💾 Archived View for midnight.pub › posts › 2077 captured on 2024-08-25 at 05:38:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

too good to not spew

~tffb

had no intent of writing today, but here is a thing:

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.

Theoretical scenario:

pharma gets taxed at 90%

doctors get paid exactly jack shit to write a prescription

Am I "pro tax"?: I am not NO tax, nor am I lowtax (RIP), nor are taxes the problem/solution to anything anywhere - and I am also not offering a Real World(TM) solution to "it" (big pharma - as if politics/climate change/war would ever enable civilization to keep the lights on in a decade, anyway).

Is there a point here?

Bluntly: no. Thoughts of babylon, disease created for wealth. But the words were there, had to write them.

so a coffee ~bartender - also a sedative, tyvm

Write a reply

Replies

~detritus wrote:

cosmetic conditions

What a wonderful term to describe them.

Elsewhere I read something along the lines of "normal people are taking brain pills becaues society would rather pathologize the natural reactions to the present conditions than address the issues."

I am a bit bewildered that a lot of my acquaintances, more and more, are getting "diagnosed" with one of these behavioral "conditions". These are people who used to be suspicious of authority and "The System", and now they throw themselves in complete trust to the psychiatric authority. I can't blame them, it's hard to make a buck in the city without wanting to kill yourself, or rather, without killing your own individuality, and these people need to get their brain numbed to be able to do a 9-5 in order to stay afloat.

A few times in my life I have thought to myself "hey, maybe I have ADHD, I have a number of symptoms. Well, no shit. I was raised in an educational system that was designed for automata, and I'm a sentient meant-n-bone human. I decided to take it in stride, however, and to work with who I am instead of making pharmaceuticals rich just to acommodate to the constraining mould that they want to fit us into. I refuse to become part of the problem, and I can't anyway, I've never been one to give up my self to the benefit of some other, abstract entity that just wants to milk as much labour from me for it's own benefit and detriment to the living world.

~inquiry wrote (thread):

> 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!