"Sickening - How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care"

[Marbles]

Everything in moderation, but something's not at all.

Russian roulette, heroin, and meth all make the not at all category for me.

Too many people use moderation as an excuse to avoid discomfort. Though I would argue it is comfort, not discomfort that should be taken in moderation. One must be the default, which means one is not included in "everything." Which showes the problem with all inclusive terms.

Moderation is a good default, until proven otherwise. Sometimes defaulting to excess is preferred; would any of us want to only hunt a moderate amount? However, if moderation is defined by the outcome, than it is a meaningless guide as its definition in circular.

 

[fwafwow]

Everything in moderation, but something's not at all.

Russian roulette, heroin, and meth all make the not at all category for me.

Too many people use moderation as an excuse to avoid discomfort. Though I would argue it is comfort, not discomfort that should be taken in moderation. One must be the default, which means one is not included in "everything." Which showes the problem with all inclusive terms.

Moderation is a good default, until proven otherwise. Sometimes defaulting to excess is preferred; would any of us want to only hunt a moderate amount? However, if moderation is defined by the outcome, than it is a meaningless guide as its definition in circular.

Well said - and deep.

 

[Billy Goat]

 

[MattB]

IMHO I believe you have misread the thesis of the thread, at least with regards to my OP - note the third sentence: “Note - not all blame is placed on pharmaceutical companies - it is shared with medical journals, government agencies and politicians.” And I’m fine adding insurance companies and others to the list.

If you haven’t read the book, I will be glad to send you a copy and then welcome your feedback.

I didn't read the OP or the book, just reacting (possibly over-reacting) to the book title. My sense is simple black/white answers resonate with most and having a single/primary villain is how many interpret the world. The reality is usually far mor complex and nuanced.

 

[MattB]

View attachment 405749

So, go hard or go home for pussies? Not sure I have that right...

 

[5MilesBack]

Everything in moderation, but something's not at all.

Russian roulette, heroin, and meth all make the not at all category for me.

You must have missed my "common sense" comment a couple replies back. And do people actually eat Russian roulette, heroin, and meth?

 

[Marbles]

You must have missed my "common sense" comment a couple replies back. And do people actually eat Russian roulette, heroin, and meth?

That's not the advice that's causing that........that's their misinterpretation of the "advice", or misinterpretation of "common sense", or completely ignoring both altogether. And THAT was my point. People are going to do what they're going to do regardless what the advice is, and then blame someone else for their problems.

If people must correctly interpret something as vegue as "common sense" to use a maxim, then the maxim is not universally applicable. In truth, the never are as life is too complicated. Even "thou shall not kill" is better translated as "thou shall not murder." Murder is unjustified killing, so this immediately begs the question, what justifies taking a human life?

Even if we limit it to only food, outcome still cannot be what defines if someone has used moderation because then it is not a prescriptive guide to action, but only a label applied to say if the outcome was good or bad.

I hope to never be hungry enough to pick berries out of bear scat or eat rotten salmon from the side of a stream. So, even with the fooed only limitation, we are still left with items that are excluded from "everything."

Now, I do not agree with @bdan68 in that the everything in moderate advice is causing the problem. I would be surprised if it contributes enough to even be measurable. His claim (in the context of diet) is only supportable if one holds that the worlds three primary food sources (rice, wheat, corn) that have been developed buy humans for thousands of year are inherently bad. Granted, fad diets do this.

If I remember correctly (forgive me for not rereading everything) the discussion started with condemnation of the government diet guidelines and suggested that everything in moderation was a good replacement for them (again, I don't remember who said what, which is why I did not tag anyone initially). This is like going from telling a new hunter 'get a broadside shot and aim for the crease behing the shoulder halfway up the body' to 'shoot it.'

 

[5MilesBack]

Yes, it's true. Common sense isn't so common. Which was also my point in that post. If someone has no common sense, then they're on their own IMO and recommendations or advice won't help either.