Your video, New drug kills fat cells, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Would you happen to have a reputable link or site I could purchase from? I am quite interested.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
LOL @ HCG not working. I've seen 5 people EVAPORATE on it before my eyes. Oh it works, there is zero doubt.

>> ^Lann:

Turns out it's meth.

(This comment was brought to you by gwiz665)


http://videosift.com/video/Jimmy-Tangos-Fat-Busters-1

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

in no way is this good, i feel.


Pft, You dont feel.

True enough -- It is a whacked suggestion when parodying the safety of that other product. I have seen the old and frail go through HCG though and come out with better cardio health, massively less joint pain etc. I guess the same will probably be said of this new drug.

HCG makes you burn the energy in your fat.... not kill the blood vessels which supply the cells.

>> ^deathcow:

Try using HCG... OMG does that work.... I mean, its positively surreal. My parents, overweight for 20 years, just deflated to normal size. You lose a pound a day I think.
Personally, I like the eat right and exercise idea. However... I have seen enough HCG results to know that after I do another round of eating right and exercising, and my abs STILL dont show... I am going to do a round of HCG to shrinkwrap myself.


Yes. Everyone should consume the urine of pregnant women.

No really, Google it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

500 cals a day - that's super low. Isn't anyone going to lose massive weight on that kind of intake?>> ^deathcow:

You are eating 500 calories a day during it... so low energy is a common side effect.
The side effects are usually well tolerated since the person goes from being 210 pounds to 180 pounds in a month and their waist size is dropping fast.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Side effects? Do you shit bacon grease like that other stuff?>> ^deathcow:

Try using HCG... OMG does that work.... I mean, its positively surreal. My parents, overweight for 20 years, just deflated to normal size. You lose a pound a day I think.
Personally, I like the eat right and exercise idea. However... I have seen enough HCG results to know that after I do another round of eating right and exercising, and my abs STILL dont show... I am going to do a round of HCG to shrinkwrap myself.

>> ^deathcow:

Try using HCG... OMG does that work.... I mean, its positively surreal. My parents, overweight for 20 years, just deflated to normal size. You lose a pound a day I think.
Personally, I like the eat right and exercise idea. However... I have seen enough HCG results to know that after I do another round of eating right and exercising, and my abs STILL dont show... I am going to do a round of HCG to shrinkwrap myself.


Hasn't HGH been shown to increase the growth rate of preexisting tumors?

Nevermind, I misread.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

in no way is this good, i feel.


I disagree.

We've been in this stage of medicine where we flood the body and brain with a chemical in order to affect a very localized area in a particular way (think chemotherapy). It's effective but causes a lot of collateral problems.

Now we're moving into a stage where chemicals are delivered precisely where they are designed to be. Similar things are being done where smaller amounts of chemotherapy drugs are released only at tumor sites, preventing the horrible side effects of full-body poisoning.

As far as this specific drug, there may be negative effects from it but I can definitely see positive ones. Less abdominal fat is healthier and greatly reduces the risk of a multitude of disabilities. Blame people for being lazy perhaps, but less visceral fat is still healthier than more.

One place where I could see this as being harmful is people thinking "now I can eat nothing but junk food and not get fat". Still, I don't see it as a net loss. Lots of people keep their weight down by eating low-calorie crap with hardly any nutritional value already.

People are changing their minds about drugs. I'm not sure but if you look to the 1990's where every kid was prescribed ritalin in junior high - once those kids got to college they started snorting it down as cocaine. "Man, it might not last as long but this shit is waaay better." (And no, I don't believe that -but it is more entertaining at least). Then on to psychedelics and natural drugs.

Don't get me wrong I don't think psychedelics will make you realize the next technological feat but society cast them out and ushered in crack & heroin & meth. And when I look at the fact that something that is non-addictive, makes one compassionate, imaginative, happy (well some ups and downs maybe) and is the sort of thing most "normal" people wouldn't want to do for a long while after even though they had a blast. And then I think about these horrific new drugs we've been seeing. It's like comparing a bowl of fruits and vegetables to pouring a bowl of battery acid on your brain.

Get over it - not all drugs are addictive or all around bad. Some "medicines" are actually very positive if taken properly. But, the government DOES have something to fear from psychedelics... and that might be a realization to an aversion of corrupted authority.

>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^rougy:
>> ^Doc_M:
>> ^manfromx:
Why then do drug companies get a monopoly on their product for so long. Especially since after R&D these things are pretty cheap to make.

I can answer that one. First, patent law. Second, a single cancer drug, from the ground to the pharmacy, can cost as much as $500,000,000. ... and many of the drugs fail in trials.

I think that most of the costs for research are done in government labs and then the successes are just flat-out given to the drug companies.
Pharma is screwing America rotten.

I should say however that some drugs DO come out of academia. In those cases, the scientists involved get the patent (along with the university); they get some cash out of that at least.


