Supplements vs Pharmaceuticals

[sekio]

Discussion split from here

. i've taken tons of drugs and am certain that i have little to no placebo effect,

Because obviously you've done blinded studies, right? I'm sorry, people saying "I don't experience placebo" is a huge red flag, because it's been demonstrated over and over again that people experience placebo effects even when they are fully aware they're taking a placebo. So you're just not qualified to say "All the effects are non-placebo", because of the very nature of a placebo effect.

This is like claiming "I'm not hallucinating that pink elephant, I really see it". Sorry. Doesn't fly.

i think a lot of these scientists studying things like this have trouble focusing on the big picture, since there are so many variables in our health, and since they want to find this magic single chemical that does amazing things so they can get rich. they want things to be simple, like everyone else.

And taking random supplements isn't "taking one chemical to make everything better"? Also, maybe you forget, the drug discovery scientists are quite a bit smarter than most people give them credit for and it's pretty far from "if we could just design this miracle pill we'll all be rich!!!!!!!!".

generally if there are 1000s of people swearing that something works - that speaks louder to me than a scientific study saying it doesn't.

If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you do that too? People are stupid, especially en masse, and supplement companies have driven bad marketing into the brains of so many people they will actually fight for your right to eat whatever inactive compounds they can sell you, and have you defend them.

 

[astudentforever]

Because obviously you've done blinded studies, right? I'm sorry, people saying "I don't experience placebo" is a huge red flag, because it's been demonstrated over and over again that people experience placebo effects even when they are fully aware they're taking a placebo. So you're just not qualified to say "All the effects are non-placebo", because of the very nature of a placebo effect.

This is like claiming "I'm not hallucinating that pink elephant, I really see it". Sorry. Doesn't fly.



And taking random supplements isn't "taking one chemical to make everything better"? Also, maybe you forget, the drug discovery scientists are quite a bit smarter than most people give them credit for and it's pretty far from "if we could just design this miracle pill we'll all be rich!!!!!!!!".



If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you do that too? People are stupid, especially en masse, and supplement companies have driven bad marketing into the brains of so many people they will actually fight for your right to eat whatever inactive compounds they can sell you, and have you defend them.

i said i have 'little to no placebo' - i know this because, like i said, i've taken many drugs and i'm mindful of such things. and with subtle supplements i can usually make myself forget i took it for a while, and only remember i took something when i notice something feels different.
yes taking supplements (multiple) isn't the same as scientists trying to find some specific chemical that's not natural (so people can't take it without going through the gatekeepers) and that solves complex problems like depression, etc.
i'm sorry, but when you look at all of these less harmful options and see they're virtually unknown/untalked about, and instead everyone is using expensive, dangerous chemicals given to them by professionals, and people only seem to be getting more and more depressed and out of shape...it's hard to give much respect to the people leading this whole parade.
people jumping off a cliff isn't the same as an enthusiastic, genuine-feeling endorsement of a product. granted, there are many good liars, but i would say that big pharm, who has billions of dollars at stake and doesn't mind giving mind numbing/dangerous drugs to millions of children as a primary treatment method, has much more incentive to lie, and reason to think they are lying, than people selling cheaper, more natural supplements to a few people.

 

[sekio]

big pharm, who has billions of dollars at stake and doesn't mind giving mind numbing/dangerous drugs to millions of children as a primary treatment method, has much more incentive to lie, and reason to think they are lying,

Considering pharmaceuticals are held to a far higher standard than supplements will ever be in the USA... I think not? Dietary supplements in the USA are not required to be efficacious nor safe. There is no requirement to mention adverse effects either.

The F.D.A. estimates that 70 percent of dietary supplement companies are not following basic quality control standards that would help prevent adulteration of their products. Of about 55,000 supplements that are sold in the United States, only 170 — about 0.3 percent — have been studied closely enough to determine their common side effects, said Dr. Paul A. Offit, the chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an expert on dietary supplements.

Spike In Harm is Tied to Dietary Aids - NYT
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Dietarysupplements/default.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...dangers-of-vitamins-and-supplements/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-executives-criminal-records-spiked/4114451/

Pharmaceuticals are tested extensively in federally run double-blind clinical trials (after being tested for years in labs, in cell cultures, computer models, and experimental animals). Any joker can cram herbs in a cap and claim it's a supplement.

 

[astudentforever]

Considering pharmaceuticals are held to a far higher standard than supplements will ever be in the USA... I think not? Dietary supplements in the USA are not required to be efficacious nor safe. There is no requirement to mention adverse effects either.


Spike In Harm is Tied to Dietary Aids - NYT
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Dietarysupplements/default.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...dangers-of-vitamins-and-supplements/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-executives-criminal-records-spiked/4114451/

Pharmaceuticals are tested extensively in federally run double-blind clinical trials (after being tested for years in labs, in cell cultures, computer models, and experimental animals). Any joker can cram herbs in a cap and claim it's a supplement.

do i really need to poke holes in the fda's credibility? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html?_r=0
googled dr paul a offit. he's a crusader against supplements, but i don't see any mention of how he's an expert. wiki says he is an expert with " infectious diseases and an expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology" apparently his major complaint is that you can't be sure of the quality of the supplements. which is also true for every other drug, due to counterfeiting and corruption. take a look at fda's prosecution page. probably the majority of it is for counterfeit cancer drugs (protecting big pharm from cheap indian drugs and occasionally us from possibly tainted drugs.)

115 deaths from supplements in 5 years according to your consumer reports link, and that's from a 32 billion dollar a year industry according to another one of your links.
how does that compare to the respected, prestigious chemicals developed by professionals? i'm guessing more people die in 2 days from xanax.

if big pharm is so good, can you show me the positive results of all their good work? last time i checked prescription pills are killing more people than all illegal drugs combined. one of your articles also mentioned something about not knowing efficacy of supplements making them dangerous - i don't see much efficacy from psychiatry. i really would like to see a huge independent survey of people who have used SSRIs, benzos, etc. - seeing how much it helped them, and then comparing that benefit to the harm and costs. do you know if any surveys like this exist?

 

[sekio]

apparently his major complaint is that you can't be sure of the quality of the supplements. which is also true for every other drug, due to counterfeiting and corruption.

Well, except for FDA monitoring and inspections. With supplements there is no pretense; it's all unregulated and caveat emptor. Domestic US drugs are usually regulated pretty well.

how does that compare to the respected, prestigious chemicals developed by professionals? i'm guessing more people die in 2 days from xanax.

Xanax is a little more active than most supplements... and in general has a higher per capita usage than something like, say, kratom.

if big pharm is so good, can you show me the positive results of all their good work? last time i checked prescription pills are killing more people than all illegal drugs combined. one of your articles also mentioned something about not knowing efficacy of supplements making them dangerous - i don't see much efficacy from psychiatry. i really would like to see a huge independent survey of people who have used SSRIs, benzos, etc. - seeing how much it helped them, and then comparing that benefit to the harm and costs. do you know if any surveys like this exist?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963896
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10760555
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588448
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8835647
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9597346
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22516668
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22115401

etc. It's not like people just develop these drugs and throw them out there... they are pretty intensely studied.

 

[astudentforever]

Well, except for FDA monitoring and inspections. With supplements there is no pretense; it's all unregulated and caveat emptor. Domestic US drugs are usually regulated pretty well.



Xanax is a little more active than most supplements... and in general has a higher per capita usage than something like, say, kratom.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963896
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10760555
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588448
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8835647
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9597346
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22516668
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22115401

etc. It's not like people just develop these drugs and throw them out there... they are pretty intensely studied.

ok, i agree supplements need some oversight for quality control, but that's hardly any reason to rally against them like this doctor is.

the first link says "methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated as unclear in many cases and more evidence is needed to assess the efficacy of SSRIs and TCAs"
2nd link: evidence is from short-term studies and subgroup analyses may result in chance results.
3: Nearly all studies were of short duration, typically 6-8 weeks.

i know they are intensely studied, but if they Really worked, i think they could do better than these studies.
just like if schools Really thought they were teaching students, they would test students on material from previous semesters, long after they were done cramming material that they are going to forget for tests that mostly just show how obedient someone is.
not that some schools don't do stuff like that, or that a lot of programs don't have very cumulative learning - especially hard science, but still - most of uni is a joke from what i've seen. and that extends to other major institutions - the govt, business world, cultural leaders, etc.
what is so hard about doing a comprehensive study of the long term effects of psychiatry? at least with academia, we have studies like Academically Adrift that showed students aren't really getting smarter. now we just need a Pharmaceutically Adrift.

