 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2008Drug Rep Tells All
A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. text here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1876413 youtube clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj0LZZzrcrs A clip from another completely different rep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE&feature=related It's nice to have suspicions confirmed. I can't wait to see what the 'usual suspects' will do with this one... :) Chris > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chris This is all true and unfortunate. We are talking about people's lives that are measured in dollars and cents. You cannot get much lower than that. > > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cents. > You cannot get much lower than that. Another reason while diclosure of the basic information that I proposed is important in determining bias to aid in evaluation of data. Probert and the others choose to avoid this issue. > > > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > > > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Probert and the others choose to avoid this issue I am not avoiding it.I am telling you that is is irrelevant. Now, complain to "Chris" that he posted without propviding his corporate affilations, his tax returns for the past ten years, and his home address. On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Kulacz <drkul...@optonline.net> wrote: > > On Apr 5, 1:28 am, mainframetech <flam...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Probert and the others choose to avoid this issue I am not avoiding it.I am telling you that is is irrelevant. = Very telling. drug reps and former executives tell all is irrelevant. Now, complain to "Chris" that he posted without propviding propviding? New word, Markster? It is noted you didn't reply to Chris. Why? >> A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in >> conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >cents. >You cannot get much lower than that. All cost-benefit analyses can be viewed as measuring lives (or effects on lives) in dollars and cents. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > In article <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > All cost-benefit analyses can be viewed as measuring lives (or effects > on lives) in dollars and cents. Prepare for Kulacz to respond to your factual comment with self- righteous indignation. Of course, the perpetual whoooooshing sound seems to distract him from the intended *meaning* of almost every post. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." > -- John Dolan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Your opinion. It is your prjection on me being self righteous. I just call it as I see it. As i have said, I have said "I don't know" more times to my patients as I learn more. Of course people like you and the other brilliant ususal suspects know everything and must resort to comment like self righteous indignation when your belief systems are questioned. Paychology 101 and you failed. <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: [and forgot] http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735 That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion. Stick with the topic, that works for you & us. > In article <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - When it applies to human lives instead of something likd a refrigerator, cost/benefit must be tossed out for truth and the susequent well being of human lives. If that is self righteous, I am guilty and proud of it. Apparently David and Andrew, you do not feel that way. > When it applies to human lives instead of something likd a > refrigerator, cost/benefit must be tossed out > for truth and the susequent well being of human lives. So are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider cost when allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save even a single human life? | 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 <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Wrong subject D.C. Thar is a separate issue. Stay focused if you can. I am saying that drug companies should fully disclose all the data their products. This is called informed consent.. Without it our healthcare system would ne worse off than it is. You think that Drug companies should hide deleterious effects and drug reps should be discouraged from disclosing risks? Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in jail. If this is what you implied you are nuts. >> In message <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save >> even a single human life? > Wrong subject D.C. > Thar is a separate issue. > Stay focused if you can. I am -- on your posted words. Quote: "When it applies to human lives instead of something likd (sic) a refrigerator, cost/benefit must be tossed out for truth and the susequent well being of human lives." Sure looks like you posted that. Are you now disclaiming that position? Are you now accepting that cost/benefit is *NOT* "You cannot get much lower than that?" > I am saying that drug companies should fully disclose all the data > their products. > This is called informed consent.. > Without it our healthcare system would ne worse off than it is. You're changing the subject here. You posted regarding those who consider cost/benefit, "You cannot get much lower than that." > You think that Drug companies should hide deleterious effects and drug > reps > should be discouraged from disclosing risks? It seems that you can't have a reasoned discussion on the subject that you chose without trying to change the subject to some fantasy you have about my private thoughts. Why is that? > Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in > jail. Is that a threat? > If this is what you implied you are nuts. Back to the insults. You obviously are either incapable or unwilling to discuss matters on their merits. | 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 <f7502e99-d5c8-43ce-b9ca-ec75e4ee6...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Is that a threat? Of course not. I do not make threats. Iis an opinion about behavior only. Besides, only law inforcement casn put somebody in jail. Where do you see a threat in that statement? Poor reasoning on your part and your usual diversion on the other statemen. There are remedial courses on reading comprehension that you could take. > > If this is what you implied you are nuts. > > Back to the insults. Yes, it is an insult since the ususal suspects have already set the tone for discussion on merit. I tried in the past to discuss issues on merits but it did not work with the ususal suspects. Oh well. You obviously are either incapable > or unwilling to discuss matters on their merits. > > -- > | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >> In message <f7502e99-d5c8-43ce-b9ca-ec75e4ee6...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> In message <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> > When it applies to human lives instead of something likd a >> >> > refrigerator, cost/benefit must be tossed out [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> that position? Are you now accepting that cost/benefit is >> *NOT* "You cannot get much lower than that?" <cricket chirp> >> > I am saying that drug companies should fully disclose all the data >> > their products. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> those who consider cost/benefit, "You cannot get much lower >> than that." <cricket chirp> >> > You think that Drug companies should hide deleterious effects and drug >> > reps [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> to some fantasy you have about my private thoughts. Why >> is that? <cricket chirp> >> > Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in >> > jail. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There are remedial courses on reading comprehension that you could > take. It's going around: http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/ks_subpoena_redacted.pdf >> > If this is what you implied you are nuts. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I tried in the past to discuss issues on merits but it did not work > with the ususal suspects. Ah, yes -- the eternal excuse. "I had an unhappy childhood so you can't expect any better from me." To recap: you came onto the board, insisted that all who oppose you make some sort of alien declaration to you to justify themselves, and were not taken seriously. Therefore, you are forever justified in not discussing the chartered subject of the board but only personalities. I've heard better excuses from nine-year-olds. | 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 <8e896c12-b1e9-4c7c-ab11-cc897e3e2...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > It's going around:http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/ks_subpoena_redacted.pdf What a guy (you may be male but the guy part may be in question) A forum on alternative health and you bring up lawsuits. Like I said, American terrorist. What is your point regarding posting that lawsuit? What exactly are you trying to say? > >> > If this is what you implied you are nuts. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > In message <8e896c12-b1e9-4c7c-ab11-cc897e3e2...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are wound WAY too tight D.C. Is that statement grounds for a lawsuit? Maybe you should cry and call your mommy. >> In message <8e896c12-b1e9-4c7c-ab11-cc897e3e2...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> In message <f7502e99-d5c8-43ce-b9ca-ec75e4ee6...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> > Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in >> >> > jail. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What a guy (you may be male but the guy part may be in question) > A forum on alternative health and you bring up lawsuits. The forum seems to spend most of its time on the subject of vaccines and autism -- which is also the point of the neurodiversity blog. > Like I said, American terrorist. > What is your point regarding posting that lawsuit? > What exactly are you trying to say? Let me get this straight: You say that skeptics should be jailed, I point out where one of your party has filed an abusive action against a private party who made the mistake of publicly doubting that vaccines cause autism, and you're accusing ME of being a "terrorist?" | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <2e4a0b9f-c02d-4fa1-8093-62c2e0c38...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are bringing this up again Let me try to clarify my point For example: I am saying that if company is fully aware that their product can cause harm and purposely withholds this data and people are subsequently injured, then I believe that it is criminal. Nothing is without risk in this world. That is part of life. However knowingly withholding data for the sake of profits is against my beleif system. A comparison could be made to a known defect in a car. This defect may cause X number of deaths. The cost of recalling the car would be Y. The company decides that it is cheaper to pay the claims on those that are killed because of the defect than to recall the cars and fix them. Now I know that you will come back with many examples to negate my point. Life is not simple and I am sure that you will find many. I can find many also. It comes down to the basic intent of people. That is all I was trying to say. What I mean by "American Terrorists"is that we are seeing more and more Americans looking to get ahead at the expense of others rather than helping each other. As I stated I will only post here to reply to a post about me that I think requires a reply. Cheers > > In message <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > reps > should be discouraged from disclosing risks Strawman. NO ONE, including me, is supportive of hiding information. What I object to is the use of this information to disparage all of EBM, which many of the anti-EMBs do. > Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in > jail. Hmmm...I did call for criminal prosecutions in the Vioxx matter. > If this is what you implied you are nuts. Your poor reading comprehension and use of logical fallacies do say a lot. On Apr 5, 8:45 pm, Kulacz <drkul...@optonline.net> wrote: > On Apr 5, 3:30 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > reps > should be discouraged from disclosing risks Strawman. NO ONE, including me, is supportive of hiding information. What I object to is the use of this information to disparage all of EBM, which many of the anti-EMBs do. > Anybody that does that is not only inhhumane but should be put in > jail. Hmmm...I did call for criminal prosecutions in the Vioxx matter. Of course no organized medicine protects their own. Dr Wilson who MURDERED, and remained on staff. > If this is what you implied you are nuts. Your poor reading comprehension and use of logical fallacies do say a lot. About you, Mark S Probert , Merrick, NY Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,170 for Mark Probert reading comphrension. (0.07 seconds) Web Results 1 - 10 of about 533 for Mark Probert logical fallacies. (0.34 seconds) > In message <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save > even a single human life? DC, you always make me laugh. Allopathic medicine as practiced by mainstream healthcare saves lives almost exclusively during administration of ER medicine (ER), which is, as I've said, the only treatment venue based on, and successful because of, nutrient analogues. Except for some essential surgeries, life extension in other treatment settings is rare. Please do not bemoan my lack of appreciation for artificial life support, or attempt to politicize the issue with references to Terry Schiavo. That particular "advance" in medical science would represent a trivial response in this discussion due to the overall limited number of patients affected. Policy decisions on the basis of cost-benefit analysis is really only applied where it matters the LEAST --in non-emergency medicine and in very few other circumstances. If you disagree, tell us what drugs or procedures in non-ER medicine are extending lives, by how much, at what cost, and with citations. >> In message <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > procedures in non-ER medicine are extending lives, by how much, at > what cost, and with citations. The simplest is neonatology. However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional supplemenation in the whole equation -- which I seem to recall is something you'd agree with. We can have contests in forcible urination on some other thread if you insist. | 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 > <a0d2c59a-63b8-41c8-813e-af565828a277@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> procedures in non-ER medicine are extending lives, by how much, at >> what cost, and with citations. uhhh....dialysis and transplantation look it up yourself...it has been around since 1973 and funded by Medicare...any other ?? > The simplest is neonatology. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ On Apr 5, 10:57 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > In message > > <a0d2c59a-63b8-41c8-813e-af565828a...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > uhhh....dialysis and transplantation Exactly! Yet cost-benefit analysis are not applied to these. That's the whole point. DC suggests that we make cost-cutting decisions because it's necessary. When has it been necessary to do this with regard to dialysis or transplants? I can't say it has *never* been a factor in transplantation, but if a patient cannot survive without a transplant, availability of critical organs, not money, has typically been the constraining factor. If you disagree, please provide examples, number of patients affected, and cost-benefit outcomes, plus citations. > >> So are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider cost when > >> allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The simplest is neonatology. Please explain how cost-benefit analysis is applied to neonatology and what costs would **not** be acceptable to preserve infant health. Also, what drugs are extending these lives and by how much. Please also provide citations. > However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy > to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional > supplemenation in the whole equation -- which I seem > to recall is something you'd agree with. You inferred that we must consider cost when allocating health care and yet I doubt you would say that infant life should be dependent on such criteria. So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes expendable. What I wanted to know is whether there are any drugs proven to extend life, by how much, and at what cost. Now that I think about it, it would be helpful to know the number of patients impacted. Only then can we can evaluate a cost-benefit in patients within real life settings. Don't forget to provide citations. > We can have contests in forcible urination on some > other thread if you insist. Why must a reasonable discussion be a pissing contest? If you know the answers to my questions, this is your opportunity to share that knowledge. >> >> So are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider cost when >> >> allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Also, what drugs are extending these lives and by how much. Please > also provide citations. Sure -- but it has nothing to do with drugs (oxygen and sometimes surfactants aside) -- it has to do with the very point below: prenatal care (primarily nutrition) vs. high-risk obstetrics and interventionist neonatology. >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and yet I doubt you would say that infant life should be dependent on > such criteria. "Should" isn't my call. Fact is, they are. > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes expendable. What I > wanted to know is whether there are any drugs proven to extend life, > by how much, and at what cost. Yes, lifetimes worth, and variable. Examples include oxygen and surfactants (as noted). Surgical repair of septal defects are another example, but you asked for drugs. > Now that I think about it, it would be > helpful to know the number of patients impacted. Only then can we can > evaluate a cost-benefit in patients within real life settings. Don't > forget to provide citations. Too right we have to consider cost -- we only have so much in the budget. Expanding that budget is above my pay grade. Given limited resources, cost/benefit is the way to decide where to best use them (hint: I'm not a fan of the current program so don't try to strawman that one.) | 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 <6fbf1274-846a-41cf-aa9b-83de20f54...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > point below: prenatal care (primarily nutrition) vs. > high-risk obstetrics and interventionist neonatology. Then you agree that nutritional protocols are a critical preventive for *avoiding* unnecessary emergency care. > >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy > >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Should" isn't my call. Fact is, they are. I still do not see where unlimited funds, if applied to infant healthcare, would be extending life beyond a few minutes. > > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion > > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and surfactants (as noted). Surgical repair of septal defects > are another example, but you asked for drugs. So, out of thousands of pharmaceuticals presumed to extend life in modern healthcare, you are unable to provide a list, much less evidence. In fact, you would have to admit, if you were honest, that the only data available to us is that which shows a reduction in human life as result of medication side effects. The Lazarou study, for instance, which even FDA includes on its website, reveals a conservative 106,000 deaths per annum resulting from drug side effects. > > Now that I think about it, it would be > > helpful to know the number of patients impacted. Only then can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> In message <6fbf1274-846a-41cf-aa9b-83de20f54...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> >> >> So are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider cost when >> >> >> allocating health care? That no cost is too high to save [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Then you agree that nutritional protocols are a critical preventive > for *avoiding* unnecessary emergency care. In some cases, absolutely. In others (e.g. erythroblastosis fetalis) no help. However, from a pure cost effectiveness point of view they're certainly THE most bang for the buck. The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal ICU, pennies for nutrition. Don't complain to me, write to the idiots in Congress who get all moral about it. >> >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy >> >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I still do not see where unlimited funds, if applied to infant > healthcare, would be extending life beyond a few minutes. Unlimited funds would at least get mothers nutrition and screening to identify the ones who need further care (e.g. Rh incompatibility) for easily prevented conditions. Of course, "unlimited funds" are a bad idea too in a finite Universe. It's not the lack of funds that torques me so much, though, as the idiotically inefficient way they're allocated. >> > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion >> > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > conservative 106,000 deaths per annum resulting from drug side > effects. We were having a rather nice discussion on a positive note until you decided to read a lot more into my post than I wrote. I'm not going to play the game of attempting to dance to your demands that I provide endless citations for all of neonatal practice. Your "there are none" thesis is disproven by simple examples such as oxygen and surfactants, which have mountains of cites -- if you want to dispute them specifically, I'll drag up references. Somehow, foolish me, I thought that there might be a non-oppositional approach possible here. Reminder: the subject was originally whether cost/benefit analysis was morally defensible. Thread drift is one thing, but if you want to go off into the (IMHO impossibly broad) subject of all pharmaceutical interventions collectively then I will leave you to start a new thread on the subject. | 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 <f4660f1b-41a0-4415-86b7-2535e4fc5...