I'm pretty sure that MOST drugs are developed with government programs or with government funding to begin with, and then literally handed over to the pharma companies.

Forgive me for not posting a source, but that was a big issue from as far back as 2000 when Nader was running, and that was basically one of his platforms: to lower drug costs because most of the R&D was already being done, or paid for, by the government to begin with.

Here's a snip:

There's a new drug called Taxol to fight ovarian cancer. That drug was produced by a grant of $31 million of taxpayer money through the National Institutes of Health, right through the clinical testing process. The formula was then given away to the Bristol-Myers Squibb company. No royalties were paid to the taxpayer. There was no restraint on the price. Charges now run $10,000 to $15,000 per patient for a series of treatments. If the patients can't pay, they go on Medicaid, and the taxpayer pays at the other end of the cycle, too.
(source)

>> ^longde:
I think this is a cool sift, but can someone explain why it is so popular.

This is the only way currently to make sure there is no human effect on the results. When done correctly, this method of testing, ensures no one can tamper with the outcome, be it a drug company executive, a doctor conducting the experiment, a patient receiving the drug and so on.

By giving all patient groups identical looking treatment, you remove any possibility that the patients might react differently, by having a control group receiving a placebo (and not knowing they're on a placebo) you can measure how much of the success of your treatment is caused by the placebo effect. If you see the group receiving the new drug is improving by the same amount as the control group, you know the new drug does nothing.

By keeping the examining doctors in the dark, you eliminate the possibility that they will treat patients differently, knowingly or unknowingly, either by accidentally letting them know they're on the placebo, by giving less attention to people on the placebo and so on. Results remain impartial. The same applies to the statisticians. Only after the results are final, everybody can finally find out who was on what drug, and what effect they had.

And finally, by allowing the process to be repeated multiple times by different companies and agencies (FDA etc), you make sure no drug company can manufacture a study result without being debunked later by someone else. Executives have no effect on the outcome, and everybody stays honest.

E=MC^2 means mass is lots of energy. They are not two different things like she seems to think.

How the F... are you going to experimentally hit upon the exact configuration of vibrational energy to destroy the make up of a virus or a bacteria using "energetic solutions"? More likely the body heals itself when this seems to work. The placebo effect is getting stronger and is now often as strong as the actual effect of drugs they test which is becoming a problem for pharmaceutical companies testing new drugs and medicines. Great for us that the general population is learning to heal itself better and better.
-Karl

...Doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

In every country on Earth there are thousands of bankruptcies. Other nations do not offically list 'medical expenses' in a legal docment as the cause of their bankruptcy because of nationalization. However, those charges (which still exist) are in the taxes that went to supporting aforementioned medical systems and contributed to the person's bankruptcy. Person "X" still had medical expenses and had to pay all his life. What Franken does is confine his definition to ONLY include persons who filed for chapter 7 or chapter 13 (a specific legal action) with medical expenses as a factor. Well, that 'factor' contributed to the bankruptcies of persons in Germany too - but didn't get listed in an official legal document. It's nothing but semantic humbuggery.

Fewer U.S. citizens are going bankrupt than Canada (proven). That probably extends to Germay, France & Switzerland as well, but maybe not. Regardless, it is sophistry to claim make propogandistic emotional pleas for 'no one should go medically bankrupt' and claim it doesn't happen in other countries. Bull. It happens all the time. It just isn't listed in the documents because it got smooshed into the tax code.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

It's exactly what Democrats said. You just don't like it. Cowboy up, pardner, and stop running away from what your guys are saying. Democrats have openly stated they are going to have no choice but to ration health care based solely on economic motivations. Their legislation is being crafted to relect that. By design, their plan will treat old people as nothing but expenses to be written off the books ASAP, and young people as cash-cows who get no treatment but have to pay taxes to support the program. Those are their words. This is medical care as envisioned by liberal democrats...

But that means you--particularly you young healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens. As I stated above, just because their bankruptcy costs were hidden away as 'taxes' instead of defined as 'medical costs' going to a medical provider doesn't mean they didn't go medically bankrupt. It is legalese. It is buearucratic legerdemain.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

No - the whole point of the Democrat vision of health care is so they can go to dinner parties and not have to get crap from other liberals about America not having a 'European' medical system. There are tons of better solutions than the specific policies of liberal democrats. They just don't want to try them. They don't even want to study them.

Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

Standard neolib ad hominem bilge. I served as a volunteer unpaid missionary. I donate a large percentage of my personal income to charities. I volunteer in the community to help people get jobs, find work, and train. I visit the sick & widows in my community frequently. And just because I disagree with a top-down socialist so-called 'solution' to a problem I therefore don't understand sacrifice? All your words prove is that you don't know jack about me, and that you are a very small-minded, simplistic, judgemental buffoon.