 

[endotropic]

what is so hard about doing a comprehensive study of the long term effects of psychiatry? at least with academia, we have studies like Academically Adrift that showed students aren't really getting smarter. now we just need a Pharmaceutically Adrift.

Funding, plain and simple. Long term clinical trials need a lot of people working for a long time = $. Everyone involved is either a physician or a competent researcher = $$$. Lots of personal information to collect and store safely = $. For the study to have any power you need lots of patients = $. Then account for the number of people that will drop out, so you need to start out with that many more.


So who's going to pay for something like that? The pharmaceutical industry? They'll pay for just as many studies as the FDA requires. Without the FDA looking over their shoulder they would do just as many efficacy studies as the supplement industry (~0). The government should pay? Adjusted for inflation the US government funds less research than at any point in the last 50 years, so that's not happening either.


The real question is, why do you believe that supplements work without doing a comprehensive study of the long term effects of supplements?

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

what a vitriol spout!

 

[astudentforever]

Funding, plain and simple. Long term clinical trials need a lot of people working for a long time = $. Everyone involved is either a physician or a competent researcher = $$$. Lots of personal information to collect and store safely = $. For the study to have any power you need lots of patients = $. Then account for the number of people that will drop out, so you need to start out with that many more.


So who's going to pay for something like that? The pharmaceutical industry? They'll pay for just as many studies as the FDA requires. Without the FDA looking over their shoulder they would do just as many efficacy studies as the supplement industry (~0). The government should pay? Adjusted for inflation the US government funds less research than at any point in the last 50 years, so that's not happening either.


The real question is, why do you believe that supplements work without doing a comprehensive study of the long term effects of supplements?

funding due to regulation, it sounds like. meaning it doesn't have to be this complicated. we should be able to track down people who have taken drugs and ask them how it worked out for them in the long term. am i nuts for thinking this shouldn't require billions of dollars? we don't need doctors or new patients - just a survey. maybe it won't be as rigorous as having doctors watch patients every move for a short period, but at least it will be a LONG TERM evaluation - which seems to be very lacking.

i don't think i've made any statements that are too confident about supplements, though they might seem confident in contrast to my nearly total lack of confidence in big pharm.
i'm new to supplements, still early in the research phase for my own personal opinions, but i can say i am confident that they are better than the mainstream mood improvers/stabilizers, focus enhancers and anxiolytics - in that they are for the most part not as addictive, unnatural, new to human use, expensive, or requiring months of slowly increasing/decreasing dosage to see if it works (like with SSRIs.) and you don't have to go see sleazy psychiatrists to get them.
and the fact that they are being demonized by big pharm also makes me a little more confident that they are good, and also my personal experience over the past several weeks. and reading tons of reviews on erowid and amazon and various websites for the past few weeks.

 

[h3lp]

I think that this topic defiinitely warrants the saying there are two sides to every argument.

Did some research and came accross this compelling article that discussed this relationship. Here is a passage from it:

“My goal is to have more people using safe, effective, proven, healthful herbs, and fewer people using toxic, overly expensive, marginally effective, potentially lethal pharmaceutical drugs.”

This a quote by Chris Kilham which promotes supplements as a less toxic form of medicine when in comparison to big pharmaceuticals. The article however goes on to say the following:

"There are many unwarranted assumptions in this statement. It seems to be implying that herbs are inherently more safe, less toxic, and more healthful than pharmaceuticals. It also assumes that there is a real difference between the two. Therefore Kilham seems to be saying something meaningful when he is actually just reflecting biased assumptions. This is made clear if we simply reverse his statement. Most people, for example, would agree if I said that “My goal is to have more people using safe, effective, proven, healthful pharmaceuticals, and fewer people using toxic, overly expensive, marginally effective, potentially lethal herbs.”

I think that this provides a compelling argument in favor of pharmaceuticals because it is hard to argue that conventional medicine does not provide effective results in patients while supplements have less research and studies to back claims. However this in my opinion says nothing more than a convenient arguement in favor of pharmaceuticals who have monetary and invested interests to protect which promoting herbal supplements comprimises.

Source: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-plant-vs-pharmaceutical-false-dichotomy/

As far as FDA regulation I came across this:

"In general, the FDA considers new drugs to be unsafe until they are proven safe by clinical trials. And the FDA must approve any new drug before it can be legally sold in the United States. Clinical trials are studies done under well-controlled conditions on human volunteers. These tests must be done even on all drugs – even those that are sold over the counter (without a prescription). The FDA approval process requires that the drug be proven in a series of clinical trials. These studies must show “substantial evidence” that the drug is both safe and effective for each of its intended uses."

Pharmaceuticals have to go through a rigerous screnning process which approves them to the public. At face value the FDA views medicines as harmful rather than helpful until clinical trials prove otherwise.

"In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defined dietary supplements as a category of food, which put them under different regulations than drugs. They are considered safe until proven otherwise. The DSHEA says that dietary supplements cannot contain anything that may have “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when the supplement is used as directed on the label, or with normal use if there are no directions on the label."

This makes a candid arguement that compares the screening process between FDA regulated drugs and dietary supplemednts which are considered a type of food. It seems to be an apples versus oranges effect when speaking in terms of government regulation.

Source: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...pplements/dietary-supplements-fda-regulations

As for personal feelings on the topic I can't really argue that I am against taking dietary supplements for health reasons or even as a remedy for existing conditions. However I do recognize the importance of FDA regulation when it comes to medicine as well as the effectivity of current drugs and medications.

 

[sekio]

Help, you nailed it with that post.

funding due to regulation, it sounds like. meaning it doesn't have to be this complicated. we should be able to track down people who have taken drugs and ask them how it worked out for them in the long term. am i nuts for thinking this shouldn't require billions of dollars? we don't need doctors or new patients - just a survey. maybe it won't be as rigorous as having doctors watch patients every move for a short period, but at least it will be a LONG TERM evaluation - which seems to be very lacking.

Such a task is a little more complex than passing around a comment pad at your doctor visit. Getting a large enough sample size and ensuring the data is accurate takes time and money.

 

[ebola?]

As I see it, a compound is a compound, and should be judged on the particular merits of the research establishing its efficacy, not how we categorize it legally and economically. It should again be noted that the line between supplement and medication is fuzzy indeed: pharmaceutical firms are highly interested in supplements that suggest efficacy, as they can yield windfalls by releasing proprietary formulations, making minor structural modifications to the compound, or even just putting the weight of their marketing resources behind the supplement. Doing so saves them a lot on R and D costs (whether they deserve these profits is another story).

funding due to regulation, it sounds like. meaning it doesn't have to be this complicated. we should be able to track down people who have taken drugs and ask them how it worked out for them in the long term.

This is insufficient. Due to the mind's inherent confirmation bias, propagation of rumors by word of mouth, and the raw prominence of the placebo effect with most dosing situations, this type of methodology will yield insufficient data on which compounds are likely to be effective and safe.

but i can say i am confident that they are better than the mainstream mood improvers/stabilizers, focus enhancers and anxiolytics

The development of effective psychoactive medications remains in its infancy, as does neurology in general, so we don't really yet have a wealth of good tools to work with, pharmaceutical or supplement (again, a compound is a compound).

you don't have to go see sleazy psychiatrists to get them.

If your psychiatrist is sleazy, you find another one.

ebola

 

[astudentforever]

I think that this topic defiinitely warrants the saying there are two sides to every argument.

