prescription medication is poison

Who reported a vote? Lmao, this debate was clearly screwed up by a mistake made by myself.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side. In this case, Con, having forfeited most, is the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************

my internet died

It told me I had 10 hours to submit an argument, not sure I understand why it forfeited this but okay.

My computer broke and I forgot my password to this website, I am incredibly sorry and if you would prefer we could remake this debate.

Once again, they based it off of the other meaning, "the use or the administering of drugs."

from this we see that is not true
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pharmaceutical

its near the bottom

alright lts assume your right and the reason it effects every part of the body is because of the blood stream

what about antibiotics. there purpose is to kill bacteria. but somehow it ends up causing osteoporosis. aka it screws your spine up and gives you a hunch back.

surly eating a killing bacteria pill should not bend my spine even if the blood brings the drug to that spot of the body.

what if washing my hands and the soap got absorb through my skin and when in my bloodstream and caused the bones in my feat to crack.

killing bacteria in body has nothing to do with bending the spine. even if there the blood vessel bring the drug to the spine it should be useless.

can water bend your spine then why can our blood .

to bend your spine the blood drug would have to put pressure on the spine. and i think it would take more than just bacteria killers to do that they would have to physically add that in.what is the thing that kills bacteria acid
http://www.osteodigest.com/medications-that-cause-osteoporosis.html

the effects of having a babies or being stressed has nothing on pharmakeai

Many pharmaceuticals do have adverse side effects, but so does having a baby, or being stressed, and those aren't poisons.

Once again, they based it off of the other meaning, "the use or the administering of drugs."

See, side effects like that are why I don't support chemical drugs. But they do (generally speaking) help with the symptoms they're supposed to treat.

No chemical only does one thing, especially when it's ingested. It has to go through the entire bloodstream. Prozac isn't put in your brain directly, so it makes sense for it to have some effect elsewhere in the body.

"the effects of Prozac should only be in the head because that's were Prozac goes to treat depression"
Neither the drug nor your bloodstream can control where it goes. It just disseminates in the body. Prozac doesn't "go" anywhere specifically because your bloodstream is an unfiltered system.

then why did they derive there pharma words from words that mean poisioning with drugs

and read that long list of side effect out loud of prozac

and tell me how something that works inside the brain effects turns the eyes and skin yellow

Prozac effects chemicals in the brain to alleviate depression. so it would make sense for Prozac to have side effects in that part of the body. let say like a headache

the effects of Prozac should only be in the head because that's were Prozac goes to treat depression.but that is not were it goes Prozac effects the entire body it stops your heart causes yellow skin and eyes. so why does screwing with your dopamine receptors in any way cause yellow skin and eyes or stopping of the heart. lets say someone hits me with a base ball bat and my head starts bleeding. but because someone hit me with a baseball bat and my head starts bleeding my bones in my skeletal system turn to jelly. it makes no sense hitting me in the head with a baseball bad should not cause my bones to turn to jelly or bend my spine or cause all calcium to leave my body. screwing wit dopamine receptors should not turn my skin and eyes yellow.

And yet the same lifespan is estimated in early hunter-gatherers. They had shorter work days than the industrial worker in the 1800s, traveled enough to eliminate fecal waste, etc., as a factor of disease propagation, and had a balanced diet. It is true that they didn't have soap or hygiene, but they still lived to be 30-40. The main trend in periods between whenever humanity started and the late 1800s was a lack of formalized medicinal research, in other words, pharmaceuticals. I disagree with some things pharmaceuticals do, such as using lab-made chemicals rather than natural herbs, etc., but they aren't actively trying to poison us. They are trying to keep humans alive.

the reason why the average lifespan of humans was 30 through 40 during the 1800s and very early 1900s was not because they had bad medicine. but because they worked themselves to death and there living conditions were terrible. i would make the claim that sanitation had more of as role.

i know that it is stated as fact that medicine played a role in it but i disagree because i do not think that lack of medicine was the cause of people only living to 30. it was more how they lived people

https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054

The only connection is that the Greeks influenced the Romans who influenced Europe. And a word can have multiple meanings. It is quite obvious that pharmaceutical derives from the first meaning you provided, "the use or the administering of drugs." In case you didn't notice, the average lifespan has increased dramatically since the introduction of pharmaceutical drugs, like penicillin.

pharmakeai pharmakon are greek words which means poisoning with drugs.

we derive the word pharmaceutical from them.

they also use the greek symbols staff of Hermes and Rod of Asclepius which depicts snakes on a stick as there symbol.

they are both Greek thus there must be a connection. i was already aware of its history i debate this topic on other forums.

Tiwaz

don't worry

"the world health association symbol is a snake on a stick"
This refers to the Rod of Asclepius in Greek mythology. Asclepius was a god associated with healing and medicine.
Furthermore, medical developments in the 20th and 21st century have shown that antivenins can be produced from snake venoms, as well as anticoagulants and other drugs.

there's just all kinds of ways this could go horribly wrong for either side.

I apologize, I wrote the first round in an external text editor. It corrected one of my words to "absolve," rather than "resolve".

k good luck

the verse about pharmakeai is on topic. thus no reason not to use it.

I will post my argument in a few hours or tomorrow, depending on my schedule. I ask that you focus more on the actual debate topic than biblical pretext.

this is one of my favorite debate topics