Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

happiness

Regulars
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by happiness

  1. I’m in the Cayman Islands now, where I just had my second Regenexx-C procedure with culture-expanded stem cells. I saved for it for two years. We treated almost every joint in my body. The first procedure 20 months ago probably saved my life, and I’m stoked to get even more improvement from this one.
  2. I cannot stand that I live in a country where the majority of people even tolerate these views , much less one where biggest media outlets and allegedly scientific publications promote this utter filth as the voice of science and reason. All the "Right to Try" legislation does is is give people a chance to live when they have no other chance, and only after the drugs have passed the phase of testing that allegedly proves safety. What kind of foaming-at-the mouth animal would oppose that? Physicians, ethicists urge Congress not to pass ‘right-to-try’ legislation Science Feb 3, 2018 4:15 PM EST WASHINGTON — Dozens of doctors, medical ethicists, and lawyers are warning Congress that legislation to allow Americans with life-threatening conditions access to unapproved, experimental drugs risks harming patients’ health. The letter was drafted by Alison Bateman-House, associate professor of medical ethics at NYU Langone Health, along with some of her colleagues. It is addressed to the leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee currently considering a so-called “right-to-try” bill. The letter was circulated for online signatures on Thursday, and organizers said they planned to send the letter on Feb. 5. In August the Senate passed a right-to-try bill sponsored by Sen. Ron Johnson, which is now sitting in a House committee. The bill would allow patients with life-threatening conditions access to drugs that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has expressed reservations about the bill, but President Trump seems to support it. The 40-plus signatories of the draft letter, however, say they are strongly opposed. “This legislation sells vulnerable patients and families false hope at the expense of weakening the FDA’s critical role in making sure that all Americans can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of our medical products,” the draft letter read on Thursday afternoon. The FDA already has a pathway for patients to be able to use experimental treatments outside of clinical trials, which is called “expanded access” or “compassionate use.” According to an FDA study, 99 percent of requests made from 2005 to 2014 for these experimental drugs were approved. But a right-to-try bill would allow doctors and patients to skirt around the FDA, leaving them more vulnerable if something goes wrong. “Patients with terminal conditions who access unapproved therapies outside of clinical trials may be at risk of hastened death or reduced quality of the life that they have left, and deserve protections similar to patients taking part in clinical trials,” the authors wrote. Andrew Powaleny, a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry organization PhRMA, which hasn’t taken a firm stance on the legislation, said, “It is crucial that any right-to-try policy proposals protect patient safety and the integrity of the clinical trial process along with U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight. PhRMA appreciated the opportunity last fall to work with Sen. Johnson on his proposal and is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with his office and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Walden.” Trump doubles down Meanwhile, in a speech to Republican lawmakers on Thursday, Trump reiterated his support for congressional action on the subject. He first spokepublicly in favor of right-to-try legislation in his State of the Union address on Tuesday. “I hope you folks can approve it, and I hope you agree with it,” Trump told Republican members of Congress at a Thursday retreat in Greenbrier, West Virginia. Trump’s remarks implied that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was on his side, saying that Gottlieb was “heading it up.” However, Gottlieb has actually expressed concern about the current bill that the House is considering, testifying at an October hearing that it would undercut the agency’s authority to protect patients from unsafe drugs. The FDA declined to comment Thursday. Bateman-House testified at the October hearing alongside Gottlieb. She said that she has not been in touch with the committee since the hearing, and that she thought after the hearing the bill had “more or less died.” But Vice President Pence has been vocal recently on the issue, proclaiming his support in January. He signed a similar bill in Indiana as governor in 2015. Thirty-eight states now have such laws. “I think his heart’s probably in the right place,” Bateman-House said of Pence. “I just wish he would put all this time and energy [into legislation] that was actually going to help patients.” This article is reproduced with permission from STAT. It was first published on Feb. 1, 2018. Find the original story here.
  3. I picked up this summary of "TRP" philosophy from reddit. I don't see much of anything that I disagree with. ________________________________ Unplugging from the Feminine Matrix can be nearly as painful as Neo emerging into a very different reality. It is often a very painful process to review your past relationship failures and develop an entirely new understanding of them. Many guys kick themselves over and over again, lamenting the lost years when they were trapped by a society stacked against them and a set of beliefs and ideologies that simply do not work. They were told to "Just Be Yourself." They stayed "Friend" with girls who rejected them in hopes of earning their favor. They married women for richer or poorer who divorced them when the business dried up and seemingly changed overnight. Men have various problems with unplugging but perhaps the greatest is the discovery that women don’t want to hear about your problems, your deep emotions, and that they don’t love you in the way society and Disney has promised you will be loved. There is no Fairy Tale and there is no such thing as unconditional love. Women want a strong, masculine, rock to lean on during their monthly emotional roller coaster. All we have been told about “communication” and “sensitivity” and being a good “provider” being the keys to making a woman want to have sex with you WAS A LIE. Yes, it was all a Shit Test and you fell for it...which helps explain why there is often so much anger when unplugging. Let us, just for a marked change of pace try for a moment to consider the man’s perspective. Consider the typical divorce filed in 80% of cases by the woman for no reason except she is somehow unaaapppy. She goes to find her happiness, he loses his wife, children, ½ of his income plus child support and still only sees his kid once a month. His wife divorced him to fuck Hawt Alpha-Fuck who now sleeps in his bedroom, on his bed, and wakes up his kids with her screams while he rails her. That is not an exception or unusual in any way. That is very, very common. When you realize there were ways that you could have acted and beliefs you could have adopted that would have retained the attraction, or generated the attraction in so many other cases, the only possible response is anger. In fact, unplugging goes through all the stages of grief because you are, in effect, giving up and mourning an entire set of beliefs- Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. The Tingles: The vaginal tingles are more than getting her wet. A women who gets the tingles is wet and wants to get fucked, usually hard. Alpha behaviors generate the tingles. Beta Behaviors may be nice and sweet but they do not generate the tingles. Omega behaviors turn off the tingles. Male/Female Attraction Cues: Basically, whatever is good for making (and raising!!) babies is what the other sex finds sexually attractive. Men: Young hourglass figured fertile female with big boobies. Women: Strong leader able to protect and provide for the children. Check out The Rational Male for many exceptional articles on this topic. Alpha: There is not total agreement on this nebulous concept. The “Alpha Male” is the guy who always has girls hanging off him and probably will rack up a triple digit “n” count (of sexual partners) while creating many Alpha Widows ready to divorce her Beta husband for cash and prizes after she fakes it with him for a few years. The Alpha is in the “top” 10% or so of attraction quotient. He is comfortable around women, handsome, masculine, confident, self- assured, and often arrogant and narcissistic. He is usually dismissive of women and treats them like a kid sister, completely unfazed by her charms. This is enormously sexually attractive to women and the foundation of “Game” which is an attempt to mimic the Alpha behaviors of men who are successful with women. Beta: The poor provider who gets shit on by everybody and rarely gets laid characterizes the Beta. A Beta male shows his sensitive side to women. He does not stand up to them but instead bows down to the divine majesty of feminine power. The Beta Husband’s motto is: “I have to do whatever she says because she has the pussy.” A Beta does not recognize or stand up to Shit Tests. Beta has a bad reputation because while it is behavior that makes women feel warm and fuzzy inside, it does not activate the tingles or make her horny. SOME Beta behaviors are necessary for any LTR but the vast majority of men today have been conditioned to overdo it by orders of magnitude. Omega: The real worthless dregs of sexual society are the Omega’s. These guys don’t just worship pussy, they put it on a pedestal, they stand in awe of it often to the point they can’t even approach a girl without shivering in fear. They live lives of desperation until ultimately they are “chosen” by a land whale who mines him for the meager resources he is able to provide. Omega behaviors don’t provide vaginal tingles and they don’t make anybody feel good. The most common adjectives for them are “pathetic”, “ridiculous”, and “cringe-worthy.” Hypergamy: “Marrying Up” is a very strong instinct in women. Women want a man who is