat of California's Proposition 37.
  
  
• Food Safety Regulations:
  The industry has also engaged in lobbying and other political activities to influence food safety regulations and enforcement.
  
  
• Climate Change:
  Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the food industry's political activities can impact how seriously climate change is addressed in relation to food production and consumption.
  
  
• Healthcare Debate:
  Policies related to calorie labeling, soda taxes, and dietary guidelines are often shaped by the political influence of the food industry.
  
  
• Immigration Reform:
  The politics of food production are intertwined with immigration issues, as the industry relies heavily on immigrant labor.
  

In conclusion, the food industry's political activities are extensive and have a significant impact on public health, the environment, and the overall food system

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's not ok. Why weren't those part of the initial testing? Thank God there's doctors willing to challenge the status quo indeed.

Stories like this are a huge black eye. Nobody should wonder why people would want to be a little skeptical and take a look at all the options.

This may not be your local PCP intentionally misleading anyone, but nobody can wonder why trust isn't easy to come by and the stakes are pretty high when it's your life in someone else's hands.

You're right that it wasn't ok and it's why Purdue should be paying dearly if not completely bankrupted by the whole thing. The "why" and "how" behind it is pretty political and litigious. This thread is already off the rails from the original intent with snark, emotion and quipping. I'm not sure going into it would be allowed by a person like myself. We can take it to PMs if you like. It should also be pointed out that this event with Purdue is clearly an exception and not the rule. That's not making an excuse for them. It's to point out this sort of thing doesn't happen often at all.

Yeah, this thread took a turn from conversation and into train wreck, emotions are running hot. We're getting away from original intent going down this fork too. A link to a previous thread on opioids was provided earlier and I'll take a look when i get a chance.

I understand what you're saying and that forces stronger than data were at play. I think I've said all i have on this and the thread overall. This one seems to have run its course.

Agreed, this one turned into a train wreck. I apologize for my role in helping with that and I could’ve used softer and less challenging words.

Being able to question authority is something I feel strongly about. And I shared honestly.

And I felt there were some remarkable other opinions expressed. I think words matter, and with a written form, they are what we have to work with here. It’s why I always ask for a link to the quote when people claim a poster does this or that.

It seems people can sometimes quickly jump to assume everything medical disconnected to vaccines. I don’t think that at all. My main questions are about the medical industrial complex as a whole. And the roles and factors from the different components.

And mostly bottom line, my concern of how it seems we have as Americans a fairly low standard of overall health.

That feels like a serious problem to me. And pulling back to the big picture and asking questions of how we got here and what can be done to improve seems important.

I would hope everyone understands that’s not political and I assume the health of our population is important to most people.

Good timing as I have my follow up appointment for my annual physical today with my MD.

To add a thought to this, as I said, my main concern is overall health. Obviously the medical industrial complex is a huge factor, but one would also have to include the food industry in that discussion as well.

I was going to ignore this, and perhaps I should, but the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is triple-stitched to the INDUSTRIAL POLICTICAL COMPLEX (you know this, I know) - which we can't discuss here. It leads to a tilted conversation (second time I've used that expression in this thread) where you get to get all your shots in, and then all the rejoinders AND persuasive opinions land on the cutting room floor.

That's simply not true. The medical industrial complex is not inherently political. It exists (and seems to thrive) regardless of what party is in power. I think it's appropriate to question it and have said so repeatedly. That's not political. And to accuse us of putting all the non political rejoinders and persuasive opinions on the cutting room floor is simply not true.

Of course it is. Otherwise we'd have non for profit healthcare like the rest of the world.

I disagree that it's inherently political. Sure, one can turn it political with "the right wants this for healthcare" or "the left wants that for healthcare". Or "the government should change to make these changes to government healthcare programs". But the industry can be discussed without going there. And the industry as a whole is not inherently political.

And closely tied to the medical industry is the food industry. Again, that can turn political if people want it to be. But it doesn't have to be.

the food industry is deeply intertwined with politics. It engages in various political activities, including lobbying, campaign contributions, and shaping public perception, to influence policies and regulations that benefit their interests. This influence can affect everything from food safety and labeling to agricultural subsidies and international trade.

Here are some examples:

Lobbying and Campaign Contributions:

• The food industry spends significant amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence politicians and shape policies related to food production, processing, and marketing.
  
  
• For example, the meat and dairy industry donated over $1.5 million to political candidates and groups in the 2022 election cycle, with a majority going to Republicans.
  
  
• The sugar industry has a long history of lobbying to influence sugar policies in the United States.

Shaping Public Perception:

• Food companies and their trade associations use public relations and advertising to promote their products and influence public opinion on issues like health, addiction, and environmental impact.
  
