Short version: Suffering needs an external factor to blame. Mix that with the locker room game of who's penis is bigger and poor state education and you have enough to add more voices to the Conspiracy Theory.
Long version: I remember enjoying Bigger, Faster. I don't remember much of its argument. It was about all people going for performance using anything that might enhance performance. Which makes perfect sense.
This one is a different story. It is well made as a personal trip. But it is a trip down the conspiracy lunacy. The stars are the three Bell brothers. Not much school. Not much science. But hard work. Really hard work. Meaning they are not very qualified at reasoning, the same way a couch potato is not very qualified at pushing weights like the Bell brothers. To add more drama, the older brother is very dear to all, and he dies. Somebody has to be blamed. Not the family. Because the family is telling the story. Thus some external factor has to be found. The extreme sports? Nope. They gain their living from there. The state school that failed all three of them with mediocre education and high dreams? Nope. Because they believe that education, like church is by definition good.
And here it comes the relevant part: the mindless state run campaigns against what they call drugs. That was only a smart way to use public money to reinforce and expand state control. All Chris Bell had to do was realize that legal drugs are not much different from illegal drugs. And than it spiraled down the Big Pharma conspiracy.
Instead of talking how the state employees kill almost every overdose victim because street chemicals can't possibly be on a par with the quality of the pharmacy-sold chemicals, Bell talks about the rising profits of those who do the well made chemicals. Are the profits rising? Sure. Inflation is one reason. The same way the plumber asks me for more money in 2017 than in 2007 than in 1997, the pharmaceutical companies also do that.
But Chris Bell is spiraling down and cheating like with other aspects of his life. He does not talk about profits. He pushes the income of those companies. And that is a scam. Because the state is taxing more money. From the minimal wage, to the mandatory health insurance to the ridiculous sums for medical trials, to all sort of other taxes. Everything the state is taking is finally going to come out of the consumers' pockets.
Are Americans consuming 75% of the pharmaceutical production? I haven't seen the reference to that. I assume this is only a sleight of hand trick. A rough 75% of the value and letting the viewer assume 75% of the quantity. But that is only my speculation. Let's assume it's true and the Americans take 75%. Do they take 75%? Nobody can know that. Take the online pharmacies. That quantity is never taken into account. Now take the case of the person being impressed so much by this movie that they goes flushing down the toilet the personal stock only to find out they can't live without the painkillers, thus buying more even if they doesn't consume more.
And even if Americans do consume 75% of the number of pills, so what? It does not mean anything. One pill can have a certain dosage and another pill, the exact same size can have ten times the quantity of active ingredients. Making a quantitative measure makes no sense. Now add that the Bell family is made out of adults, all paying taxes. And those taxes go to fuel the many wars and blockades the Global Policeman wishes upon other regions of the world. Regions that are left without basic medication. People that would take that medication, but they can't. Do the people in the remote areas take pills? No. Because they can't afford the many days of walking to the nearest town with a pharmacy or doctor.
Or maybe the people living below the poverty line do not suffer any illness or injury.
Anyway: why is the quantity of pills relevant? A 12 year old in a poor neighborhood will not take pills even if he need them and a 85 year old aids sufferer will take pills by the fist. Quantity means nothing.
Why is the price relevant? The Average American pays more for lunch than the Average Indian. The quality is better for the American. The American lunch is full of proteins which happen to be more expensive anywhere in the world than starch. And even if the lunches were comparable, food prices are higher in the States so the American is left with the more expensive bill. So does the price say anything? Yes. That the Americans are richer.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
