I'll admit there are some good drugs out there. But you have to know what kind of problem to let a medical doctor treat. I agree that if I was a 21 year old male, I would certainly consider any problem involving sex to be a crisis situation and I would do whatever I had to do to fix it, within reason.

Hydergine does sound interesting. But the site I just brought up to check out spoke about tests on cats. Apparently, it increases oxygen flow to the brain by dilating blood vessels. This does sound very helpful. But they tested it by reducing blood flow to some cats' brains. The cats without treatment showed brain damage within five minutes. The ones that were treated lasted 45 minutes before they died. Which brings up another bad point for drug usage: the horrible torture of innocent animals who wanted no part of this. I think they should do the tests on the stockholders and the doctors since they obviously already have brain damage. They want the money, then they take the risks. Again, I am talking about drugs for chronic disease conditions. Virtually all chronic diseases are easily treated by diet and supplements, which can manipulate the body quite effectively, and since they aren't "new" to the body, they don't have dramatic side effects. But the "cost benefit" analysis has obviously already been done and they have put an "acceptable" number on human death and suffering.

I've emailed the American Cancer Society, which is home of the biggest lie about cancer (that they are searching for a cure) and I never get an answer. Gee, imagine that! Nobody there wants to tell me how they are taking public money that we are giving them to search for a "cure" but they insist on only searching for a "patentable cure". Oh yeah, I forgot to add, in the articles where they say the only give grants for patentable cures, they also say they want a piece of the patent. How's that for a public soliciting charity that is showing us pictures of bald children and telling us that there's hope? Just a bunch of greedy bastards like in the drug industry.

How can you trust an industry that profits more when we are ill? And how was this monumental conflict of interest allowed to happen in the first place? I think the Rockefeller post is a big hint. Do your homework people, know when to get treatment from a medical doctor and when to get it from a doctor that has studied actual health care and not drug sales - one qualified in recommending proper diet and supplements. That doesn't mean every naturopath out there, only ones who have been to good schools. Anyone can make an educated guess, but you want doctors who are using lab tests to make their recommendations. They are just doing different tests than the regular medical doctors who are following their protocols and looking for drugs to give you. Some medical doctors refer to these other health care doctors as "quacks". But any medical doctor treating a chronic disease is the real quack. But how else are they going to afford their country clubs, nice cars and fancy homes? With repeat customers, of course. The real doctor is the one who doesn't have these repeat customers. They are few and far between, but they are out there. I found one.