  
• They may fund research or partner with third parties to undermine public health policies or promote their products.

Impact on Policy:

• The food industry's political influence can lead to policies that favor their interests, potentially at the expense of public health or environmental sustainability.
  
  
• For instance, lobbying efforts have delayed or weakened regulations related to food labeling, such as the implementation of traffic light labeling in Europe.
  
  
• Food industry influence can also affect policy decisions related to agricultural subsidies, international trade, and even disaster relief.

Examples of Specific Issues:

• GMO Labeling:
  The food industry has actively opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as seen in the defeat of California's Proposition 37.
  
  
• Food Safety Regulations:
  The industry has also engaged in lobbying and other political activities to influence food safety regulations and enforcement.
  
  
• Climate Change:
  Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the food industry's political activities can impact how seriously climate change is addressed in relation to food production and consumption.
  
  
• Healthcare Debate:
  Policies related to calorie labeling, soda taxes, and dietary guidelines are often shaped by the political influence of the food industry.
  
  
• Immigration Reform:
  The politics of food production are intertwined with immigration issues, as the industry relies heavily on immigrant labor.

In conclusion, the food industry's political activities are extensive and have a significant impact on public health, the environment, and the overall food system

No doubt. As I said, one can make it political. Without too much effort obviously. But I don't think it inherently has to be political.

The Purdue Pharma debacle can be discussed without being political. Or other things like the food industry and studies and research.

 

[Mister CIA]

That's not ok. Why weren't those part of the initial testing? Thank God there's doctors willing to challenge the status quo indeed.

Stories like this are a huge black eye. Nobody should wonder why people would want to be a little skeptical and take a look at all the options.

This may not be your local PCP intentionally misleading anyone, but nobody can wonder why trust isn't easy to come by and the stakes are pretty high when it's your life in someone else's hands.

You're right that it wasn't ok and it's why Purdue should be paying dearly if not completely bankrupted by the whole thing. The "why" and "how" behind it is pretty political and litigious. This thread is already off the rails from the original intent with snark, emotion and quipping. I'm not sure going into it would be allowed by a person like myself. We can take it to PMs if you like. It should also be pointed out that this event with Purdue is clearly an exception and not the rule. That's not making an excuse for them. It's to point out this sort of thing doesn't happen often at all.

Yeah, this thread took a turn from conversation and into train wreck, emotions are running hot. We're getting away from original intent going down this fork too. A link to a previous thread on opioids was provided earlier and I'll take a look when i get a chance.

I understand what you're saying and that forces stronger than data were at play. I think I've said all i have on this and the thread overall. This one seems to have run its course.

Agreed, this one turned into a train wreck. I apologize for my role in helping with that and I could’ve used softer and less challenging words.

Being able to question authority is something I feel strongly about. And I shared honestly.

And I felt there were some remarkable other opinions expressed. I think words matter, and with a written form, they are what we have to work with here. It’s why I always ask for a link to the quote when people claim a poster does this or that.

It seems people can sometimes quickly jump to assume everything medical disconnected to vaccines. I don’t think that at all. My main questions are about the medical industrial complex as a whole. And the roles and factors from the different components.

And mostly bottom line, my concern of how it seems we have as Americans a fairly low standard of overall health.

That feels like a serious problem to me. And pulling back to the big picture and asking questions of how we got here and what can be done to improve seems important.

I would hope everyone understands that’s not political and I assume the health of our population is important to most people.

Good timing as I have my follow up appointment for my annual physical today with my MD.

To add a thought to this, as I said, my main concern is overall health. Obviously the medical industrial complex is a huge factor, but one would also have to include the food industry in that discussion as well.

I was going to ignore this, and perhaps I should, but the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is triple-stitched to the INDUSTRIAL POLICTICAL COMPLEX (you know this, I know) - which we can't discuss here. It leads to a tilted conversation (second time I've used that expression in this thread) where you get to get all your shots in, and then all the rejoinders AND persuasive opinions land on the cutting room floor.

That's simply not true. The medical industrial complex is not inherently political. It exists (and seems to thrive) regardless of what party is in power. I think it's appropriate to question it and have said so repeatedly. That's not political. And to accuse us of putting all the non political rejoinders and persuasive opinions on the cutting room floor is simply not true.

Of course it is. Otherwise we'd have non for profit healthcare like the rest of the world.

I disagree that it's inherently political. Sure, one can turn it political with "the right wants this for healthcare" or "the left wants that for healthcare". Or "the government should change to make these changes to government healthcare programs". But the industry can be discussed without going there. And the industry as a whole is not inherently political.

