New poll inspired by some of the others: what are your views, and do you feel that they're tolerated

[LeftishBrit]

Inspired by a couple of other polls, I am now trying to see whether people's perception of reactions to their views is in fact closely linked to what their views are.

I have tried to put the alternative views as specifically as possible, as broader terms like 'pro/anti vaccine';'pro/anti Western medicine'; 'pro/anti Pharma' can be misleading and susceptible to many interpretations. (E.g. personally I resent being labelled as pro-Pharma, when in fact I'm anti-Pharma, but because it restricts access to medicines and vaccines by making them unaffordable, rather than because I don't approve of the medicines and vaccines!)

I have also changed 'welcomed' to 'tolerated', as I think people on either side can only demand tolerance from the other, not approval or agreement.

[HamdenRice]

1. The problem is you are trying to shoehorn participants into categories that don't apply

I'm not particularly part of any identifiable group or position -- alternative or not, pro-vaccine or anti. I am an empiricist though, and it takes no empirical Einstein to know from the pages of the New York Times that pharma and health lobbies negatively affect the quality of care.

I think my position probably describes 90% of the people who participate here.

But there is a small group of -- and this is the only descriptor that seems appropriate -- hard core pro-corporate, pro-pharma fundamentalist people that ridicule virtually any comment about health care finance and pharma policy that does not accept as a pre-condition and assumption that we live in the best of all possible health care worlds, and that the only interests health care finance and pharma have is in providing the best of all possible worlds. These hard core pro-corporate fundamentalists, moreover, don't use logic or reason to get their point across -- just ridicule. (I don't include you, btw.) In other words, "whether people's perception of reactions to their views is in fact closely linked to what their views are" is not the issue; the issue is whether any one of us as "crossed" the self-appointed, self-important dungeon masters, who feel it is their obligation to "punish" anyone who does not agree 100% with them on everything. What's worse, is that many of them have anti-scientific, anti-empirical, anti-historical, anti-logical approaches, so you kind of have to agree with a bizarre, non-logical, non-factual world view to avoid "crossing" these self-appointed dungeon masters.

So nuanced discussion about things like cost-benefit analysis of health interventions becomes impossible because of them. That's what people are reacting to -- not a conventional medicine/alternative medicine split, which in the real world are considered complementary approaches, not oppositional.

[LeftishBrit]

2. I have not noticed any pro-corporate pro-pharma fundamentalists here

For example: I have not noticed anyone here who would not support the establishment (or in the case of non-Americans preservation) of universal health care - which is the antithesis of a pro-corporate view. Nor have I noticed anyone who considers that there is no corruption in the Pharma industry, or that all vaccines or other medicines are safe for everyone.

I have deliberately NOT presented the argument in my poll as a 'conventional medicine/alternative medicine' debate. I think if anything the line is between those who regard *lack of access* to medicines as the overriding problem versus those who regard *unnecessary or harmful medicines* as the overriding problem. And of course both are a problem; but I sometimes think that concerns over the second become grounds for dismissing the first.


I think that people on both sides sometimes become exasperated by misperceptions of their motives, and therefore express themselves in a more polarized way than they otherwise would. I also think that many people on both sides frequent the forum because they or their relatives have health problems - which makes emotions run higher, and aspersions on motives more hurtful.

My perception is that those who are distrustful of the vaccines and medicines being debated are more likely to be subjected to *ridicule* but those who do trust these vaccines and medicines are more likely to be subjected to *accusations of corrupt motives*. And I realize that different people have different sensitivies; but I would INFINITELY prefer to be ridiculed than to be accused of corrupt motives, especially on issues that are of personal importance to me.

[varkam]

6. The problem with attacks on motivation as opposed to pure ridicule...

is that usually, the ridicule is accompanied with some explanation of why the ridicule is deserved (e.g. You're a loon because X). It's basically a more assholish way of saying that someone is wrong and than giving an explanation for that.

That is distinct from an accusation of having a corrupt motive because that sort of thing is the argument in and of itself. It's more like "You're wrong because you're a shill / republican / evil-puppy-slayer" and so it doesn't really allow the debate to progress beyond name-calling (not that ridicule does either - but it's kind of hard to respond to that with anything but a tin-foil hat reference).