Did some research and came accross this compelling article that discussed this relationship. Here is a passage from it:

“My goal is to have more people using safe, effective, proven, healthful herbs, and fewer people using toxic, overly expensive, marginally effective, potentially lethal pharmaceutical drugs.”

This a quote by Chris Kilham which promotes supplements as a less toxic form of medicine when in comparison to big pharmaceuticals. The article however goes on to say the following:

"There are many unwarranted assumptions in this statement. It seems to be implying that herbs are inherently more safe, less toxic, and more healthful than pharmaceuticals. It also assumes that there is a real difference between the two. Therefore Kilham seems to be saying something meaningful when he is actually just reflecting biased assumptions. This is made clear if we simply reverse his statement. Most people, for example, would agree if I said that “My goal is to have more people using safe, effective, proven, healthful pharmaceuticals, and fewer people using toxic, overly expensive, marginally effective, potentially lethal herbs.”

as for unwarranted assumptions, the author is assuming that Kilham is implying that All herbs are safer/better than All pharmaceuticals, which i don't see. then the author says there's no difference between the two...well. i have to disagree with that too. if there was no difference, one wouldn't cost 50x as much as the other, right. then the author restates that he thinks kilham is biased, just to add a little extra insult and say the guy isn't being 'meaningful' on top of his assuming. i don't understand this much at all. reversing the statement? does that reverse the fact that one group kills a lot more than the other? or that one group has been created within a few short decades by giant corporations, while the other has been used over centuries and has created an underground subculture of enthusiastic users while having no real marketing in place (while US allows its citizens to be absolutely bombarded with prescription drug ads - practically the only civilized country that does this - and the fact that these companies spend as much on marketing as they do research should tell you a lot about them. if these drugs were worth what they cost the insurance companies who pay for the crap, i doubt they would need to market so much.)

I think that this provides a compelling argument in favor of pharmaceuticals because it is hard to argue that conventional medicine does not provide effective results in patients while supplements have less research and studies to back claims. However this in my opinion says nothing more than a convenient arguement in favor of pharmaceuticals who have monetary and invested interests to protect which promoting herbal supplements comprimises.

Source: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-plant-vs-pharmaceutical-false-dichotomy/

As far as FDA regulation I came across this:

"In general, the FDA considers new drugs to be unsafe until they are proven safe by clinical trials. And the FDA must approve any new drug before it can be legally sold in the United States. Clinical trials are studies done under well-controlled conditions on human volunteers. These tests must be done even on all drugs – even those that are sold over the counter (without a prescription). The FDA approval process requires that the drug be proven in a series of clinical trials. These studies must show “substantial evidence” that the drug is both safe and effective for each of its intended uses."

Pharmaceuticals have to go through a rigerous screnning process which approves them to the public. At face value the FDA views medicines as harmful rather than helpful until clinical trials prove otherwise.

"In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defined dietary supplements as a category of food, which put them under different regulations than drugs. They are considered safe until proven otherwise. The DSHEA says that dietary supplements cannot contain anything that may have “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when the supplement is used as directed on the label, or with normal use if there are no directions on the label."

This makes a candid arguement that compares the screening process between FDA regulated drugs and dietary supplemednts which are considered a type of food. It seems to be an apples versus oranges effect when speaking in terms of government regulation.

Source: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...pplements/dietary-supplements-fda-regulations

As for personal feelings on the topic I can't really argue that I am against taking dietary supplements for health reasons or even as a remedy for existing conditions. However I do recognize the importance of FDA regulation when it comes to medicine as well as the effectivity of current drugs and medications.

i appreciate the thoroughness that i'm sure fda studies have when controlling variables that they are aware of, but all of my points still remain as far as i can tell. and the quote about supplements being defined as something that can't "contain anything that may have “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when the supplement is used as directed on the label" seems to negate your quotes about how Kilham's pushing people to use safer drugs (supplements) can be reversed - meaning the same things can be said for pharmaceuticals, because they are the same thing, according to the author.

i still don't see why it would be THAT expensive to survey people who took these drugs - meaning it's obviously well worth it. all there needs to be is some kind of proof that they took the drug - which could be easy with government/doctor cooperation, and a survey, and an analysis.