And closely tied to the medical industry is the food industry. Again, that can turn political if people want it to be. But it doesn't have to be.

About that falsified data we were discussing earlier, how many people were prosecuted and sent to jail? Are there incentives in place to prevent this from happening again.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I also think we can talk about the seemingly poor health of many Americans without it necessarily being political.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's not ok. Why weren't those part of the initial testing? Thank God there's doctors willing to challenge the status quo indeed.

Stories like this are a huge black eye. Nobody should wonder why people would want to be a little skeptical and take a look at all the options.

This may not be your local PCP intentionally misleading anyone, but nobody can wonder why trust isn't easy to come by and the stakes are pretty high when it's your life in someone else's hands.

You're right that it wasn't ok and it's why Purdue should be paying dearly if not completely bankrupted by the whole thing. The "why" and "how" behind it is pretty political and litigious. This thread is already off the rails from the original intent with snark, emotion and quipping. I'm not sure going into it would be allowed by a person like myself. We can take it to PMs if you like. It should also be pointed out that this event with Purdue is clearly an exception and not the rule. That's not making an excuse for them. It's to point out this sort of thing doesn't happen often at all.

Yeah, this thread took a turn from conversation and into train wreck, emotions are running hot. We're getting away from original intent going down this fork too. A link to a previous thread on opioids was provided earlier and I'll take a look when i get a chance.

I understand what you're saying and that forces stronger than data were at play. I think I've said all i have on this and the thread overall. This one seems to have run its course.

Agreed, this one turned into a train wreck. I apologize for my role in helping with that and I could’ve used softer and less challenging words.

Being able to question authority is something I feel strongly about. And I shared honestly.

And I felt there were some remarkable other opinions expressed. I think words matter, and with a written form, they are what we have to work with here. It’s why I always ask for a link to the quote when people claim a poster does this or that.

It seems people can sometimes quickly jump to assume everything medical disconnected to vaccines. I don’t think that at all. My main questions are about the medical industrial complex as a whole. And the roles and factors from the different components.

And mostly bottom line, my concern of how it seems we have as Americans a fairly low standard of overall health.

That feels like a serious problem to me. And pulling back to the big picture and asking questions of how we got here and what can be done to improve seems important.

I would hope everyone understands that’s not political and I assume the health of our population is important to most people.

Good timing as I have my follow up appointment for my annual physical today with my MD.

To add a thought to this, as I said, my main concern is overall health. Obviously the medical industrial complex is a huge factor, but one would also have to include the food industry in that discussion as well.

I was going to ignore this, and perhaps I should, but the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is triple-stitched to the INDUSTRIAL POLICTICAL COMPLEX (you know this, I know) - which we can't discuss here. It leads to a tilted conversation (second time I've used that expression in this thread) where you get to get all your shots in, and then all the rejoinders AND persuasive opinions land on the cutting room floor.

That's simply not true. The medical industrial complex is not inherently political. It exists (and seems to thrive) regardless of what party is in power. I think it's appropriate to question it and have said so repeatedly. That's not political. And to accuse us of putting all the non political rejoinders and persuasive opinions on the cutting room floor is simply not true.

Of course it is. Otherwise we'd have non for profit healthcare like the rest of the world.

I disagree that it's inherently political. Sure, one can turn it political with "the right wants this for healthcare" or "the left wants that for healthcare". Or "the government should change to make these changes to government healthcare programs". But the industry can be discussed without going there. And the industry as a whole is not inherently political.

And closely tied to the medical industry is the food industry. Again, that can turn political if people want it to be. But it doesn't have to be.

About that falsified data we were discussing earlier, how many people were prosecuted and sent to jail? Are there incentives in place to prevent this from happening again.

I don't know the answers there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is likely diverging too far from the original topic but could make a good thread maybe:

Question: Can one talk about the seemingly poor health of most americans and the undue influence the food industry has without the talk being political?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

Yes, it’s possible to talk about the poor health of Americans and the influence of the food industry without making it overtly political, but it requires a careful approach. The topic touches so many nerves — corporate power, government regulation, personal responsibility, class divides — that it’s easy to drift into political territory whether you mean to or not.

Here’s how to keep the conversation grounded and constructive:

---

Focus on Shared Concerns​

Start with the common ground:

• Most people agree that chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) are rampant.
• Most agree that ultra-processed foods dominate grocery stores and school lunches.
• And most agree that it’s harder than it should be to eat “real” food in modern America.

These aren't partisan statements — they’re observations.

---

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

---

Ask Questions Instead of Making Accusations​

Rather than launching into critique, try asking things like:

• “Is it weird that sugary cereals can still carry ‘heart healthy’ labels?”
• “Why is it easier to find soda than clean water in some schools?”
• “How did we end up with a food system where eating fresh fruit feels like a luxury?”