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You would certainly know about thread drift. since you are very good at it I complement on your ability to divert. > > Then you agree that nutritional protocols are a critical > > preventive for *avoiding* unnecessary emergency care. > > In some cases, absolutely. In others (e.g. erythroblastosis > fetalis) no help. However, from a pure cost effectiveness > point of view they're certainly THE most bang for the buck. Would you agree that nutritonal medicine is THE most bang for the buck in human health generally? > The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding > priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal > ICU, pennies for nutrition. Don't complain to me, write > to the idiots in Congress who get all moral about it. The real problem with public health policy in the US is lobbys. Until the relationship between industry and government are made illegal, AMA will continue to prescribe preventive nutrition selectively and remedial nutrition, in adult medicine, almost never. > >> >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy > >> >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > screening to identify the ones who need further care (e.g. > Rh incompatibility) for easily prevented conditions. Right. I meant outside of nutritional medicine. Nutrient analogues are the basis for most of modern medicine's real successes (neonatal and the ER), in contrast to long-term use prescription meds that remain unproven (or disproven) as "preventive" or "curative." > Of course, "unlimited funds" are a bad idea too in a finite > Universe. It's not the lack of funds that torques me so much, > though, as the idiotically inefficient way they're allocated. Do you agree that the drug lobby (combined with corrupt governance) is responsible for this? > >> > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion > >> > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > We were having a rather nice discussion on a positive note until > you decided to read a lot more into my post than I wrote. Who was reading anything into what you wrote? Your statement about "the idiotically inefficient way [funds are] allocated" in modern health care doesn't magically stop with neonatal care. I mentioned a study on the failures of adult medicine simply to illustrate that fact. > I'm not going to play the game of attempting to dance to your > demands that I provide endless citations for all of neonatal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drag up references. Somehow, foolish me, I thought that there > might be a non-oppositional approach possible here. Since when is oxygen a drug? Also, surfactants are produced by the human body. If you are referring to a (synthetic) nutrient analogue, this represents a successful application of nutritional medicine, not unlike synthetic insulin or magnesium sulfate which save lives daily in emergency care. If by "there is none thesis" you mean my view that cost-benefit analysis is not applied seriously to modern health care, you have implicity stated this yourself. You said "the tragic part is that [nutritional protocols] are also a very low funding priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal ICU, pennies for nutrition. Don't complain to me, write to the idiots in Congress..." So you must agree that cost-benefit analysis is not being applied responsibily to our health care venues. > Reminder: the subject was originally whether cost/benefit > analysis was morally defensible. Thread drift is one thing, > but if you want to go off into the (IMHO impossibly broad) > subject of all pharmaceutical interventions collectively > then I will leave you to start a new thread on the subject. I never argued that cost-benefit analysis was morally defensible or not. I argued that cost-benefit analysis isn't being applied at all, or at best, in extremely limited settings. So far, you haven't provided any data showing that drugs are evaluated for their individual effectiveness as part of cost benefit measurements, nor have you provided any data showing how cost-benefit analysis is applied, or where. >> > Then you agree that nutritional protocols are a critical >> > preventive for *avoiding* unnecessary emergency care. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Would you agree that nutritonal medicine is THE most bang for the buck > in human health generally? Too broad a subject. Ask me about something narrow enough to have a useful answer. >> The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding >> priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will continue to prescribe preventive nutrition selectively and > remedial nutrition, in adult medicine, almost never. In the particular issue of preventive vs. remedial care, I'm not at all sure that the AMA bears any blame. They've been lobbying for nonmedical prenatal preventive care for decades. In that particular case, the lobbies with the clout to drive policy in brain-dead directions are the social conservatives who don't want to subsidize little brown babies and their mothers who aren't married because the same social conservatives set up policies that punish them for being married. >> >> >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy >> >> >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and the ER), in contrast to long-term use prescription meds that > remain unproven (or disproven) as "preventive" or "curative." I'm not prepared to accept that as a generality. The big winners in perinatal care are oxygen, surfactants, and a couple of drugs (including RhoGAM) that get babies past blood-exchange immune reactions. All short-term. >> Of course, "unlimited funds" are a bad idea too in a finite >> Universe. It's not the lack of funds that torques me so much, >> though, as the idiotically inefficient way they're allocated. > > Do you agree that the drug lobby (combined with corrupt governance) is > responsible for this? Not really. There's a lot of politics that go deeper than means. The fact that geezers vote and babies don't is one of the key ones. Pharmaceutical lobbying contributes, but IMHO it's a secondary effect. >> >> > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion >> >> > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > study on the failures of adult medicine simply to illustrate that > fact. I'm not prepared to accept that adult healthcare is a failure. I *am* prepared to condemn it as being far too dedicated to attempts to save lives at all costs in the last few months of old age -- which sucks up close to 50% of all healthcare dollars. We could disagree rather enormously on how effective those measures are and still agree that they're not effective enough to justify the resources they suck away from other uses. >> I'm not going to play the game of attempting to dance to your >> demands that I provide endless citations for all of neonatal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Since when is oxygen a drug? Look it up. FDA regulations all over the place. It's an artificial chemical preparation administered to alter the operation of the human body (it's also dangerous in some circumstances.) Don't ask me to defend the situation, but that's how it is. > Also, surfactants are produced by the > human body. Some are. Some aren't. Premature infants often don't produce them yet and without them to clear their lungs they don't breathe. > If you are referring to a (synthetic) nutrient analogue, The ones I'm thinking of are nothing at all like nutrients. > this represents a successful application of nutritional medicine, not > unlike synthetic insulin or magnesium sulfate which save lives daily > in emergency care. You are stretching "nutritional medicine" beyond the usual bounds. Stretched that far, pretty much everything in the USP is "nutritional." > If by "there is none thesis" you mean my view that > cost-benefit analysis is not applied seriously to modern health care, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you must agree that cost-benefit analysis is not being applied > responsibily to our health care venues. I believe we're in violent agreement on the broad strokes there if not on the details. >> Reminder: the subject was originally whether cost/benefit >> analysis was morally defensible. Thread drift is one thing, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have you provided any data showing how cost-benefit analysis is > applied, or where. The analyses that are conducted rigorously are risk/benefit analyses, which (arguably rightly so) are as far as the medical community sees their role as extending. The cost element is applied in one of three domains: * Private decisions, * Public policy, * and third-party payer policies. The first is subject to the known problems of personal risk perception, the second is (we seem to agree) subjected to a great deal of inappropriate (but probably unavoidable in a democracy) pressures, and the second has some of the elements of both. Oddly enough, despite the flak that the third-party payers have (IMHO somewhat correctly) received, they're probably the only one of the three that has done much in the way of systematic cost/benefit analyses. Perversely, their better moves towards rational cost/benefit analysis are what get them the most abuse (recall the recent flap over a liver transplant for a patient with a poor chance of benefiting from one.) | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > > Would you agree that nutritonal medicine is THE most bang for > > the buck in human health generally? > > Too broad a subject. Ask me about something narrow > enough to have a useful answer. Is there data supporting heart disease reduction (not just risk) from the use of prescription medication? If there is, where is that data? > >> The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding > >> priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In the particular issue of preventive vs. remedial care, > I'm not at all sure that the AMA bears any blame. Sure they do. A history of intolerance toward natural treatment modalities using FDA as enforcement is well documented. Just ask Bill Faloon of LEF, whose office was raided last year where he was held at gunpoint. Did AMA repudiate this reprehensible behaviour? > They've > been lobbying for nonmedical prenatal preventive care for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > same social conservatives set up policies that punish > them for being married. There is always a polarizing political element available to industry for its management of America's legislature, but the force behind these things is money, not ideology. Ideology is only the cover. > >> >> >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy > >> >> >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'm not prepared to accept that as a generality. Can you point to documented life extension outside of these venues that doesn't involve a very small numbers of patients? > The big > winners in perinatal care are oxygen, surfactants, and a couple [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of the key ones. Pharmaceutical lobbying contributes, but > IMHO it's a secondary effect. A secondary *effect?* So the electorate, not medical science, is running the show? Modern medicine is really just a dressed up version of "Vernon Goes to Camp?" > >> >> > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion > >> >> > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I'm not prepared to accept that adult healthcare is a failure. In what way do you describe it as a success? > I *am* prepared to condemn it as being far too dedicated to > attempts to save lives at all costs in the last few months of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > circumstances.) Don't ask me to defend the situation, but > that's how it is. Correct. And when artificially prepared in this manner, it isn't identical to atmospheric oxygen, thus a nutrient becomes a "drug." Literally speaking, though, it's a nutrient analogue. > > Also, surfactants are produced by the human body. > > Some are. Some aren't. Premature infants often don't produce > them yet and without them to clear their lungs they don't breathe. My point was that any biochemical substance used or produced by the human body is a nutrient in terms of metabolic function. Any drug modeled on such a substance is thus a nutrient analogue. > > If you are referring to a (synthetic) nutrient analogue, > The ones I'm thinking of are nothing at all like nutrients. > > this represents a successful application of nutritional > > medicine, not unlike synthetic insulin or magnesium sulfate > > which save lives daily in emergency care. > You are stretching "nutritional medicine" beyond the usual bounds. The usual bounds have blended nutritional and chemical science inappropriately. Nutrient analogues are not currently classified to distinguish them from "conventional" drugs, but they need to be. The term "conventional" is a misnomer in reference to most pharmaceuticals. Whereas the Pharmacopeia is founded on nutritional science, so-called "conventional" drugs are anything but. Rather, they are proving to be an irreversibly experimental hazard to human health. This is one reason, at least, the drug makers are beginning to stumble. > Stretched that far, pretty much everything in the > USP is "nutritional." That isn't true, however, of the most-often prescribed or best-selling drugs. The USP is largely a cumulative reference, filled with many substances no longer in use today. > > So you must agree that cost-benefit analysis is not being applied > > responsibily to our health care venues. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > probably the only one of the three that has done much in the > way of systematic cost/benefit analyses. Unfortunately, these efforts are about adjustments to the existing infrastructure, with only minor input from the successes of complimentary approaches. In an environment of FDA suppression and hostility toward nutritional medicine generally, this is not a meaningful application of cost analysis to modern health care. > Perversely, their better moves towards rationalcost/benefit > analysis are what get them the most abuse (recall the recent [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> > Would you agree that nutritonal medicine is THE most bang for >> > the buck in human health generally? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is there data supporting heart disease reduction (not just risk) from > the use of prescription medication? If there is, where is that data? That's a mixed bag. If there's actual data on a causal link between serum cholesterol and actual arterial disease, I haven't seen it -- but there's a huge effort directed at serum cholesterol. On the other hand, hypertension *is* causally linked to a lot of bad outcomes and the meds in that direction, even though they generally suck, at least do have reasonable outcome records. Clotbusters are another with good field studies. You might (or not) appreciate that the best ones seem to be those that show the Really Expensive Clotbusters being beaten by old standard stuff like salicylates. >> >> The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding >> >> priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Faloon of LEF, whose office was raided last year where he was held at > gunpoint. Did AMA repudiate this reprehensible behaviour? I suspect that your definition of "natural treatment" is rather different to mine. The first line in most chronic disease management is the diet/exercise combo and lifestyle generally. >> They've >> been lobbying for nonmedical prenatal preventive care for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for its management of America's legislature, but the force behind > these things is money, not ideology. Ideology is only the cover. It must be nice to live in such a simple world. >> >> >> >> However, my point was much larger and I'm quite happy >> >> >> >> to include infant nutrition and prenatal nutritional [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Can you point to documented life extension outside of these venues > that doesn't involve a very small numbers of patients? Type I diabetes. >> The big >> winners in perinatal care are oxygen, surfactants, and a couple [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > running the show? Modern medicine is really just a dressed up version > of "Vernon Goes to Camp?" Medical science is certainly not running the funding priorities in the USA, and IMHO that's as it should be -- even if it does lead to all manner of disturbing consequences. >> >> >> > So far, you haven't engaged in a relevant discussion >> >> >> > of the issue, except to say that life is sometimes [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > In what way do you describe it as a success? By direct comparison to the health of our ancestors. Aside from lifestyle diseases, we're vastly healthier at 50+ than our grandparents. From the formal research POV, there was a recent historical project that put together a profile of the adult population's health in the post-Civil War period. It wasn't pretty. I'm not inclined to give a great deal of weight to anecdote, but personal experience leans the same way. >> > Since when is oxygena drug? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > identical to atmospheric oxygen, thus a nutrient becomes a "drug." > Literally speaking, though, it's a nutrient analogue. Aside from the obvious partial pressure differences, I'm not prepared to grant that. However, it's pretty much beside the point. >> > Also, surfactants are produced by the human body. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > human body is a nutrient in terms of metabolic function. Any drug > modeled on such a substance is thus a nutrient analogue. You are definitely broadening the definition of "nutrient." However, using your definition then yes, most pharmaceuticals are "nutrient analogs" in that they target natural biochemical pathways; for instance, opiates target endorphin receptors. | 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 <886cafda-6c57-4569-8553-225b0dbd1...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I haven't seen it -- but there's a huge effort directed at > serum cholesterol. Statins, in fact, are a product of the commercialization of science for the purpose of shareholder return. Treating "markers" and treating disease are two very different things. "Mixed bag" is far too generous a term. > On the other hand, hypertension *is* causally linked to a > lot of bad outcomes and the meds in that direction, even > though they generally suck, at least do have reasonable > outcome records. Unfortunately, those "reasonable outcomes" have not been proven by risk-benefit studies to show aggregate patient lifespan improvements adjusted for drug-induced lifespan reductions. It's inaccurate to characterize as "reasonable" what has not been measured. > Clotbusters are another with good field studies. You might > (or not) appreciate that the best ones seem to be those > that show the Really Expensive Clotbusters being beaten by > old standard stuff like salicylates. Field studies are not an adequate scientific review of disease epidemiology in response to drugs. And that "old standard stuff" is a problematic analogue of salicin, which is already in the human diet in natural, beneficial form -- namely fruits and vegetables. If acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) represents the extent of modern medicine's success with heart disease, then standard treatment of CVD is a substantial failure. Peter Elwood's study on aspirin's anti- thrombosis potential is mentioned in a wikipedia article, in which it says: "When the Elwood trial ended in 1973, it showed a modest but NOT [emphasis mine] statistically significant reduction in heart attacks among the group taking aspirin." It goes on to cite the use of meta-analyses (a favorite technique of the drug makers as it permits a more "elastic" treatment of data) in establishing the RELATIVE certainty that aspirin prevents heart attacks. This is not a convincing case for recommending a drug known to cause cerebral hemorrhage, possibly pancreatic cancer, blindness, and other diseases with chronic use. > >> >> The tragic part is that they're also a very low funding > >> >> priority. Billions for high-risk obstetrics and neonatal [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > disease management is the diet/exercise combo and lifestyle > generally. LEF is devoted almost soley to nutritional medicine (not unlike myself), so my reference to FDA's harrassment of Falloon, and AMA's failure to repudiate those actions, is stunning. I define almost any treatment as natural if it also non-invasive. As for the "first" in most chronic disease management, I suggest that it more accurately should be described as a "drug with diet and lifestyle recommendation combo." > >> They've > >> been lobbying for nonmedical prenatal preventive care for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It must be nice to live in such a simple world. Greed requires complicity, not complexity. > > Can you point to documented life extension outside of these > > venues that doesn't involve a very small numbers of patients? > > Type I diabetes. What drugs are we talking about? > >> The big > >> winners in perinatal care are oxygen, surfactants, and a couple [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > in the USA, and IMHO that's as it should be -- even if it does > lead to all manner of disturbing consequences. I would characterize those "disturbing consequences" as the inducement of disease in human beings as a result of a pharmaceutical-managed healthcare system. > >> > Who was reading anything into what you wrote? Your statement > >> > about "the idiotically inefficient way [funds are] allocated" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Aside from lifestyle diseases, we're vastly healthier at > 50+ than our grandparents. Our ancestors had many stresses we do not such that pre-modern lifespan can't be a control for the effects of modern medicine. My grandparent, btw, lived into their 90s. > From the formal research POV, there was a recent historical > project that put together a profile of the adult population's > health in the post-Civil War period. It wasn't pretty. That could be somewhat interesting. What did it show exactly? > I'm not inclined to give a great deal of weight to anecdote, > but personal experience leans the same way. You were in the civil war? Just kiddig. > > Correct. And when artificially prepared in this manner, it isn't > > identical to atmospheric oxygen, thus a nutrient becomes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prepared to grant that. However, it's pretty much beside the > point. You don't agree that oxygen is "technically" a drug in administration but functionally a nutrient in human physiology? > > My point was that any biochemical substance used or produced by > > the human body is a nutrient in terms of metabolic function. > > Any drug modeled on such a substance is thus a nutrient analogue. > > You are definitely broadening the definition of "nutrient." Actually, almost every discreet medical concordance defines it somewhat differently. Several sources extend the meaning beyond "a substance required to sustain life found in the diet" to include biochemicals not supplied by (but equally important to those found in) the human diet. And the reason for that is obvious. Many such chemicals come from BOTH places. L-Carnitine, for instance, is conditionally essential and synthesized endogenously from lysine and methionine in the liver, but is also a dietary nutrient. Another interesting example is vitamin C, which was *once* synthesized endogenously within the human liver (and continues to be in most animals), but is no longer. The word "nutrient," therefore, is very much like the word "drug," in terms of our tendency to over simplify. > However, using your definition then yes, most pharmaceuticals > are "nutrient analogs" in that they target natural biochemical > pathways; for instance, opiates target endorphin receptors. Not quite. Remember, a nutrient has to be required to sustain life, as well, and no one is proposing to jettison that aspect of a nutrient's function. Pharmaceuticals are not nutrient analogues simply because they target a "nautral biochemical pathway" (there is no such thing as an "unnatural" biochemical pathway), otherwise any organic chemical ingested would qualify. In fact, one could argue by extension (falsely) that a bullet would qualify as a nutrient analogue simply because it targets a biochemical pathway surrounding your heart. >> In article ><6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >If that is self righteous, I am guilty and proud of it. Apparently >David and Andrew, you do not feel that way. Sigh, yet another strawman argument from you. Not to mention a very poorly thought out response. The idea that you can simply "toss out" a cost-benefit analysis is simply ridiculous, because we don't have infinite resources. If we don't have infinite resources, we're going to have to decide where to put our finite resources. And how shall we decide that, other than some sort of cost-benefit analysis? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > > When it applies to human lives instead of something likd a > > refrigerator, cost/benefit must be tossed out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sigh, yet another strawman argument from you. You would be the expert on that. > Not to mention a very poorly thought out response. Gee, two in a row. Is there anything you are *not* an expert on? > The idea that you can simply "toss out" a cost-benefit analysis is > simply ridiculous, because we don't have infinite resources. Seriously? DavidWright, you say the most profound things. > If we don't have infinite resources, we're going to have to decide > where to put our finite resources. Full Stop. Get outta here!! > And how shall we decide that, > other than some sort of cost-benefit analysis? I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore everyone to the point of action. > I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the > heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore > everyone to the point of action. Let's not. That would be way too boring, and completely have nothing to do with misc.health.alternative. This is a guy, remember, that talked about how wonderful the zits of his left his body when he used that ever so popular alternative health product "Accutane." I think the side effects when he used the drug never went away. He has nothing good to say about alternative healthcare therapies; claims he uses them, but I have yet hear what those are, and I'm really wondering if he does, or doesn't. >> I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the >> heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those > are, and I'm really wondering if he does, or doesn't. And now we're all the way into full-up flaming hypocrisy. You've been simultaneously preaching about staying on-topic and avoiding personal attacks -- but only to those you oppose. (Which was that ticking sound: you ignoring personal attacks by those you agree with in response to on-topic posts.) Now you're piling on to second a totally content-free personal attack on a post that was 100% on-topic and without personal references. Puts all of your self-righteousness in context, doesn't it? | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > >> I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the > >> heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And now we're all the way into full-up flaming hypocrisy. What hypocrisy? Bee did not call David a name, she made an observation about statements he himself has made. I have also had discussions with David about his use of Accutane, and I have also noted his hostility toward those who prefer natural methods over conventional ones. David even refers to published books that I recommend as "pollution" despite never having read them. So, DC, it is a fair conclusion that YOU, as a defender of these behaviours (not Bee, who merely observes them), is the real hypocrite. : is a fair conclusion that YOU, as a defender of these behaviours (not ^^^^^^^^^^ Just in case anyone was still wondering whether if "PeterB" and "Carole" were different people. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . > In article > <8e0d4de8-4032-415d-8c32-d86ac7e8beac@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PeterB > <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > >> I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the > >> heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And now we're all the way into full-up flaming hypocrisy. What hypocrisy? Bee did not call David a name, she made an observation about statements he himself has made. I have also had discussions with David about his use of Accutane, and I have also noted his hostility toward those who prefer natural methods over conventional ones. David even refers to published books that I recommend as "pollution" despite never having read them. So, DC, it is a fair conclusion that YOU, as a defender of these behaviours (not Bee, who merely observes them), is the real hypocrite. > : is a fair conclusion that YOU, as a defender of these behaviours (not > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > Just in case anyone was still wondering whether if "PeterB" and "Carole" > were different people. No one is wondering except you, who demomstrates your ignorance. PeterB does not posts from where Carole posts. DUH. > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . >> >> I know. Let's collect all your posts and publish them under the >> >> heading, "Witless, the Story of an Aging Pharma Thug" and bore [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What hypocrisy? Bee did not call David a name, she made an > observation about statements he himself has made. All targeted towards discussing the person, not the substance of his post. [snip] > So, DC, it > is a fair conclusion that YOU, as a defender of these behaviours (not > Bee, who merely observes them), is the real hypocrite. Ummm --- right. Whatever that was about. I suspect that we're talking past each other on this, but given our epistemological disconnect that shouldn't surprise me. | 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 > <8e0d4de8-4032-415d-8c32-d86ac7e8beac@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PeterB [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > All targeted towards discussing the person, not the > substance of his post. LOL! Which Douglas Charles and his lying buddy Mark S Probert and ALL of the gang do repeatedly. > [snip] > In article <ccab3205-4e20-437b-8f2c-441db1897...@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > where to put our finite resources. And how shall we decide that, > other than some sort of cost-benefit analysis? Heck, it's easy! You just create the systems, facilities, and personel via an act of legislation. It worked out great for the Soviets, didn't it? > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." > -- John Dolan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - " <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: and forgot AGAIN http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735 That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion. Stick with the topic, that works for you & us. > We are talking about people's lives that are measured in dollars and > cents. > You cannot get much lower than that. And yet you -- and everyone else -- do it every day. Some are just more hypocritical about it than others. | 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 <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Do what everyday? Make your statements clear. What exactly are you referring to and what is hypocritical. Do not be vague. I left my career because of the principal of doing the right thing. It has cost me dearly in many areas. Nobody is perfect. Certainly not me. But we can all strive to do the best that we can with what we know. >> In message <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do what everyday? Trade off human life for dollars and cents. > Make your statements clear. > What exactly are you referring to and what is hypocritical. Pursue money (or even pure frivolity) at the cost of human life. Not one of us who doesn't, so getting all holy about those who do it is pure hypocrisy. | 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 <c4eff037-0cab-4f09-8a50-4de567a50...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Maybe you have but I have not. Tell us more how you pursue mone at the cost of human life. >> In message <c4eff037-0cab-4f09-8a50-4de567a50...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> In message <6fd61205-2ceb-4c08-a738-f631026b0...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Kulacz wrote: >> >> > We are talking about people's lives that are measured in dollars and >> >> > cents. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Maybe you have but I have not. Oh, really? You've never driven a car? You've never watched a football game? Never turned up the thermostat instead of putting on another sweater? Never used air conditioning? Say yes and I'll write to the Vatican. > Tell us more how you pursue mone at the cost of human life. Several of the above. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > It's nice to have suspicions confirmed. I can't wait to see what > the 'usual suspects' will do with this one... :) Mostly second it. Some time back I posted a link to the rant at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=60 and the only response was Chuckles' refusal to even look at the site because of the domain name. It must be comforting to live in a world of melodrama. | 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 <9ee21a11-e84d-4adb-8a6f-ce47a0f9e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mainframetech wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Interesting article. I did not read all of the individual posts at the end but the nature of the phamaceutical companies, reps, and doctors shows how influence is used unfortunately not always to the benefit of the patient. > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chris Please post your realname and all of your corporate affiliations. How can you believe anyone who was paid by adrug company? >> A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in >> conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How can you believe anyone who was paid by adrug company? Knock it off, Mark. It's a stupid diversion and there's no point in descending to the level of kulacz, Debee, Islena, Jan, etc. | 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 <2bf5a1ae-1676-451a-9dc0-f94e055a6...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and there's no point in descending to the level > of kulacz, Debee, Islena, Jan, etc. Good idea. I just learned that mychiropractor is inAfrica for three weeks and all that stooping withouthim around is not a good idea. However, I was having a spot of fun. Too bad that they did not see that. > Good idea. I just learned that mychiropractor is inAfrica for three > weeks and all that stooping withouthim around is not a good idea. > However, I was having a spot of fun. Weren't you just recently pointing out that "I was just joking" is the classic faux-excuse for people who have been caught doing something malicious? | 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 <fe5014ac-a5ab-470d-84e6-1cb75f05e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > joking" is the classic faux-excuse for people who have > been caught doing something malicious? Fun can have other purposes, and still be fun. On Apr 5, 3:59 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > In message > <2bf5a1ae-1676-451a-9dc0-f94e055a6...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and there's no point in descending to the level > of kulacz, Debee, Islena, Jan, etc. Good idea. I just learned that mychiropractor is inAfrica for three weeks and all that stooping withouthim around is not a good idea. mychiropractor is inAfrica withouthim D C won't post [sic].... However, I was having a spot of fun. You are in the wrong place, this is an alternative health newsgroups. Too bad that they did not see that. What we saw was you and the *gang* once again dirverting from the subject, making insults and harrassing, as usual. Rather than discussing the disgusting tactics of drug companies. mainframetech" <flameda@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9ee21a11-e84d-4adb-8a6f-ce47a0f9e34f@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Chris The same as always. They can't admit to the truth. "Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> blathered: Nothing about the subject, just more diversions. Sad that. [ ] On Apr 5, 1:28 am, mainframetech <flam...@optonline.net> wrote: > A Zyprexa drug representative recently told all about his efforts in > conning doctors to do what the drug companies wanted. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Chris >Nothing about the subject, just more diversions. >Sad that. But not unexpected. Generally, in our society I believe people are becoming more and more unhappy with the status quo of the large corporations 'owning' or buying everyone and doing as they please to the detriment of the disenfranchised. I think we are coming to another '60's blowup where folks just ain't gonna listen to the baloney anymore. The pendulum swings again. Chris |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message