New GLP-1 receptor agonists are argued to be stronger, cheaper, and easier to administer than their old counterparts. But what does this mean for the further medicalization of diseases?
What does this mean for the further medicalization of diseases? Well, nothing for those that see no use for these things. For the rest, I'm sorry. I know there is demand for injections and pills for what-ails-us. How that demand arises is a study in itself. But wherever it may come from, the saying "as you sow, so shall you reap" still fits.
I'm interested in seeing how all of this turns out in a bit of a morbid way, but it is a bit concerning to think that we may just see a future where most people are likely to be on these drugs.
If we remember the wisdom of Dr. Malcolm, sure we can... but should we? Excluding the very rare compulsive cases that require medical intervention, it seems that whenever we “have a pill for that”, we further alienate ourselves from the responsibility to pursue health, knowledge, and wellness on our own. We also often stop devoting as much time seeking causation.
This allopathic ideology may be better addressed within the field of psychology and sociology, because the same framework is pervasive in many industries. Don’t like mosquitoes? Don’t like weeds? Don’t like your gender? Don’t like remembering phone numbers? Don’t like responsibility or making difficult decisions? We have something for that.
The easy solution is not always the best one for our character, constitution, or communities. Even when faced with the merciful idea of helping severe addiction, isn’t that even simply swapping one crutch for a different one? Perhaps in this case, the magic bullet pill should be retained only for when all other options are thoroughly exhausted, not as a first, designer solution to the inconvenience of responsibility.
I've always been a bit curious with the whole high fructose corn syrup thing, and that may be worth another post (how "high" is high fructose corn syrup?).
But to better food, that likely won't happen. It all just feeds into one another, and this really emphasizes quick fixes rather than the slow burn that would serve better in the long-term.
There are "globalist visionaries" touting a future full of drugs for everything, for all of us, whether we want it or not, or need it or not. And that's just one piece of what they are "offering" (i.e. threatening). Before 2020, I was less concerned.
What does this mean for the further medicalization of diseases? Well, nothing for those that see no use for these things. For the rest, I'm sorry. I know there is demand for injections and pills for what-ails-us. How that demand arises is a study in itself. But wherever it may come from, the saying "as you sow, so shall you reap" still fits.
I'm interested in seeing how all of this turns out in a bit of a morbid way, but it is a bit concerning to think that we may just see a future where most people are likely to be on these drugs.
If we remember the wisdom of Dr. Malcolm, sure we can... but should we? Excluding the very rare compulsive cases that require medical intervention, it seems that whenever we “have a pill for that”, we further alienate ourselves from the responsibility to pursue health, knowledge, and wellness on our own. We also often stop devoting as much time seeking causation.
This allopathic ideology may be better addressed within the field of psychology and sociology, because the same framework is pervasive in many industries. Don’t like mosquitoes? Don’t like weeds? Don’t like your gender? Don’t like remembering phone numbers? Don’t like responsibility or making difficult decisions? We have something for that.
The easy solution is not always the best one for our character, constitution, or communities. Even when faced with the merciful idea of helping severe addiction, isn’t that even simply swapping one crutch for a different one? Perhaps in this case, the magic bullet pill should be retained only for when all other options are thoroughly exhausted, not as a first, designer solution to the inconvenience of responsibility.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier if food additives like high fructose corn syrup were eliminated?
There might not be quite so much obesity if there was a better quality of food being eaten.
I've always been a bit curious with the whole high fructose corn syrup thing, and that may be worth another post (how "high" is high fructose corn syrup?).
But to better food, that likely won't happen. It all just feeds into one another, and this really emphasizes quick fixes rather than the slow burn that would serve better in the long-term.
There are "globalist visionaries" touting a future full of drugs for everything, for all of us, whether we want it or not, or need it or not. And that's just one piece of what they are "offering" (i.e. threatening). Before 2020, I was less concerned.