That tone opens the door for dialogue rather than debate.

---

Ground it in Health and Community, Not Politics​

You can center the conversation on:

• Long-term health outcomes
• The cost of chronic illness to families and society
• The desire for kids to grow up healthy
• The loss of real cooking skills and food culture

These are values that resonate across the board — left, right, or apolitical.

---

What to Watch Out For​

• Blaming individuals (“People just make bad choices”) or blaming groups (“Liberals/Conservatives ruined the food system”) tends to derail.
• Using loaded terms like “woke,” “corporate shills,” “elitist,” etc. can alienate before the conversation begins.
• Assuming bad intent from people who disagree. Many are just operating off different experiences or information.

---

Bottom line:
You can absolutely have this conversation in a non-political way if you lead with humility, shared values, and honest questions. The moment it becomes a battleground of ideologies, you’ve probably lost the real heart of the issue — which is people’s health, families, and the broken systems we all live in.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.

Yeah I've ignored all your snark and condescension throughout this thread, but you're not going to mischaracterize me on these boards. Here's the FULL comment of what I was replying to. My response along the lines of "that's how it works" is clearly to the bold. For all the preaching you do to the rest of us, you sure don't follow it. This is straight up PSF sort of dishonesty.

Nope. The full exchange is there for everyone to see. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. I'm quoting:


Post link: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/doing-your-own-research.816469/post-25364202

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.
Once it was proven yes. That's how it works

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.

Your complete response in full:

Once it was proven yes. That's how it works

To be honest, it was a bit startling to see that type of response. But it is what it is.

You didn't include anything I had left out

Tell yourself whatever you need to. I always avoid the personal parts of these threads for this very reason and never address them. As personal as I ever get here is talking in specifics about myself or the person I am conversing with. I don't comment on family members. If you didn't know that from all the other times I've said it here, now you do. If you want to ignore that to keep your narrative going and avoid your part, you do you. I can't control that. Like I said, this is PSF level dishonesty. Ban me as you will, but if you don't, I'd just assume you not engage with me.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.

Yeah I've ignored all your snark and condescension throughout this thread, but you're not going to mischaracterize me on these boards. Here's the FULL comment of what I was replying to. My response along the lines of "that's how it works" is clearly to the bold. For all the preaching you do to the rest of us, you sure don't follow it. This is straight up PSF sort of dishonesty.

Nope. The full exchange is there for everyone to see. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. I'm quoting:


Post link: https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/doing-your-own-research.816469/post-25364202

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.
Once it was proven yes. That's how it works

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.

Your complete response in full:

Once it was proven yes. That's how it works

To be honest, it was a bit startling to see that type of response. But it is what it is.

You didn't include anything I had left out

Tell yourself whatever you need to. I always avoid the personal parts of these threads for this very reason and never address them. As personal as I ever get here is talking in specifics about myself or the person I am conversing with. I don't comment on family members. If you didn't know that from all the other times I've said it here, now you do. If you want to ignore that to keep your narrative going and avoid your part, you do you. I can't control that. Like I said, this is PSF level dishonesty. Ban me as you will, but if you don't, I'd just assume you not engage with me.

I didn't leave anything out. It's why I linked to the exact post for full transparency. And please save the honesty lecturing.

It's done and we can move on.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, FWIW, one thing I've found that is useful in talking with medical people is I'll ask them what they'd do.

Like today, I asked my doctor about TRT stuff. And I asked it in terms of "what would you do if you were me knowing what you know?" I find sometimes framing it that way can be helpful.

Sometimes they'll maybe offer two options and they seem sort of equal. And I'll ask which one they'd do if it were them and they'll say "For sure, #1" or something like that.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Also, FWIW, one thing I've found that is useful in talking with medical people is I'll ask them what they'd do.

Like today, I asked my doctor about TRT stuff. And I asked it in terms of "what would you do if you were me knowing what you know?" I find sometimes framing it that way can be helpful.

Sometimes they'll maybe offer two options and they seem sort of equal. And I'll ask which one they'd do if it were them and they'll say "For sure, #1" or something like that.

100% this. Not to compare it, but when deciding what to do with a very ill cat, our vet said “if this was my own cat, and I have 3, it would be time to say goodbye.” A similar situation happened recently with a close friend whose partner had a brain aneurysm — he was agonizing about what to do. His physician told him point blank “if I was in her place, I wouldn’t want to continue past this stage……she won’t have the kind of life she wanted anymore….” It freed him to make the hard decision.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, FWIW, one thing I've found that is useful in talking with medical people is I'll ask them what they'd do.

Like today, I asked my doctor about TRT stuff. And I asked it in terms of "what would you do if you were me knowing what you know?" I find sometimes framing it that way can be helpful.

Sometimes they'll maybe offer two options and they seem sort of equal. And I'll ask which one they'd do if it were them and they'll say "For sure, #1" or something like that.

100% this. Not to compare it, but when deciding what to do with a very ill cat, our vet said “if this was my own cat, and I have 3, it would be time to say goodbye.” A similar situation happened recently with a close friend whose partner had a brain aneurysm — he was agonizing about what to do. His physician told him point blank “if I was in her place, I wouldn’t want to continue past this stage……she won’t have the kind of life she wanted anymore….” It freed him to make the hard decision.

Yes. Works great for all sorts of things. I think lots of times, people feel like they need to say the full range of options and not steer the person. But if you're interested in the person's take and expertise, this is a good way to frame a question.

 

[Peggy]

I'm doing some more of my own research on liver cancer tonight. Hope that's OK. It involves performing some experiments with various alcohols.

 

[Chaos34]

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

It's still a little cheesy to post walls of AI text, but I mostly welcome it because we can't stop what's coming. May as well adapt. I tell the LLMs, to be brief, write in paragraph form, and double check themselves for accuracy. Medical professionals rolling eyes at their researcher patients haven't seen anything yet. AI gonna be messy.

I've been an obsessive researcher for over 20 years, but I never see doctors, so I can't annoy them. OTH, I've taken my BiL to over a hundred Dr. visits over the decades. I moved my mom in when she got the cancer and took care of her for 3 years. I've seen a lot. I'm pro doctors and anti politicians.

This topic is charged with politics that can't be avoided if we're going to be real. The good news is the politics aren't red or blue. They're purple so both sides can unite in protest of the bipartisan regulatory capture that's ruined healthcare in this country.

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

You are clearly not alone. Especially with those of us at the age we're at.

Our Doctor Marcos want to retire early. I'm not surprised. I live in a town with terrible healthcare. The most well-known GP lives down the street. He's jealous of my early retirement and when we talk, which isn't often, he always says he wants to retire and always blames the broken system. He calls it a meat-grinder for GPs. He blames the revolving door of executives between big insurance, pharma and the FDA. He blames those industries' massive lobbies and political donations for creating a regulatory nightmare in their favor. Between mom and the BiL I've dealt with a ridiculous number of doctors. I haven't met one that seemed to have an ethics issue, a competence issue, or a compassion issue. I haven't met one pushing a drug for his own financial gain. I think TerminalX killed that notion on page one. Doctors good. Big Insurance, Big Pharma bad. FDA captured.

 

[Joe Bryant]

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

It's still a little cheesy to post walls of AI text, but I mostly welcome it because we can't stop what's coming. May as well adapt. I tell the LLMs, to be brief, write in paragraph form, and double check themselves for accuracy. Medical professionals rolling eyes at their researcher patients haven't seen anything yet. AI gonna be messy.

I've been an obsessive researcher for over 20 years, but I never see doctors, so I can't annoy them. OTH, I've taken my BiL to over a hundred Dr. visits over the decades. I moved my mom in when she got the cancer and took care of her for 3 years. I've seen a lot. I'm pro doctors and anti politicians.

This topic is charged with politics that can't be avoided if we're going to be real. The good news is the politics aren't red or blue. They're purple so both sides can unite in protest of the bipartisan regulatory capture that's ruined healthcare in this country.

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

You are clearly not alone. Especially with those of us at the age we're at.

Our Doctor Marcos want to retire early. I'm not surprised. I live in a town with terrible healthcare. The most well-known GP lives down the street. He's jealous of my early retirement and when we talk, which isn't often, he always says he wants to retire and always blames the broken system. He calls it a meat-grinder for GPs. He blames the revolving door of executives between big insurance, pharma and the FDA. He blames those industries' massive lobbies and political donations for creating a regulatory nightmare in their favor. Between mom and the BiL I've dealt with a ridiculous number of doctors. I haven't met one that seemed to have an ethics issue, a competence issue, or a compassion issue. I haven't met one pushing a drug for his own financial gain. I think TerminalX killed that notion on page one. Doctors good. Big Insurance, Big Pharma bad. FDA captured.

Thanks. Definitely a bit cheesy on the AI but thought the information was useful.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

It's still a little cheesy to post walls of AI text, but I mostly welcome it because we can't stop what's coming. May as well adapt. I tell the LLMs, to be brief, write in paragraph form, and double check themselves for accuracy. Medical professionals rolling eyes at their researcher patients haven't seen anything yet. AI gonna be messy.