taller, smarter, wealthier, and a better conversationalist who leads them in the bedroom and out. They get sexually aroused when a man takes charge and leads. Conversely, this means women do NOT become sexually aroused unless the man is fulfilling her hypergamous instinct. If his father dies, or he becomes depressed, the woman's hypergamous instinct will quickly surface and she will lose sexual attraction. In today’s feminine matrix, Hypergamy means that 10% of the men have 90% of the sex while the vast majority of men are starved for affection and female attention. Hypergamy means if you are married your wife is ALWAYS looking to trade up and, she will always be like a monkey, ready to swing to the next branch while her other hand is still firmly on the previous branch. Men are also hypergamous and prefer younger, more fertile, and curvy women. However, the dual mating strategy of women makes hypergamy especially problematic because it is virtually impossible to satisfy! If you are Albert Alpha with a 10 inch cock who fulfills all her darkest dreams, she will begin to yearn for Billy Beta who listen to her feeewings and whisper sweet nothings into her ear. Hypergamy means simply that women are never satisfied and can never be satisfied. Their levels of dissatisfaction can only be managed, never satisfied, says hypergamy. Female Dual Mating Strategy: AF/BB- Almost all women want Alpha Fucks. They get wet when a powerful, masculine male asserts dominance and leads them into passionate sex which they think “just happened.” In fact, a strong man led them to it but don’t tell them that- magicians and their tricks and all. Almost all women ALSO want Beta Bucks. They want a provider to take care of them and are more than willing to fake passion and give up sex for years in order to get it. Shit Tests: Women test men to determine if they are really a “leader” worthy of an Alpha Fuck. Most of the time it is unconscious and they have no idea what they are doing. A Shit Test is an unreasonable tone or attitude. A Shit test in Pick Up situations is the standard bar-banter with the peacocking, feather strutting, pretend Alpha males withstanding the verbal barrages from the interested females. The solution in BOTH situations is Agree and Amplify, ignore, deflect, amused mastery (treat it like it is something an endearing little girl did) or nuke (call them out and stop it). Game: A set of behavioral modifications consistent with observations implemented in order to maximize attraction. Game is being the “Alpha” male, cocky, funny, arrogant, irrationally confident, easy going, in charge, strong, masculine. Game has been criticized as inauthentic and praised as equivalent to makeup and heels. Early game was sometimes reduced to memorized scripts but more recent game emphasizes the devil-may-care attitude of complete confidence, preferably with a smirk. The word is ‘fake it until you make it.’ Frame: Your reality is your “frame.” The unflappable, cool, calm, rational, Alpha dude who attracts women is a good frame. If a girl is irritated and rude this is a Shit Test and a test of your Frame. Responding to her in kind with rudeness, hostility or anger is ‘adopting her frame.’ Responding to her like she is a child and you are the adult is ‘maintaining your frame.’ Your "frame" is WHO you are at your best. The Hamster: The female rationalization hamster is widely known as the deadliest animal with the most endurance of any rodent in the universe. Actually the Hamster is another metaphor and a critique of female psychology, suggesting that women often use emotion to literally rewrite history in their own minds. Imagine a hamster running on a wheel going round and round and round, changing little emotional perceptions of something that happened and you get a small sense of the power of this beast. Let me give you an insight into the workings of the hamster with a real world example. A girl is laying in her bed thinking and the Hamster wheel powers up: I had sex with Tom yesterday. It was OK. Tom didn’t call back today. Tom didn’t respond to my text. Tom is an asshole. I would not have had sex with an asshole. Tom was pretty aggressive when he was fucking me. It wasn’t even that good. Tom didn’t get my verbal consent. Tom had sex with me and I didn’t consent. That asshole Tom raped me…squeak squeak!! Men also have a Hamster. The Cock Carousal: Like the horses on a carousal going up and down, a woman on the CC jumps from cock to cock as the wheel goes round. Our society encourages women to jump on as many Alpha cocks as she can find in her 20’s to satisfy the Alpha Fucks while she is then encouraged to “settle down” in her 30’s with the same type of man that she sneered at, ignored, and belittled in her 20's). As the Wall approaches the CC rider suddenly decides that she is no longer a slut. Now she is a born-again virgin and her new boyfriend, a niiice guy who makes good money is not going to get sex on the first date, or the 2nd or the 5th. Nope, she needs to establish this new relationship where she rations the sex in order to control her husband. She settles for a Beta Buck who can never excite her like all the hawwwt guys