Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,873 Excellent


About pogi

  • Rank
    Lost my face in the fuzz

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,800 profile views
  1. Ya, I think Joseph Smith killed the name for future generations. I imagine it was much more common in his day, I mean it doesn’t get more ordinary than Joe Smith.
  2. Is that what they are calling the virgin sacrifice rooms these days?
  3. That’s what I mean though - tolerance is always one sided in matters like this. Enforced tolerance of the breast feeding mother requires enforced intolerance of the woman complaining. You can enforce tolerance of _____ behavior, but you cant enforce tolerance generally speaking without being intolerant of someone for something.
  4. Is your name as common as Joe Smith? You can’t hide! They will find you!
  5. “Enforced Tolerance”. Isn’t that kind of an oxymoron? When you enforce tolerance the preferences of at least one side will not be tolerated. So, how does that work exactly?
  6. This may be true if we are talking about stricter regulations, but Nehor is talking about nationalization of pharma, which Europe has not done.
  7. I use Russia as an example as it is the only country that I am aware of that has nationalized pharmaceuticals. Europe is definitely not nationalized so you can’t use them as an example. Some of the biggest pharma companies in the world are out of Europe. Europe does regulate the industry more which helps bring down drug prices (which is where our government is failing in my opinion), but the argument can be made that such regulations hurts innovation, as Calm has pointed out. You said, “The reason the US has so much innovation is government spending on medical research.” That doesn’t seem to be the case. The governments of Europe spend far more on research (corporate welfare, as you put it) than our government, yet we still have more innovation.
  8. It is working. Our system is FAR more effective at new drug development and research. That is not entirely true. There are different stages of development and pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists primarily pick up the bill in late stage development. The government only helps fund basic discovery research along with the help of philanthropic organizations. You are leaving out the most important side of medicine - prevention. Look at what vaccine development has done to small pox, polio, etc! I write prescriptions for preventative medications for malaria, altitude illness, leptospirosis, and others for travelers going to developing countries every single day. These drugs save thousands of lives! I would shudder to think where we would be without them - No thanks to Russia! I don't have prescriptive power as an RN but with standing orders from our collaborating infectious disease doctors I can and do actually hand write prescriptions every day for curative medicines too. There are drug cures for malaria like Coartem and Malarone. I write these for adventure travelers who will be far from medical treatment for long periods i high risk areas and may require self-treatment measures. I also write prescriptions for the treatment of high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and high altitude cerebral edema (HACE). On top of that I write prescriptions which cure travelers diarrhea, yeast infection, anaphylactic reactions, etc. That is what I do in my very limited scope as an RN in travel medicine. I don't even work in post-travel care where there are hundreds of drugs which cure all sorts of tropical diseases and infections. Developments in antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics have saved millions of lives (again, no thanks to Russia), so I 'm not sure where you are coming from with this. If you watch TV much, you will have learned that there is a new curative drug for hepatitis C! New stuff is coming out all the time. But lets not downplay the role of palliative treatments either. Where would we be without these medicines!? They are wonder drugs that vastly improve the quality of life for people and actually save their lives in many cases. New research into palliative care is important and needed too. You can't place the entire blame on pharmaceuticals, the government has dropped the ball here too. I guess you could go to Russia if you want and partake of their offerings in the field of medicine...oh wait 😁
  9. If there is complicity between government and pharma in the opioid epidemic (as you say) and corruption in the FDA, then how can you trust the government to run things better? The greatest motivator for new research into life saving drugs is profit. Remove that motive and watch research and new drugs come to a stand still. We have seen this happen with the nationalization of pharmaceuticals in Russia. Russia has not produced one single new drug since the revolution. The free market system is the best system for innovation. Sure there is risk for corruption, but who agrees that the government is immune from corruption? You have already noted 2 fine examples of this corruption.
  10. What would be more scary is if we all believed the exact same things without any degree of variance...that’s how you know you are in a cult. Good luck defining “church doctrine” in a way that everyone will agree with.
  11. Well, I have never been to hell to compare the two, but I can vouch that being straight is not all that bad 😁
  12. You clearly are not happy with the changes made to the Maxwell institute, but I don’t sense that he is being disingenuous in his talk. I don’t get the sense that he is just posturing and hasn’t wrestled with the hard questions himself or doesn’t really expect others to do the same. I think you and he would probably agree on the end goal but may simply differ in approach. I can’t say why he made the changes but I doubt that it was to intentionally impede any spiritual questioning and growth.
  13. I am pretty sure Elder Oaks was not talking about a joy that can be experienced in mortality, so it is not a joy that any of us can relate with. His comment was based on current revelations regarding requirements for exaltation (fullness of joy). I think I was pretty clear on that.
  14. He followed up by saying: “Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”[v]” In other words, this is his opinion. It is not something we should be teaching as truth or doctrine. The best, most honest answer we have is “I don’t know”. An opinion from a leader in an official platform is still just an opinion.
  • Create New...