Replies

> had no intent of writing today

I don't believe you. :-)

> I was mind-meandering, thinking to myself, and came
> across medicine, (big) pharma, disease, health, et
> al. And pondered how many cosmetic conditions there are
> out there. I don't mean dementia, or schizophrenia, or
> depression (which are always backed by chemical proof,
> physical "a thing is happening (in the brain) hence, here
> is the diagnosis") - I mean COSMETIC ailments, such as
> ADD, ADHD, schizo-effective (the "diet light" version of
> schizophrenia), things "diagnosed" via behavior/habits,
> rather than any type of "chemical reaction" PROOF of
> their existence.

> The question: how many? I don't know how many cosmetic
> conditions exist, likely in an equal-to, no greater/lesser
> than number of pills to be prescribed for them. Upticks
> and downturns dependent on percentage money (profits)
> disbursed to doctors writing prescriptions for them.

Okay. You win the tactfulness contest. :-)

> Is there a point here?
>
> Bluntly: no. Thoughts of babylon, disease created for
> wealth. But the words were there, had to write them.

You know - and this is one reason why it's better to not be afraid to type - you actually convinced me. I was ready (eager?) to judgementally kick the mentally suffering in a character flaw kind of way while they were down, but you presented a better explanation ("disease created for wealth"). Bravo!

> so a coffee ~bartender - also a sedative, tyvm

Hilarious!

Write a reply

~tffb wrote (thread):

::points to chart of "statistics" of pre-conceived outcomes and "solve for the problem" bar graphs::

You see, right around *here* :points: is where I decided money can be made from hauking pills, it's *right.around.that.time* that we made enormous discoveries in an otherwise non-detectable disease.

Response: "Hell Dr T, it's like this thing would have never been discovered in medical science had we not invented the treatments for it first"

:both nod in solidarity and agreement: