 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008Another study shows supplements don't fulfil commmon claims
Remember when the supplement pushers were claiming that antioxidants could protect smokers from their smoking and others from their poor diets? http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/LungCancer/dh/8555 PM > Remember when the supplement pushers were claiming that antioxidants could > protect smokers from their smoking and others from their poor diets? > > http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/LungCancer/dh/8555 > > PM Remember when doctors recommended cigarettes and cigarette smoking to their patients as being good for them? I forget the no 1 doctor recommended cigarette. Camels maybe? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons On Mar 3, 1:10 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > Remember when doctors recommended cigarettes and cigarette smoking to > their patients as being good for them? I forget the no 1 doctor > recommended cigarette. Camels maybe? Yes, remember when Edward L. Bernays was recruited by the Tobacco industry to get women to smoke--the "torches of freedom." I remember reading old advertisements for cigarettes by doctors and dentists endorsing Salems or something like that. The world of medicine, and those pharma boys and girls connected to it in PR, and Marketing, etc., you gotta wonder who (if anyone) is telling the truth. You got to think how desperate those celebrities are for p.r., when you see the Flying Nun, pushing drugs on the boob tube. It is almost as bad as seeing John Wayne pushing cigarettes or James Dean on the boob tube. I wonder when they will outlaw the use of pushing pharmaceuticals on consumers on t.v., magazines, newspapers, etc. It is just as bad as the tobacco ads of yesteryear....or the booze advertisements -got to have those Budweiser horses during football games, and the holidays...after all, it wouldn't be the holidays without the Clydesdales. I am waiting for another non profit to start up --- MAPS---Mothers against Pharmaceuticals 4 School kids!! LOL On Mar 3, 4:01 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: > Remember when the supplement pushers were claiming that antioxidants could > protect smokers from their smoking and others from their poor diets? > > http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/LungCancer/dh/8555 > > PM >Remember when doctors recommended cigarettes and cigarette smoking to >their patients as being good for them? I forget the no 1 doctor recommended cigarette. Camels maybe? >DrCee Aromatherapy doesn't help other than as placebo either. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303093553.htm The point is that alternative medical methods *habitually* fail to work better than placebo when put to the test. Often the results could have been predicted by reference to all the relevant science. The skeptics are nearly always right. It is why your personal health fantasies can be predicted to only ever work as placebo, wherever they do not simply borrow from conventional nutritional knowledge. PM > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > PM I think the real point is that peer reviewed, FDA approved drugs, cause more disease than a placebo possibly could. What brand of cigarettes did you recommend to your victims...err, patients? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > PM >I think the real point is that peer reviewed, FDA approved drugs, >cause more disease than a placebo possibly could. That is certainly possible, in some contexts, for unlucky individuals. I have said here that I am inclined to prefer people trying a harmless placebo for minor and self-limiting complaints, than using overly powerful pharmaceuticals such as NSAIDs, and antidepressants. But if you want to subject conventional medicine to this kind of blowtorch, why not also try to understand what the evidence is showing about alternative medicines? PM >What brand of cigarettes did you recommend to your victims...err, >patients? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > That is certainly possible, in some contexts. It is a TOTAL PLEASURE to see Peter willing to admit this. That is why, despite any disagreements I may have with him, his objectivity is retained and so we have to give him credit. He is OBVIOUSLY NOT fallen under the spell of the Pharmas, unlike others in this group. Citizen Jimserac PM: On an almost daily basis, I post articles that prove our "orthodox" medical system does not work. Is homeopathy the answer? Minimum therapy? Diet? Elimination of drug diseases??!! Paul > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > PM > The point is that alternative medical methods *habitually* fail to work > better than... First of all, you have reiterated an unscientific statement that the alternative medicines "habitually" fail to work. I'm sorry Peter but they all would have gone out of business long ago if that were true. And there is a growing body of RESEARCH to support the efficacy and success of some alternative systems. People are turning to alternative medicine in increasing number exactly because they are having chronic conditions ameliorated or CURED, pain erased, sometimes even acute conditions treated WITHOUT the side effects typically consequent to conventional medicine treatment AND at far less cost. The formerly dominant system of standard medicine, relying as it does on SUPPRESSION of symptoms rather than at finding root causes of disease and relying as it does on EXCISION of tissue such as a defacto methodology in treating systemic diseases such as cancer, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, is now in retreat as the older alternative systems reassert themselves in a modern context. It is, therefore, to be concluded that standard medicine has some "habitual" failures of its own which it needs to address before attempting to BLOCK people from other, sometimes superiour medical systems. Citizen JImserac >> The point is that alternative medical methods *habitually* fail to work >> better than... > > First of all, you have reiterated an unscientific statement > that the alternative medicines "habitually" fail to work. Don't misquote me. I said "don't work better than placebo". > I'm sorry Peter but they all would have gone out of business > long ago if that were true. No they wouldn't have, because it has been proved many times over that methods that work only as placebo (i.e. lack intrinsic medical activity) can induce sincere trust as treatment for certain conditions. And some of the imputed benefits are probably genuine. These are conditions that tend to fluctuate or resolve spontaneously and those where placebo responses are seen in clinical trials. The science behind this is thorough and robust. It is completely explanatory of the phenomenon of alternaitve medicine, as well as the bizarre treatment methods used by different cultures throughout medical history. You are correct that the fact that so many people believe that they work means that they wil probably continue to be popular. But you cannot deduce the reverse. PM > >> The point is that alternative medical methods *habitually* fail to work > >> better than... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > PM Yawn. Placebo response could explain some of the benefits seen in conventional medicine as well. I find both sides the conventional and the various forms of less orthodox medicine and related practices and views to all have a share self deceptions. This discussion is all too artsy fartsy and not specific enough. Rhetoric is a way to dance in circles and leads to the decline and fall of anything worthwhile. > "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't misquote me. I said "don't work better than placebo". My error, apologies! > > I'm sorry Peter but they all would have gone out of business > > long ago if that were true. > > No they wouldn't have, because it has been proved many times over that > methods that work only as placebo (i.e. lack intrinsic medical activity) And herein lies the crux of my objection to your persistent repetition of these fallacies. "Placebo" is not an explanation, it is a vague reference to "feel goodism", it is "PIXIE DUST". > induce sincere trust as treatment for certain conditions. And some of the > imputed benefits are probably genuine. WELL THANK YOU! These are conditions that tend to > fluctuate or resolve spontaneously and those where placebo responses are > seen in clinical trials. Well even intense pain tends to fluctuate from bad to worse and back again, what in the hell kind of explanation is this supposed to be??? The weather fluctuates too. And to IMPUGN ALL of alternative medicine with this... this BULLSHIT rationalization is insulting to everyone's intelligence. > The science behind this is thorough and robust. It is completely > explanatory of the phenomenon of alternaitve medicine, as well as the > bizarre treatment methods used by different cultures throughout medical > history. > You are correct that the fact that so many people believe that they work > means that they wil probably continue to be popular. But you cannot deduce > the reverse. A great many people "feel good" after alternative medicine treatments AND after standard medicine treatments - a great many DO NOT, some "fee" better after treatments with one of them but not vice versa. To stand there and keep feeding us this PAP as an explanation of all alternative medicine is, I repeat, an insult to our intelligence, pro altie and anti altie alike. If you believe it WORKS then be honest and admit it, and if you believe it is NONSENSE than espouse that. To claim it is all NONSENSE but then explain away the statisfactory results obtained by people with the "PLACEBO" ploy is a cop out. WE COULD as well insult ALL of standard medicine by claiming that THEIR treatments were really ONLY placebo. I will reiterate, there are people who have real illnesses who suffered mightly, became MORE ILL and /or got NO RESULTS from standard medicine who then tried Homeopathy, Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Acupuncture, Herbs, Chinese Patent Medicine formulas and other alternative modalities and obtained cures, relief, amelioration, reduction or elimination of pain and other obvious BENEFICIAL CURATIVE EFFECTS which CAN be objectively defined by whatever standards you choose and which are OBJECTIVELY verified by official research. I have already pointed out to you sources of information with objective research results, such as one particular site www.medicalacupuncture.org which clearly demonstrates this. Instead, like Peter Bowditch's position on the research published in perfectly valid Homeopathic Journals by well qualified and well credentialed researchers, many of them often also M.D.'s, such as Dr. Iris Bell M.D., Phd, YOU have chosen the anti-intellectual approach of choosing to IGNORE this research and/or to disregard it. If this is your opinion, then fine but understand that in persisting with your presuppositional and non-objective prejudice your are adapting the very attitudes which your position would purport to disdain if adapted by the alternative medicine proponents. Thanks Citizen Jimserac > "Placebo" is not an explanation, it is a vague > reference to "feel goodism", it is "PIXIE DUST". No, it's a reference to "noise level." If you don't understand the concept of signal-to-noise ratio in recovering information from an imperfect source then I seriously suggest that you take at least one solid class in applied statistical theory and another in design of experiments. The ones in the math track are better but may have quite a bit in the way of prerequisites that you would need to make up; the ones for social sciences have some serious gaps but will probably do. Either will get you to where you can read any of the standard texts on information theory and start to understand what we're talking about. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <db02daa3-608b-45a8-8d6b-08c33c1d4...