VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:14:34 07/11/11 Mon
Author: Vice Verser
Subject: Cocaine Vaccine (Rant)

I was reading Psychology Today magazine and I felt that
the journalism is very biased. I mean, to have the doctor
that's working on an experimental procedure do an article on it seems kind of misleading in my opinion.
I mean, for example, I wouldn't ask a musician if he got his point across to his audience if I could ask the audience.

I don't feel that the test subjects should write all their articles themselves but if there's other researchers with varying opinions, print there's also. I read about a vaccine they're working on at Baylor University that is 'cure' for cocaine addiction.
It's something they're still developing and studying but they believe it works better than methadone. When you use methadone I believe other drugs are blocked in the brain. With the vaccine antibodies would attack the drug in the body and 'destroy' it like a virus.

They refused to mention the possible downside in it's entirety. It could possible create addicts with unnaturally high tolerance for their drug of choice. I think that's very frightening. They also never combat the moral of the debate (which really isn't a doctor's job, I know) like if you give a person a drug that makes them unable to use a drug, are you obstructing their God-given free-will?

Reminds me of how in "A Clockwork Orange" the state 'cured' Alex where he couldn't make certain choices. Maybe I'm over-exaggerating.
The magazine is very informative, and it's writers are very intelligent people but I feel that sometimes their perspectives and outlooks on certain topics is extremely biased.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.