> >> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
> >> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Chemo, vaccine, and Vioxx all do what they purport to do. Whether
> they do it well enough to offset the downside, that's the question.
That's part of the question. The drug makers have failed to properly
test these dangerous chemicals for either efficacy or safety, so we
don't actually know what they are doing beyond their immediate
pharmacology. Many years after the fact, we discover the truth and
either recall a drug, slap some skull and bones over it, or change the
demographic we prescribe it for. Yes, chemo *appears* to be a trigger
in remission for a small number of cancers, however observational
studies are not validation of a link, just an association.
> OK, I've never had chemo. But I've had vaccines, and I've used Vioxx
> (for a couple of weeks). I can't say definitely that the vaccines
> "worked", but I've never gotten a disease for which I've been
> vaccinated, and the Vioxx was definitely an effective painkiller -- I
> really wasn't expecting much from it. I was most surprised.
I was suprised when my dietary changes cured me of chronic sinusitus,
HBP, and PVCs. The medications I was taking didn't do it. I haven't
had a prescription in many years, and my health continues to be
perfect. Of course, using happy stories to build claims for evidence
based medicine is quackery if those claims are packaged and sold as
scientifically proven, which means the drug makers have been far more
guilty of this than the supplement makers. Nutrients, at least, are an
evolutionary adaptation in human health. There is also far more
independent study supporting such effects as compared to studies of
drug safety, or even drug efficacy, hence the evidence threshold for
pharmaceuticals is necessarily higher.
PeterB
David Wright - 30 Jul 2006 20:48 GMT
>> >> > There is a lot of truth in this overview, however your weblink is
>> >> > associated with a marketing effort, and that isn't appropriate for the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>don't actually know what they are doing beyond their immediate
>pharmacology.
Ah, yes, your favorite whine, "no proper testing." Of course, "proper
testing" under your requirements would be so fantastically expensive
that it would never be done. Then you wouldn't have to spend time
complaining about any prescription drugs, because there wouldn't be
any. I don't see that an an improvement to the situation.
>Many years after the fact, we discover the truth and
>either recall a drug, slap some skull and bones over it, or change the
>demographic we prescribe it for. Yes, chemo *appears* to be a trigger
>in remission for a small number of cancers, however observational
>studies are not validation of a link, just an association.
Someday, you'll have to explain what "validation" would mean on your
planet.
It's only through such statistics that we know that smoking causes
lung cancer or that seat belts save lives. Perhaps you could
entertain us now by explaining how the evidence for seat belts or
against smoking is not up to your rigorous standards.
>> OK, I've never had chemo. But I've had vaccines, and I've used Vioxx
>> (for a couple of weeks). I can't say definitely that the vaccines
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>scientifically proven, which means the drug makers have been far more
>guilty of this than the supplement makers.
Depends on the makers. There are any number of "supplements" that
claim to cure everything from halitosis to cancer, all in one handy
little pill. I've yet to see a pharmaceutical product that claims
such a dog's breakfast of capabilities.
>Nutrients, at least, are an evolutionary adaptation in human health.
I don't think "adaptation" is the appropriate word here. And when you
start megadosing supplements in quantities far in excess of anything
you could get from your diet, you're still drugging yourself.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth