I'm not qualified to say this, so this isn't a diagnosis, but the post strikes me as similar in tone to the postings of a paranoid schizophrenic who regularly used to post on a forum I visited.
Completely convinced they're on the verge of uncovering something that will "change history" yet very difficult to follow the detail of what they're saying.
I don't believe or have claimed this will "change history".
Had in fact offered to let the whole matter slide if and only if two judges ruling on health insurance matters hand in their resignations, as I consider them a danger to the general public.
Is that really a decision for you to single handedly make? People make mistakes, but it doesn’t mean they are evil. Pushing them to admit their wrong doing, give up their livelihood/careers, etc. is just stupid. Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing.
People have been using "the ends justify the means" to justify all sorts of unethical behavior, not the least of which includes torture, genocide, and wars. Let's not go down that ethical reasoning wormhole.
As for his story, my read on it must be much different from your own. Because from what I am seeing, this is far more about the judge's husband than anyone else, and it is to right a sense of personal injustice than a (still misguided) aim of doing what's best for everyone else. Oh, and he's doing it for fun (his words).
The judge felt safe to commit an overt serious crime due to her husband. He is the conditio sine qua non without which this the entire matter had not happened.
He could make a choice. Either talk to me or influence the court. The choice he ended up making is quite clear. Of course I could not point out his options, as that no doubt would have been misconstrued.
There is some evidence suggesting the cases at the court don't get assigned randomly, as per the rules, and she might ask for off-label use cases to get preferentially assigned to herself.
Upon an inquiry the court did not deny this is true. To find the truth one would have to verify the sequence of other case assignments, which should be possible from incoming filing times and such. Here a second case got assigned to her but with a sequence number oddly enough belonging to a different chamber. Per the law there was supposed to be a singular number, and for some reason she split the case without a required decision.
She is also the only judge at this court who ever wrote anything public on the topic.
Due to an adventurous recent personal medical history I became well-aware what problems unlawful denials do cause for patients.
Speaking of genocide, torture and war, since this topic is about german politics, it might be good to remember a certain time in that countries history, when the law was in support of all of these things. Breaking the law cannot be equated with ethical behavior. Social engineering is indeed a method, wether it is morally objectable needs to be argued and not assumed out of the gate.
I don’t think I made that argument, in fact, my comment was made specifically without the qualifier of it being legal vs. illegal. Manipulation (which let’s face it, social engineering is a fancy way of saying) is a pretty solid example of an unethical behavior depending on your ethical world view. Utilitarian? Great, you must also think torture is acceptable so long as it saves lives. Deontological ethical world views might have something different to say, speaking of Germans (e.g., Kant).
Regardless, I think contriving scenarios where you think someone may act corruptly just to catch them doing so is equally as unethical as a police officer encouraging someone to commit a terrorist act then arresting them once they do.
It is manipulative, may not have happened otherwise if not for the original actor, and is akin to saying “I hope you don’t behave like I’d expect a human to instinctually behave if put in a corner”.
Note I did nothing to manipulate the top court. The application was phrased politely and only hinted at a crime background.
Severe procedural errors including denial of access to court files alone justified a reversal, besides the blatant misinterpretation of the law. There was no need to argue beyond this point or label anyone an offender at the time.
(Ordinarily one would have filed to have the decision voided locally instead of applying to the top court, but that court had unlawfully denied access to the assignment rules and does to this day.)
Nice use of words specifying your actions regarding the high court instead of the judges in question, who were specifically being referred to.
You do realize that just because other people act like jerks, it does not give you license to do the same, right? I don’t know why you believe what you are doing is going to have a positive outcome for anyone, including yourself, but I think you have some serious growing up to do.
I’m sorry you had to go through what you did, I really am. It doesn’t sound like a positive experience and I have my own chronic health issues that have been a battle and I can understand being angry.
I just don’t believe it is yours or anyone’s place to take matters into their own hands, nor do I think their actions justify yours. In this situation, you all suck.
Consider I had just survived a rare cancer that kills nearly everyone who gets it quickly, then when addressing a serious side effect from treatment this happens.
Not claiming any moral high ground here. Many would descend into anger and despair or feelings of victimhood, I simply made a choice to play this like a game instead.
Hey, if nothing else, at least you’re owning it at this point in the conversation.
Separate: I sincerely hope you feel/get better my friend and are able to get the medical treatment you were seeking (if you haven’t already). Best wishes to you!
Thank you for your wishes. For future needs I was able to return to private health insurance which suffers from no such problem. However this cannot cover claims arisen prior to policy issue, so the subject matter remains open.
No judge ruling in this court actually has public health insurance.
I appreciate the offer. Otherwise I did have a superb experience with the medical system, that is real doctors not state workers with lapsed qualification.
Why do you believe it is your position to give any official ultimatums just to meet your own perceived sense of Justice? The way your are speaking about this is to right your own feelings of injustice, not anyone else’s, yet you do it under the auspices of doing what’s best for everyone else. Do they get a say in this as well?
You interpret this as an ultimatum, I see offering them a way out as being nice. At the same time one has to assert seeing through obvious b-s.
What is appropriate gets decided by lawmakers not judges.
Once judges willfully violate the code they have stepped outside their assigned role. This quickly became more of a political problem than a legal one, and what is right is ultimately for voters to decide.
Whether I am able to interpret the code and precedent correctly we will see. I did score close to the very top when taking the LSAT however.
To clarify, the "way out" was simply a new filing for an interim order based on the novel fact that a potentially lethal complication had just occurred in connection with the case. I substantiated this with medical and research evidence.
This was a very simple thing for her to grant, and in my view she was required to do so based on constitutional principles.
I would more likely than not have let the previous incident slide. Why she did not take this opportunity I have no idea.
You can try to wordsmith and twist the logic all you want. Telling someone “resign and do what I want, or else” is an ultimatum and bordering on blackmail. It is an ultimatum that is directly counter to your stated goal as well, which to “allow the voters to decide”. That’s you deciding for them.
Providing someone a nasty choice isnt neccesarily blackmail or wrong.
Imagine you work as a prosecutor. Someone submits fairly strong, and actionable evidence, that your wife has commited a crime your office is required to prosecute. You are legally compelled to excuse yourself, and let someone prosecute, preferably someone not independent of you. If you do, you know your wife will go to prison, and in the process of the procecution, your every dirty secret will be exposed, and even if you are entirely righteous, and was entierly unaware, and willing to believe the worst of your wife, your reputation will be in tatters. Its also possible that you know that the other prosecutor wont prosecute, but instead attempt to blackmail you, or your wife, using the evidence.
You now have a nasty choice.
Lets say you chose to hand the evidence over to a righteous collegue. Your reputation will be damaged regardless, but if you resign the damage will be light, and as you are no longer with the prosecutors office, you are not expected to approve requests for eg your personal banking information by default. Making it much easier to hide any missdeeds.
But if you keep working, everyone who wants your job will spread the information, and your opponents in court will bring it up repeatedly. Both with insentive to lie, or exaggerate. Further, prosecutors are often required, or at least expected, to cooperate with legal investigations in ways regular people are not.
Lets say you chose to hand the evidence to a non-righeous collegue. Your reputation is intact, but he will keep requesting favors, it looks better, but there are no guarantees it goes away.
You can also immideately resign, knowing that it will take a year or two for a replacement to get up to speed, and all you need to do is put the specific case on the bottom of the priority pile, pretend you never read it, and techically have commited no crime, while getting years to prepare, stuff to get lost, or just jump countries.
Or you can chose dismiss it for lack of evidence, toss the evidence in the bin, and pretend like it never happened. Its a boring procedural thing anyways, and odds are good it was just someone temporarily pissed off, who wont care. After all, they didnt even know they submitted it to your office, what idiot does that...
Its not blackmail. Its just that resigning is the better option for you.
I think the flaw in your logic is the assumption it was an either/or situation. There are a whole lot of options between “resign or face the consequences”, and let’s face it, is destroying someone’s career one way or the other (via by choice or otherwise) really a choice at all?
If you think it is, I’d be curious what your choice would be given the same scenario and whether you felt a bit coerced into your position.
Blackmail to me implies that the blackmailer requires something of the blackmailed, in exchange for the blackmailer to not take a specific action.
In my example, the sender has already taken their action and given no indication that they are willing to accept a bribe to retract it. If they had required payment to retract it, it would have been blackmail. Meaning no blackmail. The ops story is confusing, so I wont say anything about it. Not sure what you mean about choice there?
In my case? If I was roleplaying the example as the judge, probably call a press conference and loudly condemn my wife for her heinous actions, and promise to vindictively prosecute her to the full extent of the law. Then I would start doing that, knowing full well that her lawyer will argue I committed a procedural errors in managing the evidence(as people cannot prosecute their close relatives, or manage evidence thereof) which then precludes its use in court, letting her go free by technicality... While I win the next election for being the righteous crusader against corruption no matter how much it hurts... Well assuming I actually love her, if I didn't, or wanted to upgrade to a younger model, now is a perfect opportunity to get out of that pesky prenup...
I would not feel coerced, but I would feel threatened. I would like to think that I would chose my wife over my career any day, I hope I never need to find out.
Being forced to make a choice under threat is kind of the definition of coercion, but I think we are getting hung up on semantics (e.g., the word blackmail) and you certainly raise a mature perspective and valid points. I think your interpretation of blackmail is much more akin to extortion, but we can at least agree they felt threatened.
The choice I was referring to was one of resignation and giving into the threat, or fighting the base of OP’s claim(s). Both lead to the loss of their job, except with one option they at least have a chance of keeping their job (fighting it).
Just to clarify, I said it was bordering on blackmail, which I think we can probably agree with each other that this was skirting pretty close to that line.
However, my contention was that it was an ultimatum, while he stated it was not. You don’t seem to be arguing that it was not an ultimatum, just that it was not in your opinion blackmail, which is fair and I won’t beat a dead horse.
Thank you for also sharing your perspective on what you would do in the same situation. I wish I could so confidently say the same, especially when you involve kids, personal attachment, biased storytelling (e.g., him hearing a different story from her than what is/isn’t the truth, which no one knows here), among other factors.
It’s a complicated situation to say the least and based on what OP said, I think there were some serious mistakes made that had a negative impact on him. However, I still do not think his actions are justified, for much other purpose than to be vindictive/take out his anger, and is super risky for everyone involved.
We know nothing about these personalities and outside OP’s own experiences, neither does he. It’s also impossible to predict the future and whether his actions are going to somehow help society writ large, or do more damage than good.
That is my issue with the ultimatum, no matter what you want to call it.
I did not ask her or any judge to resign. This was a proposal to the prosecutor's office prior to filing any of the serious charges and triggering certain events then required from them by law.
Unlike public officials I was fully within my rights to first seek a more politically tenable solution.
There is no doubt everyone involved is fully aware of the situation, although people won't admit to it.
Ugh, your story literally changes and is moving the goal posts. So now it was the prosecutors who made the decision? Not that an indirect threat is any better, but here's your previous description: "I did offer each offender a second chance, as I thought they might have learned from this. They chose not to take it."
To each their own, do what you gotta do - but I stand by my original opinion on your actions.
It does sound insane, but sometimes these things are founded.
Just a few months ago, a local government body finally awards as millions to someone their formed chief executive had been persecuting for two decades. During that time, the random member of the public was imprisoned. This case involved multiple corrupt people.
If it wasn't for the happy conclusion, I'd have said this was the tale of a lunatic.
Who knows. They used to say people who think the government is saying on people are tin foil loonies, now everyone is worried about privacy. Don't see the reason to assume this most be crazy. Journalists as a whole have that "when I break this story everything is gonna change" mood regularly
"We're hearing one side of the story" seems to be functioning as a thought-terminating cliche here. Everyone knows we're only hearing one side of the story. The comment you're responding to is asking Github to join the conversation, and noting that the information we have so far looks bad for Github. Nobody is suggesting that Github be summarily executed.
Sick and tired of the 'both sides' argument to shut down discussion. The simple fact that this is seen as a reasonable way to get the attention of the company involved speaks volumes. The best ones are the ones where they can't tell you anything about your own account for policy reasons that are not spelled out because it may help the spammers/criminals/bogeyman du jour.
While true, it is ageless problem that the faceless large corporation does not give a shit about any indivual user of their system
Time and time again we see large companies from all markets only respond when public interest is triggered and more than just the individual user starts to question the actions of the company
This is the sad reality we are in, if you tie your work, your income, etc to a large corporation you likely will be screwed at some point unless you can cause a public backlash.
I think that's just the UI to enable the bare API, you still need an app that uses that API?
Kind of like enabling location won't give you a map, you still need a map app to use that location. (For example).
That said, the efforts of other countries shows had they gone with that API in the first place they would perhaps have something running by now, rather than insisting on going their own way because they wanted the data centralised.
As for pwned passwords, it doesn't send the password. The way it works is that you submit the first 5 characters of a hash, and get back a list of all hashes.
You then locally compare the complete hash to see if it is there.
Are super-quick boots vulnerable to having a (presumably?) lower entropy pool exploited or do the steps taken to mitigate low entropy across freshly minted cloud images also help here?
It was Ben Finegold. I'm sure a lot of people think this but don't want to say anything to dissuade people from learning chess. Games by 700 rated low skilled players are really really boring to me but good for twitch viewers for enjoying them. Don't really care.
Unironically chess is an e-sport and this recent explosion is because Hikaru, Botez, Hess et al. have woken up to that idea and embraced it.
The best computers can easily beat the top humans just as an aimbot could beat Navi easily at CS:GO.
So the focus in chess has moved away from manually exploring to find optimal plays and new opening styles as was the trend in the 19th century chess rennaisance to a focus on preparation so that a player can quickly find best moves, under significant pressure, in any given match.
That makes it much more like a strategy game.
Embracing memes makes it more accessible to viewers who are used to watching hearthstone, csgo, league, dota or other esports and it's been really fun to watch.
I started watching chess on twitch a while ago during the Tata steel tournament and I thought back then it would quickly grow if they focused their commentary on casual level viewers and it's been fantastic to have been proved correct.
>So the focus in chess has moved away from manually exploring to find optimal plays and new opening styles as was the trend in the 19th century chess rennaisance to a focus on preparation so that a player can quickly find best moves, under significant pressure, in any given match.
There is a certain skill level, which I want to say is somewhere around 1400 to 1500 but it has been over a decade so don't quote me on that, where most the players at that level seem to focus on memorizing openings.
It ended up being what separates them from the players a one to two hundred points lower. This leaves them vulnerable to a bit of a hack, as using a non-standard opening can completely remove any usefulness of their memorized openings. It almost disorients them and makes it much more likely for them to make a mistake that can then overcome the disadvantage of such a non-standard opening. I loved playing in this area as I hated memorizing openings so I just used non-standard openings to not to avoid having to. Eventually I hit the ranking where players were good enough to take advantage of my non-standard opening more than any advantage from disorienting them and I quit playing because the only option to advance would've been to go back and memorize openings.
I also hated memorizing openings. I did it, years ago when I was a middling level chess player and played in tourneys, like everyone else, because of the time pressure from the chess clock. Nobody could afford being stumped 4-6 moves in, pondering what to do, when you had a better chance arriving to the mid-game with a non-terrible position. Burning too much time here meant you'd lose on time.
I was not good enough to play an unknown variant and come out better, as you were!
So over time I drifted to variants like bughouse or speed chess variants, to play for fun and not feel like it was studying or being constrained by the standard moves.
And then boardgames took over; for me personally I need to have a mix of luck and skill in a game to enjoy it.
I've also moved on to board games that have some element of randomness as otherwise I try optimizing to the point where it ceases to be fun and becomes work. Overall I've found myself way too competitive, especially around younger family members, and these days I instead play the role of GM while letting them play. Most board games don't have a role for GM, but with a little creativity it is easy to modify the game so that players focus more on the fun of playing their own roles while I 'run' the game. It also allows for the interjecting of a story into the mechanics that I have found younger players to greatly enjoy.
Not a chess player either, but I'd imagine it would be easier to know the begginings of a standard opening, then just play a wrong move. At that point it ia unlikely to transpose back into a standard opening.
I do this trick a fair amount in Go, and actually have accumulated some "standard" non-standard openings that I play when the oppurtunity arrises. Because I play them fairly often, I actually have more experience with them then my opponent, so end up with the "memorization" advantage.
Also, in my experience, players will notice the mistake and then try a bit too hard to take advantage, instead of being satisfied with getting the "normal" result.
I asked a few people much better than me and they couldn't think of any standard openings similar to what I was using. A few were able to point out some openings it was similar to, but those were rarely used openings.
I'm such a bad chess player I barely count as an amateur, but it's definitely possible to know simple jerkass bidding systems in bridge and just enough about some of the "standard" systems to screw with people and often win, without being capable of playing any of the standard systems.
Nb however that most tournaments and such ban loads of bidding strategies with all kinds of special rules, so you can't do this just anywhere.
I broke through a plateau by studying openings more than memorizing them. Slowly working through the early possibilities to separate what works from what doesn't helped to reinforce basic principles.
So like hammering away at 30+ identical problems in high school math class, with some tedium it really did help me internalize the principles. I did not continue to memorize openings and common lines to any great depth. I remain a meager, but much more contented, chess student.
An alternative approach is to work through endgame problems. Learning the key different endgames helps you direct the middlegame towards positions you know you can win. There's also something about learning to handle small numbers of pieces well which translates really well to the rest of the game.
To me it seems like the current explosion is the genius idea of pitching the most famous Twitch personalities against each other in a tournament. This is similar to how Dr. K blew up by giving live therapy session to Twitch personalities with huge followings. If you add up the followers of all the participants [0], you already have a huge pool of probably over a million viewers to start with, all rooting for their favorite streamer.
It also makes chess way more approachable to see novice players play and see GMs discuss why a move is good or bad. I picked up chess about two weeks ago from watching the tourney, and the streams where GMs give lessons to tournament participants (or even random popular streamers) have been pretty helpful for someone who never really understood the strategy of the early game as a kid.
I got into Chess a couple years ago and Twitch and YouTube were a huge part of it. I had gotten started watching Ben Finegold's kids classes. Getting to see grandmasters play and hear their thoughts and ask them questions is an unbelievable resource. I was surprised how good Chess was as a spectator sport.
Worth noting that Twitch usually doesn't make a statement about bans / ban reasons. This is Finegold's claim, and he is far from a neutral party.
Also the specific issue was reading the email address, not the message. This, naturally, invites chat to send messages to that address. Regardless of intent, this is a very reasonable expectation to have. If the email is not a troll, that amounts to inviting a horde of people to send nasty messages to a suicidal person.
Chess has definitely become an esport. Interestingly, blitz and bullet game formats are forcing themselves into upper classes of the chess world, defying long standing denigration as not being "real chess," because the watching public enjoys that format..and it can be legitimately exciting. The recent IM not a GM championship hosted by chess.com, GM Hess, and GM Narodotsky was fantastic entertainment...especially as I am a dedicated viewer of IM John Bartholomew, who blew his competition away.
Seconded. Jerry makes thorough yet cosy and approachable content.
Edit: he also covers engines which I find pretty interesting, a lot of Leela but my favourite so far is this game with AlphaZero and Stockfish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m5oXlZ_e_A
As someone that used to travel the world and play chess competitively as a kid (fun fact: against Botez), it's been great to see chess embraced as an esport and the definition of a "sport" be rethought entirely.
I remember growing up in the chess community being asked whether chess was a "sport". Most people within the community would say yes, while most people outside the community would unequivocally say no, since it wasn't physical.
Pop culture OCD: I like to organize my pens and post-it notes on my desk.
OCD in my life: I have a tourretic tic that forces me to grunt forcibly and wink whenever there is a square around me (side note, why is everything a fucking square?). The grunt is misinterpreted as a rude gesture, often. The wink has caused me to get punched regularly, so I don't go to social gatherings anymore. When I do go out, I have to plan to leave the house 45 minutes before I actually need to so I can complete my routine of window, door, lightswitch, stove, and sharp object checks 7 times each, 7 times around the house. I have to physically bite my tongue when my child is playing in the park, because I know he's going to get hit by an asteroid or abducted or whatever the thing is I'm concerned about that day if he plays on the third swing instead of the second swing. I have to plan my routes to the park in advance to avoid busy intersections, so that I don't get hit by a car, and so my child doesn't get stolen from me along the way. I could give two shits where the pens are, because I am too busy washing my red, raw hands for the 300th time in the last 18 hours. I haven't slept in two days because when I entered the bed after completing the night time routine of checking everything 7 times each, 7 times around the house, the second to the last lightswitch of the 38 lightswitches in my house didn't click in the way it was supposed to, and I stay awake so when the house burns down due to faulty wiring, I can save the family.
I hope you don't suffer through all of these simultaneously. I'm at the stage of repeatedly checking the gas stove after each use and whenever I enter or leave the kitchen, plus closing the water faucet in the bathroom repeatedly until it clicks the right way several times in a row (there's a pattern to it). And triple-checking if I closed the apartment (sometimes with additional gas stove check) when I'm leaving anywhere. Overall, it eats only ~20 minutes from my day, but it's still incredibly frustrating (and I worry it's going to get worse over time). I can't begin to imagine how it must be to experience everything you've described over the course of one day (or week). If that's really how things are for you, you have my deepest sympathy.
(The worst thing is, several times I was this close to stopping with my gas routine, but then I always discovered someone left one of the knobs half-turned, which suddenly justified my OCD. My stove has auto-shutoff, so it isn't all that dangerous, but I grew up with a stove without this safety feature, and my brain just latched onto that and can't let go.)
The nice thing about OCD is that it doesn't have to make any sense, and you get to know and understand that it doesn't make any sense!
That paragraph generally sums up my day, but you do learn coping strategies.
I'm not sure if OCD generally gets worse, but mine definitely has gotten worse over the years. Therapy and counseling have helped in the last few years. I can at least leave the house now. I'm told there are medications that can help as well, but I'm pretty anti-psychotropic of any kind after a bad experience some years back; so that's a grave that I've dug for myself.
I'll be thinking of you brother/sister. It's never so bad you can't get out of it, even when it seems like it's impossible.
Looking for silver linings, people like us at least can say we're worried about the people around us, so we can't be completely terrible people!
one thing that works wonderfully for me is to replace the ritual with an easier one, for example,
wear a circle ring around your ankle, or draw a circle on your underwear, so you are all the time inside a circle , and all the time protected inside a circle, so when you enter a square, you dont need to perform any ritual, because you are already protected by your circle and this neutralizes all the squares
sounds funny and irrational but our rituals arent rational too , lol
i used to perform rituals all day, sometimes, when crossing a street, the traffic light opened for the cars when i was still performing my ritual, and i continue performing in the middle of the road, and the cars came and i had to run to the other side and the cars drivers thinking i was crazy
i had wounds in my hands because knocking the wood for hours nonstop
i used to miss the subway ride because i had to wait for someone dressing in pink to get in the subway before me
i didnt try any medication because i didnt want to mess my brain with brain affecting medicines
one day i decided couldnt live like this, and i tied a string with my protection color around my wrist and i said to myself the string protects me and i didnt need any other ritual anymore, then i was free of 99% of the rituals
its so good to feel free
in the beggining, when i feel the urge of performing some ritual, because of the habit, I remembered myself that I dont need and remember im already protected
after some time you dont remember the other rituals and your brain gets the habit of being free
you can try to find some ritual to perform just once a day after wake up, that is valid for the whole day, so you dont need any other ritual along the day, then you are free the whole day
this helped me and changed my life , hope can help you too
Because "actual" OCD is much more intense and negatively impacting your life than someone who likes their pens neat and tidy... People washing hands until they bleed every day, being unable to open a door without performing some sort of ritual, etc...
You're suggesting that I shouldn't get the same chemotherapy for relapsed cancer or that my relapse is because of "something in my life is terribly wrong".
Because the treatment worked to get it in remission, fuck me for wanting to take the same medicine again?
Lots of people suffer from poor health through no fault of their own. Arguing that their ills must be because of poor life choices is victim blaming.
Just because you're lucky enough to not have suffered chronic ill health doesn't mean others have been so lucky.
Take pleasure in your fortune, but don't try to take all credit for it.
It's possible to have the parents post view and still believe chemotherapy is an incredible tool in the right circumstances.
I don't feel they were talking about it in an over-generalizing way, just saying that if you're living unhealthily you're going to continue to be/get unhealthy. Medicine and treatment can help though, as a band aid in these cases. Of course this doesn't preclude someone who's generally healthy from getting sick, unfortunately.
But your comment is also correct, just misdirected in this case I feel :)
There's a good comment[1] that really stuck with me from a while back, and it strikes a balance between the two. Basically, avoid using medicine for minor issues -- instead focusing on general wellness through diet and exercise -- but for terminal conditions, be willing to take more extreme treatments.
To quote the key paragraphs:
>>I have seen what modern medicine does to people. "You cholesterol is too high, take this statin and your number will get better. Don't take it and you will have a heart attack". And then you have family members and friends take the drugs, and start having side effects.. random pain, random problems that stop them from being physically active. So then they go back to a doctor and get some new medicines, that maybe fixes the pain, but then adds a new side effect. And pretty soon they are bed ridden and taking 14 pills to stay alive. What a bunch of crap.
>>I am not anti-medicine, but I am anti-cutting-edge-for-margain-gain medicine. If you have AIDs, you probably should take some medicine. I vaccinate myself and my children. However I think that if you are active and eat well, I don't care what my cholesterol is. Maybe it is high, maybe it isn't. And if you aren't active or eating well - you need to fix that (not take medicine). If I start dying of cancer, I will throw every medicine I can find at it. But if I am good and healthy, I am going to leave well enough alone.
Completely convinced they're on the verge of uncovering something that will "change history" yet very difficult to follow the detail of what they're saying.