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > standard texts on information theory and start to > understand what we're talking about. You must change the focus of your thinking from regarding the mass of humanity as statistical averages in which an expected number can die from "side" effects, statistical limitations of the standard medical treatment and other proscriptions which undermine the importance AND the health of the individual at the expense of profit and "acceptable" loss computations. The application of some statistical pharmaceutical drug testing techniques to ALL OF MEDICINE is... UNACCEPTABLE. But such a viewpoint does begin to help me understand how the anti-Homeopathists and anti-Alternative medicine-ists can so blithely and casually disregard shocking numbers such as the number of people hurt by Vioxx, injured by vaccines or killed by Fen Fen. Each individual man woman and child's life is something very precious and I REJECT the interpretation that they are to be regarded as computable profit opportunities with statistical losses. Your appeal to the "authority" of such techniques is a logical fallacy. Citizen Jimserac On Mar 3, 4:10 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > > Remember when the supplement pushers were claiming that antioxidants could > > protect smokers from their smoking and others from their poor diets? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > DrCee > You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons This type of study gets an F-. What is the point of a study like this? Let's say I set 200 houses on fire and had people throw a bucket of water on 100 of the houses to determine if water is effective against fires. By using this flawed study we would find that A. Water does not help against fires despite theories it should and B. We might even conclude that water increases the risk our houses burning to the ground. If you want to prevent a disease you need to change everything and not rely on a single supplement. No responsible person should claim taking a single vitamin compensates for a destructive lifestyle. You quit smoking, you change your diet to include lots of fruits and vegetables, get rid of junk foods, exercise, get plenty of fluids, take the proper supplements, de-stress, use proper hygiene, etc. That's when you get results and when you can reverse a disease process. That's when you can reverse osteoporosis, lower a PSA, reverse chronic life long migraines, reverse autism, reverse seizures - it can be done but the simplistic "magic bullet" solution (either vitamin or medication) that pervades our society is complete nonsense. Have a good day. Roman > On Mar 3, 4:10 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Have a good day. > Roman An excellent reply Roman. However... The allopaths require that they be able to do something heroic in order to restore health. You know, expensive drugs, expensive surgery, etc. If the protocol requires the doc to only encourage and instruct it is worthless and tantamount to quackery. Yet, you are eminantly correct. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. > The allopaths require that they be able to do something heroic in > order to restore health. You know, expensive drugs, expensive > surgery, etc. ... exercise, a change of diet, stopping smoking, ... All straight from, for instance, the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp "Nutrition and exercise" "Weight loss and recipes," etc. Sheesh, there's a cookbook on the main page. Well, maybe the Heart Association? No, they're also into diet&exercise, although CPR is right there on the main page too. I suppose that Chuckles considers exercise and a diet with less meat, less fat, more vegetables to be "heroic." | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > On Mar 3, 4:10 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > This type of study gets an F-. What is the point of a study like > this? The point of it is that nearly half the population have been habitually taking multivitamins, and, often, in the mistaken belief put about by those profiting from it, that it will make up for other lifestyle deficiencies. The authors even use the study to promote a better lifestyle. I agree that in conventional medicine there also is a tendency for the parties to look for the easy fix. But that doesn't make it right, and alternaitve medicine is far more pretentious about its lifestyle credentials. PM >Let's say I set 200 houses on fire and had people throw a > bucket of water on 100 of the houses to determine if water is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Have a good day. > Roman > Remember when the supplement pushers were claiming that antioxidants could > protect smokers from their smoking and others from their poor diets? > > http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/LungCancer/dh/8555 > > PM This so-called research is based not on designed interventions but rather on questionaires. Hence what most of these people were doing was takinge taking racemic alpha tocopherol and some poorly designed multiples. The cheapo so-called vitamin E they were taking would actually lower beta, gamma, and delta tocopherols in their tissues as well as lowering their vitamin K levels. The cheapo E only contain alpha and 7 molecules out of 8 are "malformed"and theset competatively displays the beta, gamma and delta forms from being absorbed. Of course, it is possible to use supplements the have all these forms. At least here in the States, in the EU this may not continue to be true. And the standard multi has a wildly incorrect ratio of vitamin D to vitamin A. Recall these two vitamins have opposing actions. And then many people still take an iron supplement even though it unneeded. Supplement are useful. Inositol is good for OCD and panic disorders. Chromium, biotin and r alpha lipoic acid is good for blood sugar problems and in the context of DM. Folic acid does have upsides but Pete and the pinheads in the press forget this point. Pantothenic acid and B-3 in large doses helps in the context of joint pain. But "god" forbid that this get any research money. Large sections of the older population are low in B-12 and vitamin D resulting in neuro decline and fatal falls respectively. Betaine HCL is wonderful for dyspepsia but old Pete only sees Nexium as the answer. A Pete worries about the cost of CoQ10 no matter it is cheaper than the meds proposed the Big Pharma for neurodegenerative disorders. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.