she could never get to commit. She throws sex at her Beta pet for months or years, as long as it takes, and then it tapers off, usually to twice a month, often beginning on the Honeymoon. The Wall: Beautiful women spend their youth not just fucking Alpha cocks and rewarding the most arrogant, aloof, “bad guys” they can find but also reaping all the benefits of their beauty and fertility. Men fall over themselves to please them. They have sexless male orbiters buy them things and provide validation when yet another hawwwt “Boyfriend” pumps and dumps them. They get let into the clubs. Men approach them and give them attention. Then, fate steps in and suddenly they are like a former star football player who is now beat up, used up, has 1 to many concussions, and suddenly the men (teams) are not paying them attention any longer. A woman whose eggs in the fridge are nearing their expiration date is slamming into the wall and their clock is ticking to lock down a provider to take care of them. See also “Baby Rabies.” Solopsism: As a consequence of their privileged position in society, and their natural biology, coddled women learn to think in terms of me…me…me. Women are wholly incapable of accepting the suffering of a man- if anything it is sexually arousing to them to see a man hold up under prolonged torture. However, if the man succumbs to the torture, she will feel nothing but disgust. See also Threatpoint or “Sexual Denial in Marriage 2.0.”
  4. happiness

    Breaching Morality

    What is the consequence of committing an act that you know to be immoral if you can pull it off without getting caught or causing injury to the victim? For example, suppose you could hack into your love interest's email account and view all her data for the sake of satisfying your curiosity, but you vowed not to disturb the data and you judged the odds of getting caught to be low. You know it's immoral because you're violating her property and privacy, no different from if you walked into her house while she was gone and went snooping through her underwear drawer. Would you be doing yourself long-term harm by giving yourself permission to be immoral this one time even though you may be perfectly moral most of the time?
  5. A female co worker (who was formerly my trainer) five years my senior has been flirting with me on the job since day one. At first, I took it as joke and blew her off, but I’ve noticed she doesn't seem to do it with the other guys there, and lately she's been ramping it up...by doing stuff like rubbing my back, grabbing my leg, and slipping in a few overtly sexual comments. Though I feign disinterest, I secretly like it and am attracted to her even though I’m pretty sure she’s a different walk of life and not a long-term match for me. I’m aware of the adage “don’t shit where you eat,” but is it really that wise? Hank and Dagny were co-workers, right?
  6. Maybe this country still has a sliver of decency, but the people who oppose this don’t. The HillHouse passes 'right to try' drug billBY RACHEL ROUBEIN - 03/21/18 The House passed “right to try” legislation on experimental drugs largely along party lines Wednesday, sending a bill backed by President Trump to the Senate.Last week, House Republican leaders put the bill on the floor under suspension of the rules. Democrats objected, expressing safety concerns over how the measure would bypass the Food and Drug Administration, and it fell short of the necessary two-thirds support it needed.But leaders made clear the House would take up the bill again. On the second try, the House only needed a simple majority to pass the bill, and easily did so in the 267 to 149 vote.Thirty-five Democrats voted for the bill, and two Republicans opposed it. Now, the measure goes to the Senate, where a version of the bill passed in August by unanimous consent.Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has championed the bill in the Senate, urged his chamber to quickly pass the measure. “Right to try needs to become the law of the land. It passed the Senate unanimously last summer, and I’m disappointed the House didn’t pass that bill and send it to the president for his signature," Johnson said in a statement."Nonetheless, I plan to ask my colleagues to pass right to try again immediately. Terminally ill patients and their families have waited long enough.”House Republicans revised the bill amid objections from some supporters who had hoped the Senate version would pass, wanting to prevent the measure from ping-ponging between the two chambers. They worried that could make it harder to get the bill to Trump’s desk.The bill lets terminally ill patients request access to drugs the FDA hasn’t yet approved without going through the agency. Patients can request the drugs from manufacturers if the medicine has gone through a small-scale clinical trial and is still under FDA consideration.Though no senators objected to the bill, the legislation — which had been revised — proved controversial in the House.Democrats there, as well as more than 75 patient advocacy groups, have voiced several different concerns, and patient safety was chief among them.