I've been an obsessive researcher for over 20 years, but I never see doctors, so I can't annoy them. OTH, I've taken my BiL to over a hundred Dr. visits over the decades. I moved my mom in when she got the cancer and took care of her for 3 years. I've seen a lot. I'm pro doctors and anti politicians.

This topic is charged with politics that can't be avoided if we're going to be real. The good news is the politics aren't red or blue. They're purple so both sides can unite in protest of the bipartisan regulatory capture that's ruined healthcare in this country.

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

You are clearly not alone. Especially with those of us at the age we're at.

Our Doctor Marcos want to retire early. I'm not surprised. I live in a town with terrible healthcare. The most well-known GP lives down the street. He's jealous of my early retirement and when we talk, which isn't often, he always says he wants to retire and always blames the broken system. He calls it a meat-grinder for GPs. He blames the revolving door of executives between big insurance, pharma and the FDA. He blames those industries' massive lobbies and political donations for creating a regulatory nightmare in their favor. Between mom and the BiL I've dealt with a ridiculous number of doctors. I haven't met one that seemed to have an ethics issue, a competence issue, or a compassion issue. I haven't met one pushing a drug for his own financial gain. I think TerminalX killed that notion on page one. Doctors good. Big Insurance, Big Pharma bad. FDA captured.

Thanks. Definitely a bit cheesy on the AI but thought the information was useful.

I would go with cringe.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Now that all the shouting and bickering is dying down, I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

The narrative in this thread against the pharmaceutical complex is that it's profit driven over outcome driven. A lot of the distrust comes from this narrative that these companies value money over the outcomes. We agree on that right? I think we can also agree that there is some merit to that concern, though some of us would argue over significance. It's generally accepted that the pharma medical complex is roughly a $1.7T industry right now, projected to be $2.8T by 2033.

Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?

 

[Peggy]

Now that all the shouting and bickering is dying down, I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

The narrative in this thread against the pharmaceutical complex is that it's profit driven over outcome driven. A lot of the distrust comes from this narrative that these companies value money over the outcomes. We agree on that right? I think we can also agree that there is some merit to that concern, though some of us would argue over significance. It's generally accepted that the pharma medical complex is roughly a $1.7T industry right now, projected to be $2.8T by 2033.

Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?

No. No. And no.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?

What is "alternative/wellness" defined as? Where is the bulk of the $6T generated? How i think about that in relation to the Pharma medical complex depends on what we're considering alternative.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

Absolutely positively, No.

At least for me. And how I'd hope the board would operate.

And not just no, we can't all agree on that, I think that kind of reading past the actual words that are written and assuming that you have the ability to know what they really mean as if they actual words are some kind of code is one of the bigger problems on the forum.

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss anything.

 

[Mister CIA]

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss ananything.

It works for Holy books.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss ananything.

It works for Holy books.

Do you mean like using substitute words for having sex? Or what do you mean?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

What is "alternative/wellness" defined as?

I'm interested in this as well. I mean, all kinds of things could get dumped into this bucket. I truly believe there are alternatives to conventional drugs that would work as well (or better) than what the pharma corporations are peddling, but that term is almost meaningless without a precise definition.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's generally accepted that the pharma medical complex is roughly a $1.7T industry right now, projected to be $2.8T by 2033.

Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?

What are the links for these numbers and what do they cover?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Educating yourself, trying to narrow down what might be wrong and even making sure you have ready answers to diagnostic Qs ahead of time seems like a good use of "your own research". Overriding a diagnosis you don't like, ignoring treatment advice and Ivermectin -- not so much

 

[Joe Bryant]

"Cringe" insults aside I thought some of the advice was helpful.

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

 

[massraider]

I'm interested in this as well. I mean, all kinds of things could get dumped into this bucket. I truly believe there are alternatives to conventional drugs that would work as well (or better) than what the pharma corporations are peddling, but that term is almost meaningless without a precise definition.

Whatever definition you use, and whatever you choose to include or leave out, alternative medicine/wellness is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I feel like there is a fallacy where people don't trust these people over here, so they blindly follow these people over there.

It's a good idea to keep in mind that there's huge money to be made in telling people their doctor isn't to be trusted.

I follow a decent amount of nutritional peeps on social media, and I try to never forget that they are in the same profession as a girl doing dance challenges in front of a camera in her bedroom.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I'm interested in this as well. I mean, all kinds of things could get dumped into this bucket. I truly believe there are alternatives to conventional drugs that would work as well (or better) than what the pharma corporations are peddling, but that term is almost meaningless without a precise definition.

Whatever definition you use, and whatever you choose to include or leave out, alternative medicine/wellness is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I feel like there is a fallacy where people don't trust these people over here, so they blindly follow these people over there.

It's a good idea to keep in mind that there's huge money to be made in telling people their doctor isn't to be trusted.

I follow a decent amount of nutritional peeps on social media, and I try to never forget that they are in the same profession as a girl doing dance challenges in front of a camera in her bedroom.

No, I get it. I was asking out of curiosity as to what/how that term is measured since there was no link. I am not under any illusion that the wellness folks aren't as profit-driven.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm interested in this as well. I mean, all kinds of things could get dumped into this bucket. I truly believe there are alternatives to conventional drugs that would work as well (or better) than what the pharma corporations are peddling, but that term is almost meaningless without a precise definition.

Whatever definition you use, and whatever you choose to include or leave out, alternative medicine/wellness is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I feel like there is a fallacy where people don't trust these people over here, so they blindly follow these people over there.

It's a good idea to keep in mind that there's huge money to be made in telling people their doctor isn't to be trusted.

I follow a decent amount of nutritional peeps on social media, and I try to never forget that they are in the same profession as a girl doing dance challenges in front of a camera in her bedroom.

I hear you. it seems some people just want to trust "the other" it seems. Whatever that is. That seems unwise.

But I always want us to share links on stories like the above where he was citing stats.

For the nutritional people you follow on social, why do you follow them and what are you hoping to get from following them? Do they have demonstrated success in something you're trying to do or learn?

 

[massraider]

I may have been stepping on that discussion a little, the point popped into my head because Sparky alluded to the dollars up for grabs in that industry.

He may have numbers wrong, he might be off by 2 billion, I dunno. Not sure it matters to his questions, or to my point.

Frankly, we read every day this industry or that industry is a  x- billion dollar industry, and I've never seen anyone ever, in my life, show the math on where they got their numbers from.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I'm interested in this as well. I mean, all kinds of things could get dumped into this bucket. I truly believe there are alternatives to conventional drugs that would work as well (or better) than what the pharma corporations are peddling, but that term is almost meaningless without a precise definition.

Whatever definition you use, and whatever you choose to include or leave out, alternative medicine/wellness is a multi-billion dollar industry.

I feel like there is a fallacy where people don't trust these people over here, so they blindly follow these people over there.

It's a good idea to keep in mind that there's huge money to be made in telling people their doctor isn't to be trusted.

I follow a decent amount of nutritional peeps on social media, and I try to never forget that they are in the same profession as a girl doing dance challenges in front of a camera in her bedroom.

Where's the line though? Is vitamin D supplementation and sauna in the same category as reiki and vitamin C to cure cancer? I think what people consider "alternative" is important.

 

[massraider]

Where's the line though? Is vitamin D supplementation and sauna in the same category as reiki and vitamin C to cure cancer? I think what people consider "alternative" is important.

I don't care where the line is.

Wherever the line is, skepticism is a great idea. Skepticism of a doctor who just wants to give you a scrip to treat a symptom, and skepticism of a well-spoken really healthy-looking guy on Instagram that tells you wheatgrass changed his life.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Where's the line though? Is vitamin D supplementation and sauna in the same category as reiki and vitamin C to cure cancer? I think what people consider "alternative" is important.

I don't care where the line is.

Wherever the line is, skepticism is a great idea. Skepticism of a doctor who just wants to give you a scrip to treat a symptom, and skepticism of a well-spoken really healthy-looking guy on Instagram that tells you wheatgrass changed his life.

I do care, precisely because of your second sentence. Maybe it's just the way my brain is wired, but I need some kind of context or framing.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Where's the line though? Is vitamin D supplementation and sauna in the same category as reiki and vitamin C to cure cancer? I think what people consider "alternative" is important.

I don't care where the line is.

Wherever the line is, skepticism is a great idea. Skepticism of a doctor who just wants to give you a scrip to treat a symptom, and skepticism of a well-spoken really healthy-looking guy on Instagram that tells you wheatgrass changed his life.

I don't think i can answer the question that lead to this question without a definition.

Agree with what you said otherwise though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I may have been stepping on that discussion a little, the point popped into my head because Sparky alluded to the dollars up for grabs in that industry.

He may have numbers wrong, he might be off by 2 billion, I dunno. Not sure it matters to his questions, or to my point.

Frankly, we read every day this industry or that industry is a  x- billion dollar industry, and I've never seen anyone ever, in my life, show the math on where they got their numbers from.

He mentioned a source. I regularly see sources attached in good discussion. If I say something like 63% of fantasy players are male, I can leave it at that and let people wonder where I got that number, or I can say the FSGA survey from 2023 said 63% of the players were male. https://thefsga.org/industry-demographics/ That seems better to me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?

