Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 244 posts

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#231

Post by jbirer »

waterhouse wrote: post #176
jbirer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that PrEP is not made to be injected, blood clots and other issues can appear. These natural medicine people are dangerous.

Your information may be out of date. Wiki[1] says "In December 2021, the FDA approved Apretude, which is an injectable form of PrEP", and Apretude seems to be a brand name for cabotegravir, which is the chemical named in the OP. (The capital letters in PrEP make me think it's a specific drug, but apparently people use it to mean several different drugs with similar purposes.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-exp…

PrEP is a generic term for a medication that you take before the act, yeah. I was mostly refering to Truvada here which is the one that gets most passed around.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#232

Post by notch656a »

kragen wrote: post #225
notch656a wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So I think I will not respond to this thread again. Ok, you won't be missed (nor remembered), pathetic leftist gate-keeper of the word anarchism. Hopefully you find a True Scotsman worthy of the title.

You are of course free to use words to mean whatever you want, but if you choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology, you should expect that most people will misunderstand you; in some cases that can slide into deliberate deception, though I don't think that's your intention here. You aren't the first, of course; Rothbard and arguably Spooner understood anarchism in the same way you do, though Spooner b…

Oh so you are back. You're a liar too. Pathetic. I use that word because of your gate-keeping, not because of your brand of anarchism.

> choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology

I thought using leftist was offensive (even though I didn't mean it offensively) and you asked me not to? You're a hypocrite too.

>you should expect that most people will misunderstand you

I expect you will misunderstand because of your willful ignorance of the term. Calling it 'hijacking' is a lot different than calling it different from whatever looks mainstream to you. There is no mainstream brand of anarchism, it's an ideology without coercion that can manifest in many ways.

Spare me the speech about politeness. You called me a hijacker of a term and say "I think I know this." No I do not, in fact I know the opposite. I think you're an arrogant and self-serving keeper of the word anarchism, one who tries to hide their vulgarity in pretty language and has the gaul to act like a victim for a curt retort.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#233

Post by notch656a »

denton-scratch wrote: post #213
notch656a wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't negotiating a wage (or choosing to accept the offered wage or not) how we determine how much of the means-of-production that a worker contributes to that they are owed? I've helped build houses for instance. When I performed the labor, I was paid cash which I can now use for ownership of my own home. The same for when I design electronics, I then used those proceeds to buy my own means of production to manufact…

You haven't mentioned how public provision is to be made. I know that things like sanitation, energy, health, water, and so on can all be provided privately, by capitalists; I know that it doesn't work as well as public provision. Here in the UK, all of those things were public, until they were privatised in the '80s. I'm in a position to compare the service we used to have with the one we have now. In every case, th…

The provision is anyone who wants to consent to a pact to communally benefit from a cooperative effort can do so. This takes many forms, it could be co-op (kind of like a farmer's co-op as often found in rural US at least where farmers all chip in to buy goods and then divide), charity, insurance, or really any consensual arrangement you can come up with. Or some people may prefer for-profit enterprise. Public should not have a monopoly.

NHS would not exist. It is an institution of violence, funded coercively.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#234

Post by denton-scratch »

notch656a wrote: post #233
denton-scratch wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't mentioned how public provision is to be made. I know that things like sanitation, energy, health, water, and so on can all be provided privately, by capitalists; I know that it doesn't work as well as public provision. Here in the UK, all of those things were public, until they were privatised in the '80s. I'm in a position to compare the service we used to have with the one we have now. In every case, th…

The provision is anyone who wants to consent to a pact to communally benefit from a cooperative effort can do so. This takes many forms, it could be co-op (kind of like a farmer's co-op as often found in rural US at least where farmers all chip in to buy goods and then divide), charity, insurance, or really any consensual arrangement you can come up with. Or some people may prefer for-profit enterprise. Public should…

> It is an institution of violence, funded coercively.

Goodness, what a weird thing to say. It is Britian's most-loved institution.

I've never met anyone in Britain that disapproves of the NHS. We were all born in the NHS, doctors visited us as children when we got chicken pox, and the whole thing was organised so as to provide the best response they could to the public's needs. Village hospitals, visiting midwives, comprehensive GP service.

We were never asked to pay.

So are you seriously advocating a "system" where all services are provided by private businesses that are free to withdraw services at any time? Where different services (IC, CT scan, MRI, ENT, surgery) are all provided by different companies in different locations? Where unprofitable locations get zero service?

Even bosses love the NHS - it means they don't have to include insurance in the comp.

Thatcher privatised nearly every government-run business operation, but she balked at privatising the NHS. It was too popular.

Of course it's funded coercively; it's funded from general taxation. But "violence"? What can you possibly mean?

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#235

Post by notch656a »

denton-scratch wrote: post #234
notch656a wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The provision is anyone who wants to consent to a pact to communally benefit from a cooperative effort can do so. This takes many forms, it could be co-op (kind of like a farmer's co-op as often found in rural US at least where farmers all chip in to buy goods and then divide), charity, insurance, or really any consensual arrangement you can come up with. Or some people may prefer for-profit enterprise. Public should…

> It is an institution of violence, funded coercively. Goodness, what a weird thing to say. It is Britian's most-loved institution. I've never met anyone in Britain that disapproves of the NHS. We were all born in the NHS, doctors visited us as children when we got chicken pox, and the whole thing was organised so as to provide the best response they could to the public's needs. Village hospitals, visiting midwives,…

Try not paying your "general taxation" and continually refusing to answer judges and collection efforts. Try refusing to go to jail when it is the ultimate result. You'll understand what I mean by violence. NHS is an institution of violence.

I didn't say everything has to be profitable. There's plenty of ways to consensually operate without profit. Farmer do it in the US with coops and pooled buying of feed and fertilizer and all manner of other stuff. Charities also do things unprofitably but consensually. I'm good with whatever non-coercive way you find to get your CT scan.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#236

Post by notch656a »

kragen wrote: post #225
notch656a wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So I think I will not respond to this thread again. Ok, you won't be missed (nor remembered), pathetic leftist gate-keeper of the word anarchism. Hopefully you find a True Scotsman worthy of the title.

You are of course free to use words to mean whatever you want, but if you choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology, you should expect that most people will misunderstand you; in some cases that can slide into deliberate deception, though I don't think that's your intention here. You aren't the first, of course; Rothbard and arguably Spooner understood anarchism in the same way you do, though Spooner b…

Edit: My apologies to Kragen for the stuff I misattributed to him. It was a long back and forth thread between us two and I didn't realize you had interjected at the end. My mind was locked into thinking I was in conversation with denton-scratch.

I admit my use of "pathetic" was self-defense from being accused of being a hijacker, which I found to be a personal attack against something objectively untrue based on the Oxford English definition of the word "anarchism."

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#237

Post by hammock »

kragen wrote: post #86
hammock wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affordability is not the only reason people are being denied medicine. Many people have wanted, e.g. ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, etc; and even gone to court to fight to get them, not because of the cost but because doctors, pharmacies and/or government bodies refuse to provide.

The -mabs are often denied because they really are expensive to make. Ivermectin is super cheap and quite safe in the usual doses; in the case of covid, denying it to people isn't directly causing any harm, but also very little good, if any.

>The -mabs are often denied because they really are expensive to make.

Source? According to the HHS via Washington Post[1], many doses of monoclonal antibodies have already been made, but only 20% of those distributed have been used, with 80% sitting on a shelf. The article suggests a few reasons for the lack of use, but it does not mention cost to make them.

[1]https://archive.fo/IHK4J

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#238

Post by kragen »

notch656a wrote: post #232
kragen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are of course free to use words to mean whatever you want, but if you choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology, you should expect that most people will misunderstand you; in some cases that can slide into deliberate deception, though I don't think that's your intention here. You aren't the first, of course; Rothbard and arguably Spooner understood anarchism in the same way you do, though Spooner b…

Oh so you are back. You're a liar too. Pathetic. I use that word because of your gate-keeping, not because of your brand of anarchism. > choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology I thought using leftist was offensive (even though I didn't mean it offensively) and you asked me not to? You're a hypocrite too. >you should expect that most people will misunderstand you I expect you will misunderstand becau…

Please don't leave comments like this.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#239

Post by notch656a »

kragen wrote: post #238
notch656a wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so you are back. You're a liar too. Pathetic. I use that word because of your gate-keeping, not because of your brand of anarchism. > choose to use "anarchism" to mean a non-leftist ideology I thought using leftist was offensive (even though I didn't mean it offensively) and you asked me not to? You're a hypocrite too. >you should expect that most people will misunderstand you I expect you will misunderstand becau…

Please don't leave comments like this.

Listen Kragen, I do feel bad I misattributed many things to you because after a long back and forth thread I _thought_ I was still talking to denton-scratch but it was actually Kragen. I appreciate your thoughts and insight, even this one. And you have my sincere apology for the mis-attribution to you based on my mistaken thought you were denton-scratch.

Do not expect me to censor myself going forward, however. I understand that could result in being banned. I'm OK with that, as I'm not really interested in communicating in a place with censorship.

Re: Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

#240

Post by erosenbe0 »

kragen wrote: post #149
erosenbe0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, the variance in prices in only very slightly due to quality, like often 5% or 1% or less than 1% of the variance. Please show data accounting for why anti-parasitics that costs 5 cents per dose for a horse or 5 cents per dose in India with 20 high quality generic versions are $50 in the US. Hint. BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET ON HIGH-QUALITY AND SAFE DRUGS. WE HAVE A PAY TO EXTRACT RENT SYSTEM.

I wish you wouldn't post things like this because, although what you are saying is factually correct, you are saying it in a patronizing and shouting way, which will lead people to associate these insights with acting like an asshole. That makes it harder for them to assimilate them, even when I'm the one explaining them and even if I'm managing not to act like an asshole.

I'm sorry but I used to work in healthcare and we see people suffer because they can't afford the $10 monthly copay on drugs that should cost no more than $10 or $20 for a year supply, like a giant bottle of generic aspirin. The fact that they suffer due to pure exploitation is disturbing.
Post reply on HN