“By allowing patients access to investigational treatments that have only completed a phase 1 clinical trial, patients will be exposed to treatments with no or relatively little data that they are actually effective,” the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), said during the debate on the House floor Wednesday.“These extremely small trials only examine the safety and toxicity of a drug and do not determine the effectiveness or potential side effects.”Opponents of the bill also point to the FDA’s compassionate use program, saying the agency approves 99 percent of requests to let a patient use an experimental drug. They argue the legislation provides “false hope,” as drug manufacturers aren’t required to provide the drug to patients who ask.But House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and health subcommittee chairman Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) maintained that their version of the bill struck “the right balance for patients and their safety.”Supporters of the measure have argued that people with a terminal illness should have every tool at their disposal to try a drug that could possibly help them.Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said that if faced with a terminal illness, he’d “take any risk, including injecting monkey urine if that meant I could spend a few more days, months or years with my children.”Proponents of the legislation have also argued that the drug approval process takes too long, and that the bill isn't unsafe, as medicines must have passed a phase 1 clinical trial and still be in FDA’s pipeline.The legislation has powerful backers.President Trump has urged Congress to pass the bill, notably in his State of the Union address in late January. Vice President Pence is a staunch supporter of right to try, signing the bill into law when he was governor of Indiana. And groups backed by conservative mega-donors Charles and David Koch have also been pushing for its passage.
  7. Had a couple of super uncomfortable encounters today. While on a bike ride I ran into a guy who was a close friend for a very long time, but whom I haven’t seen or talked to much in the last five years. He’s a successful insurance agent now, which I respect, but has taken to getting involved in local politics (I believe) as a form of marketing, which I’m not so impressed with. He’s a leader in a local organization that campaigns for school bonds and posts a bunch boring stuff about it on FB. During our brief convo, he mentioned the school levy coming up and casually “reminded” me to support it. Not wanting to disagree, I said something like “cool, OK, I’ll do that” and changed the subject by saying hi to his young son. I so dreaded the awkwardness that disagreeing with him would cause that I lied to avoid it. Less than an hour later, a woman from his organization came to my door and asked if she could count on my support. I politely told her that I disagree with the measure and to have a good rest of her day, to which she replied condescendingly, “you disagree with making our schools safer?” Lol. At that point someone else came to the door and I let that person talk to her. This is a gated community where homeowners pay dues to keep solicitors out—I suspect my friend used his connections to the HOA to get permission for the organization to campaign here. If so, not cool. Anyway, how spineless was I to imply that I would support my childhood friend’s cause? What would you say instead? “I don’t believe in public education, but since it will probably pass I hope the kids benefit from it?” Ugh better but still so cringeworthy. I want to be able to disagree respectfully and shut it down without burning a friend. You can tell I don’t have much experience in these situations. I’ve always lived by a strict “no politics” policy in social situations unless I know I’m talking to someone who agrees with me.
  8. Cold-blooded murderers, every last one of them. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/13/house-democrats-block-patients-right-try-bill/
  9. There is a very grassroots group that advocates for the cause and is a mix of good and bad. The leadership doesn’t have much of a grasp of how to argue, puts out poorly edited articles and social media content, and sometimes lives up to the other side's characterizion of patients as being easily misled. They blew me away last year by spearheading the Texas law that passed, which will be a game-changer if federal authorities don't interfere, so I have to give them some credit.
  10. As Nicky noted, the proprietary Regenexx procedure is approved in the Cayman Islands, where the regulations are less stringent than in the US (I had 20+ joints treated at the Cayman clinic last year with good results). Cultured stem cell treatments in general aren’t freely practicable anywhere to my knowledge, but are still performed in certain places throughout the world either through specials favors from local governments or where their legal status is uncertain. Japan also recently passed a law that significantly deregulates stem cell “drugs,” allowing them to skip phase-3 clinical trials (the most burdensome part of the approval process).