What is "alternative/wellness" defined as? Where is the bulk of the $6T generated? How i think about that in relation to the Pharma medical complex depends on what we're considering alternative.

It's the things people turn to outside of standard medical care. You can go to Global Wellness Institute as I stated above and read up on everything that's included. I'm rather confident most here don't really have a good idea of what the "machine" is behind "alternate treatments"

 

[Joe Bryant]

Where's the line though? Is vitamin D supplementation and sauna in the same category as reiki and vitamin C to cure cancer? I think what people consider "alternative" is important.

I don't care where the line is.

Wherever the line is, skepticism is a great idea. Skepticism of a doctor who just wants to give you a scrip to treat a symptom, and skepticism of a well-spoken really healthy-looking guy on Instagram that tells you wheatgrass changed his life.

Thanks. That's helpful to know where you're coming from as I do care very much where the line is. I'm not saying my way is right, but it helps to understand where you're coming from.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

Absolutely positively, No.

At least for me. And how I'd hope the board would operate.

And not just no, we can't all agree on that, I think that kind of reading past the actual words that are written and assuming that you have the ability to know what they really mean as if they actual words are some kind of code is one of the bigger problems on the forum.

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss anything.

Ok. Then I won't go further. If we can't take the explanations from the posters for what they mean, then there is really no point in proceeding. Appreciate the honesty. Saves a lot of time.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You can go to Global Wellness Institute as I stated above and read up on everything that's included.

Or you can give the link to what you're talking about like we ask others to do if it's that easy. Way better for discussion.

 

[massraider]

Is it really important to get the accurate number on exactly how big the wellness industry is, or can people stipulate that is a big business?

Anyone think it's NOT a big business?

Someone tell me how an accurate number makes a difference

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Global Wellness Institute

The Global Wellness Institute is a nonprofit organization with a mission to empower wellness worldwide by educating public and private sectors about preventative health and wellness.

globalwellnessinstitute.org

 

[massraider]

The Global Wellness Economy Reaches a New Peak of $6.3 Trillion––And Is Forecast to Hit $9 Trillion by 2028 -

Numerous global surveys have found that wellness matters more to people each year post pandemic. With today’s release of the Global Wellness Institute’s (GWI) Global Wellness Economy Monitor 2024, there are hard numbers to prove it.

globalwellnessinstitute.org

 

[Joe Bryant]

I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

Absolutely positively, No.

At least for me. And how I'd hope the board would operate.

And not just no, we can't all agree on that, I think that kind of reading past the actual words that are written and assuming that you have the ability to know what they really mean as if they actual words are some kind of code is one of the bigger problems on the forum.

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss anything.

Ok. Then I won't go further. If we can't take the explanations from the posters for what they mean, then there is really no point in proceeding. Appreciate the honesty. Saves a lot of time.

Thanks.

And so you're clear, I'm not saying "take the explanations from the posters for what they mean"

I'm saying take the posters at their word and assume they mean what they actually say.

Not add our own assumptions to what they actually say and assume it means something different from what they say.

That feels like journalism 101. However, talking past others and putting words into their mouths that they didn't actually say is also how we got the social media we have today.

 

[massraider]

Anyone have any healthy skepticism of the calculated total of the Global Wellness industry, as calculated by the...... Global Wellness Institute??

 

[Joe Bryant]

The Global Wellness Economy Reaches a New Peak of $6.3 Trillion––And Is Forecast to Hit $9 Trillion by 2028 -

Numerous global surveys have found that wellness matters more to people each year post pandemic. With today’s release of the Global Wellness Institute’s (GWI) Global Wellness Economy Monitor 2024, there are hard numbers to prove it.

globalwellnessinstitute.org

Thanks. That adds a ton more context and is super helpful. That huge 6 trillion number seems more understandable adding in real estate and spas and beauty products and such.

That's interesting and helpful. Thanks.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Doctors aren't infallible. I will absolutely do my own research. Including the doctor's credentials.

Often times insurance dictates which doctors are in network, so in some ways you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.

 

[massraider]

Thanks. That adds a ton more context and is super helpful. That huge 6 trillion number seems more understandable adding in real estate and spas and beuty products and such.

That's interesting and helpful. Thanks

I think those numbers are full of ****

 

[massraider]

I mean shoot, who's gonna click all those links, and read the data?

When some story pops up, "researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol", and some failed personal trainer on social media points to a screenshot of the headline, that's all some people need to toss their meds. Not great.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

"researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol"

I could deal with blackberries. If it were brussel sprouts or beets, I'd hug my loved ones and wait for my arteries to slam shut.