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

3. Can you name a single participant here...

who would be against a single-payer system, or would be against government regulation of drug prices, or who is for DTC advertisement? Cause those all seem like some issues a "hard core pro-corporate, pro-pharma fundamentalist" would have an opinion on.

[trotsky]

4. I suspect your request will be unanswered.

Because I know of no one who takes those positions here. However a certain small, vocal, and abusive clique does like to imagine that there are lots. Of course it always has been far easier to argue against strawmen.

[varkam]

5. I wasn't aware of any, either, but I thought maybe Hammy, in His omniscience, could help me out.

:shrug:

edited to capitalize "His"

[Why Syzygy]

8. There should probably be

an alternate choice (forum) at DU for pharma issues. I can't answer the poll because I'm not a regular poster. I think we can expect more coming from this specter as we move forward. As with any manufacturing endeavor, the implications and applications are diverse.

I'm very aware of the vax debate. Since it is so controversial, I am choosing to not discuss it at DU. I am more interested in developing an environment where other issues, which are not so emotioanlly charged and even if not wholly agreed upon, are open to discussion.

I DO hold the opinion that for those in our communities who seek to opt out of ANY traditional medical treatments, there should be available full disclosure information and ways to MINIMIZE RISK should they choose an alternate route. In some populations, RISK REDUCTION method for addiction treatment has proved effective. I am from the School of Efficacy.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. This forum should be for all health issues, news, questions

there hasn't been that much activity here until I posted articles that the "clique" didn't
like.

Then they lit flame wars which now I avoid by putting the Clique on ignore.

It sounds like you are siding with the Clique by suggesting that those with differing opinions
from the clique should go elsewhere.

Is that your intention?

[Why Syzygy]

13. I am sensitive to

the issues you present. However, I believe in using the right tool for the job.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. Good, perhaps you can post that in another forum

since you want to exclude more ideas from this one.

[Why Syzygy]

15. I'm not going

to debate the merits of one side or another. I would like to point out, that since a sizable number of posts are unreadable due to your personalized DU settings, you are not aware of all the information I've considered.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. None of the above - I don't fit in any of those descriptions

n/t

[LeftishBrit]

10. You are against Gardasil - I've no idea of your views about MMR

I deliberately did *not* use broad terms such as 'pro-' or 'anti-vaccine' or 'pro-' or 'anti-Pharma'; etc.; but restricted it to very specific topics of debate.

Or do you mean that you don't consider your views either 'tolerated' or 'meeting with hostility' - perhaps because different posters do both?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. Im sure you mean well

But please do not speak for me, in future.

I am opposed to the fast tracking of Gardasil. I know that Merck has withheld study information
before in the case of Vioxx, and it is possible they are doing it again in this vaccine.

Its possible that this vaccine could be a good one, but given the rush, and the fact that some healthy girls have gotten sick from it, I think it should be studied more, maybe changed a bit, and a more cautious vaccination program/schedule be prepared.

I don't trust Merck, and too much can go wrong.

THE VIOXX DISASTER WAS NOT A CONSPIRACY STORY, AND IT COST MERCK SEVERAL BILLION $
GARDASIL WILL REPLACE THAT LOSS. Conveniently so.

With vaccines, just like with pills, ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

If you'll notice, I am responding to you because I do NOT have you on ignore.

I DO have the "clique" on ignore because of the childish and hostile tone of their comments.

[trotsky]

16. I agree. Childish comments have no place.

Such as saying things like "Go Democrats". That's pretty childish, wouldn't you agree?

[varkam]

17. But if she can't make childish comments...

what is she going to say? I fear she will become mute.

[LeftishBrit]

18. In my poll I said 'distrust' rather than 'am against',

Probably a better term for what I meant. Of course you're not obliged to answer my poll anyway.

[Celebration]

19. I fit into the "other" category

I will check this box:

I just don't think in terms of being tolerated or not tolerated, because those are judgments that other people choose to make about subjects/posts, and therefore have no relevance to me.