As I see it, a compound is a compound, and should be judged on the particular merits of the research establishing its efficacy, not how we categorize it legally and economically. It should again be noted that the line between supplement and medication is fuzzy indeed: pharmaceutical firms are highly interested in supplements that suggest efficacy, as they can yield windfalls by releasing proprietary formulations, making minor structural modifications to the compound, or even just putting the weight of their marketing resources behind the supplement. Doing so saves them a lot on R and D costs (whether they deserve these profits is another story).



This is insufficient. Due to the mind's inherent confirmation bias, propagation of rumors by word of mouth, and the raw prominence of the placebo effect with most dosing situations, this type of methodology will yield insufficient data on which compounds are likely to be effective and safe.



The development of effective psychoactive medications remains in its infancy, as does neurology in general, so we don't really yet have a wealth of good tools to work with, pharmaceutical or supplement (again, a compound is a compound).



If your psychiatrist is sleazy, you find another one.

ebola

ok, let's say that these people did get a placebo effect - we can still compare all the people who reported taking these drugs' long term effects + placebo with other drugs/supplements +placebo. right?

i went to maybe 6 psychiatrists when i was a kid. they were all glorified drug dealers, and everyone else i've ever talked to about going to a psychiatrist says the same thing. they ask you a few questions, write you a prescription, and you're out the door. i'm sure there's some kind of term for this system they use - because it's wide spread and surely nearly everyone is aware of it.

 

[ebola?]

ok, let's say that these people did get a placebo effect - we can still compare all the people who reported taking these drugs' long term effects + placebo with other drugs/supplements +placebo. right?

Yes, but aggregated survey will yield quite limited information compared to other methodologies.

i went to maybe 6 psychiatrists when i was a kid. they were all glorified drug dealers, and everyone else i've ever talked to about going to a psychiatrist says the same thing. they ask you a few questions, write you a prescription, and you're out the door. i'm sure there's some kind of term for this system they use - because it's wide spread and surely nearly everyone is aware of it.

Okay...mine talked with me about my problems in decent depth and never pushed medications on me; rather, he gave me general behavioral advice, and we explored varied medicative options, and he attended well to my questions and concerns about their pharmacology. In fact, he was happy for me to switch to focus on cognitive-behavioral treatment with a psychologist instead. The issue could be one of how institutional frameworks compel psychiatrists to treat 'problem children'.

ebola

 

[astudentforever]

Yes, but aggregated survey will yield quite limited information compared to other methodologies.



Okay...mine talked with me about my problems in decent depth and never pushed medications on me; rather, he gave me general behavioral advice, and we explored varied medicative options, and he attended well to my questions and concerns about their pharmacology. In fact, he was happy for me to switch to focus on cognitive-behavioral treatment with a psychologist instead. The issue could be one of how institutional frameworks compel psychiatrists to treat 'problem children'.

ebola

but it could yield more comprehensive (in some ways) and, again, long term data, which as far as i can tell doesn't exist.

maybe it does have to do with being a problem child, or maybe it's just the fact that it's easier to take advantage of kids and it's easy to convince yourself you're doing the right thing while gradually doing worse and worse things. like maybe for instance they start off saying, well this drug has a low chance of side effects and the insurance company covers it, so i will just give it to them and see what happens, but they end up with the typical businessman mindset of social darwinism - 'if they (the customers) are too stupid to know better, they deserve what happens', and the doctor deserves to be rich because he's so clever.

thanks for this convo btw. i have been in chatrooms for years - i'm not sure why i strayed from forums. probably the more instant gratification of chat rooms. they are surely vacuous though, and full of power hungry aholes. i keep feeling like you are about to ban me because we disagree - lol. thanks again

 

[ebola?]

i keep feeling like you are about to ban me because we disagree

What? No. I've been experiencing our exchange as polite debate.

ebola

 

[astudentforever]

What? No. I've been experiencing our exchange as polite debate.

ebola

yeah, nothing personal - i've just been conditioned to be afraid of disagreeing with people from too much time in stupid chat rooms.