  11. Statutorily, a preparation of cells qualifies as “drug” subject to FDA regulation if the cells are “more than minimally manipulated.” The specific treatment I need calls for a patient's stem cells to be isolated from his bone marrow and culture-expanded to grow them to multiplicity. The expanded cells are then implanted into an arthritic joint, where, if the process is performed by skilled hands, they are well-documented to be capable of exerting reparative effects. In 2010, the FDA sued the company that pioneered this procedure on the grounds that the expanded cells are "more than minimally manipulated" (see ARI's commentary). The FDA prevailed, and it is now illegal for any doctor to administer culture-expanded stem cells in the US without obtaining a biologics license, the cost of which is so burdensome that it renders the procedure economically unviable in today’s regulatory environment. The cause also seems obstructed by parties with serious conflicts of interest. The former FDA commissioner said this: “When I was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2005 to 2009, I saw firsthand how regenerative medicine offered a cure for kidney and heart failure and other chronic conditions like diabetes. Researchers used stem cells to grow cells and tissues to replace failing organs, eliminating the need for expensive supportive treatments like dialysis and organ transplants… For example, in August 2010, the FDA filed suit against a company called Regenerative Sciences. Three years earlier, the company had begun marketing a process it called Regenexx to repair damaged joints by injecting them with a patient’s own stem cells. The FDA alleged that the cells the firm used had been manipulated to the point that they should be regulated as drugs. A resulting court injunction halting use of the technique has cast a pall over the future of regenerative medicine.“ I don’t think it’s unreasonable to project that, by the end of the ensuing decade, the FDA vs. Regenerative Sciences decision will probably have resulted in millions of preventable deaths.
  12. I have Google alerts set up to send me articles on regulatory policy pertaining to adult stem cell therapy. While not a popular issue, there is a battle raging on among interested parties on the internet, in the media, and in the legislatures, where there have been a few credible attempts at deregulation. The odds have always been stacked against patient freedom, and the progress has mostly reflected that, but there have been a few positive developments, most notably a Texas law that makes federally prohibited adult stem cell therapies legal at the state level starting in the near future—it remains to be seen whether the FDA will interfere. In the last two years there has also been an explosion of clinics offering a legal kind of stem cell treatment that doesn't meet the FDA's ever-changing definition of a "drug," and this has provoked much negative press, always outrageously biased and clearly intended to fearmonger, spread misinformation, and drum up public support for regulators to stamp these treatments out of existence. So, I have to stay abreast of what's happening on the regulatory front since it has such important implications for me. I wish it was easy to set it aside when I'm done processing the latest news.
  13. I've been blocking out the economic news for the last few years to my detriment, but the events of the last few weeks have really captured my attention. After six years of 0% interest rates, the markets are in turmoil and signs point to a recession on the horizon. It is clear that the Fed will not raise interest rates or keep them high for long if the economic data is negative. So what are they going to do now? Print print print print print print money is my assumption. Peter Schiff seems to think the dollar collapse he's been predicting for years is nigh. My other favorite analyst, Jim Rogers, points out that the world still thinks the U.S. Dollar is a safe haven even though it's not one, so it might stay strong a little longer, but says that soon the world will lose confidence in the Fed and the dollar. What do you think? Is likely that the U.S economy will suffer some real pain in the next few years, either a big stock market drop + recession, or if the Fed refuses to raise rates, a very high rate of inflation?
  14. no more* dismissive
  15. It’s crazy that I’ve been following Peter Schiff for 10 years and his predicted economic collapse hasn’t played out, yet all along I’ve felt as if the threat has been imminent, and even hoarded a small fortune (by my standards) in gold. I’m actually no less dismissive of the collapse scenario than I’ve ever been, and still holding tightly to my gold, but at this point I do at least grant the possibility that the Schiffs of the world could turn out to be completely wrong. If this is the case, what flaws in my general thinking could have contributed to the formation of this erroneous belief that, five years ago, I held with certainlty? Over-pessimism? Some degree of emotionalism? Lack of understanding of economics? Maybe just being out of my depth?
  16. Thanks. I haven’t take taken anything stated here as snide, though.
  17. With the Govt spying, there are many reasons you can’t be assured it’s safe to do this. I’m not sure that America comparing favorably to other counties means much, as the rest of the world sets the bar pretty low. Status quo FDA policy is morally equivalent to the mass murder of sick people. Regardless of how it’s rationalized, cutting off a person’s access to a needed medicine is no different than slaughtering him by any other means. I don’t know what percentage of voters have any awareness of this issue, but the overwhelmingly negative response to the Right to Try bill I’ve observed shows that the majority of people who understand what the FDA does are clearly apologists for mass murder. That’s pretty evil. I’m not terminally ill, so this bill doesn’t affect me, but I’m in the same boat with a chronic disease which is highly treatable with an advanced therapy that the FDA will probably never let happen in US, so the issue is deeply personal to me. I’ve tried to deal with the issue constructively by presenting the pro-freedom side wherever I could, but found that pretty much every time I’ve either been downvoted into oblivion or treated to the most banal displays of irrationality one could ever hope to come across. The other side’s arguments always follow same pattern: they focus solely on the possibility of harm caused by unregulated medicines, cherry-pick the negative as evidence, treat the priestly bureaucrats as omniscient and incorruptible without any justification and against all evidence to the contrary, and use inane buzzwords like “snake oil” as substitutes for facts. I have argued with MDs who ardently support the FDA and never seen anyone muster anything more intelligent than “BUT BUT BUT THALIDOMIDE!!!” Trying go educate others on this is simply a gigantic waste of time. So what are my options? Try to find a more effective way to communicate the issue even though the prospect of positive change anytime soon seems impossible. Avoid debate and try to block out current events. Focus on my life and generating enough funds for more offshore treatments. Say the Hell with it all, it’s been fun. Most of the time I’m in mode #2, but sometimes read an article like the one I posted, and my blood just boils over.
  18. Is there a reason it would be less likely to pass the House when it’s already passed the Senate? If it passes the House it’s as good as law.
  19. I'm not sure how I would define rudeness exactly, but it is a type of communication that could justifiably offend and cause emotional distress. Say you're calling a customer service line with a legitimate reason to be angry—is it OK to yell at the person and use expletives? Or is this kind of conduct always gratuitous?
  20. Could it very likely be only a few years away? The thought is frightening. And what will it look like? Will there be a new tax on everyone to fund it?
  21. The free state project is pretty nutty IMO. These people are talking about making drastic life changes in the name of a completely hopeless cause. Even if a fraction of the people who gave them a signature actually followed through on their alleged commitment to move there, what would 20,000 people accomplish on a state scale?
  22. Obviously, this isn't in the near term future, but if the Objectivist movement was to grow to, say, a few hundred thousand, would there be any incentive for them to band together and settle in a common area? Would this even be desirable?
  23. I imagine that, probably over a long period of time, either a lot of Objectivists would move to a given area or that a lot of people in a given place would become Objectists, resulting in a large Objectivist population whose members would eventually become influential in local politics. Yes, they would still be subject to the laws of external governments, but they could still accomplish things like abolishing the property taxes used to fund public schools and answering the cliche "who will build the roads?" (if not the government).
  24. I'm not talking about the creation of a mico-nation, just a significant population of Objectivists setting somewhere within an established country. They wouldn't presume the right to banish people. Maybe they could shoot down the local school levies.
  25. A 34 year old friend of mind lost the love of his life in February when she died suddenly due to a heart defect. There weren't married yet, but were making plans. Now he's doing a bunch of crazy shit like posting messages to her on Facebook every day as if she can read them from "wherever she is up there," and after obtaning her mothers's blessing, declared that he's marrying her posthumously to stay committed to her until they reunite in the afterlife. So far I've kept my opinion on this to myself, but sooner or later I am going to have to express some view of it one way or the other—I've already showed a lack of support by not "liking" his "marriage" announcement. It's obvious that he's in an unbelievable mount of pain, having lost his #1 value, and is trying to deal with it somehow. What should a rational person in his shoes do? I see three options: 1) Try to find love again, hard as it is, 2) Stay alive, but resolve never to love again, and 3) commit suicide. Is there a correct answer?
×