Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Recent health News : Contradictions

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
mcs - 06 Jul 2005 13:34 GMT
which is it?
Truth or fiction after full blaring alerts on tv and people getting rich
from it, now there seems to be no responsibility in proving anything?

all of sudden Fda says green tea has no positive affects on body in their
big research. Same for aspirin. Last month I read that alcohol might help
people only because the people taking it might be healthier to begin with.
Yet we still getting some of this advice.  Is there any consistent good
information anymore? With special iinterests seemingly able to get more
power thru money who is to know what to believe? Finally most everyone says
exercise is good but many people especially in inner city say zipping in
warning level air while exercising not only is not good but morbidity
studies shows people living in those conditions detracts years of life. So
whats going on Docs?
Same with asthma and air purifiers
Asthma associations recommend a certain kind Ionic breeze but consumer
reports doesn't.
It really makes getting true information impossible and responsibilities for
agencies that put out health information.
mcs - 06 Jul 2005 13:36 GMT
really makes getting true information impossible and responsibilities for
> agencies that put out health information suspect.

> which is it?
> Truth or fiction after full blaring alerts on tv and people getting rich
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> It really makes getting true information impossible and responsibilities for
> agencies that put out health information.
jackmallory@webtv.net - 06 Jul 2005 16:09 GMT
MCS writes about how hard it is to get information in this day and age.
That is, information that is true, not propagated by the almighty
dollar.

Newsgroups like this one is one answer.  This group gets cluttered up at
times by peddlers wanting to sell something and by psychotics who want
to propagate their pet theories or whatever.  But the idiot fringe and
the salesmen cannot help but speedily show their true colors: it's in
the nature of the beast.

So howzaboudit?  Let's keep the information coming and ignore the other
dreck.

Jack
Rae - 06 Jul 2005 16:34 GMT
(For all the "morons", "air heads", "psychotics", and "idiot fringe")

Just remember what your momma told you.

Sticks and stones may break their bones but words shall never hurt them.

 This group gets cluttered up at
| times by peddlers wanting to sell something and by psychotics who want
| to propagate their pet theories or whatever.  But the idiot fringe and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
|
| Jack
00doc - 07 Jul 2005 03:09 GMT
> Just remember what your momma told you.

Did you mean Yamoa?

Signature

00doc

Evgenij Barsukov - 06 Jul 2005 17:23 GMT
One point that author is missing is that there is no
such thing as "true information". Every single bit of
information that is there applies to some class of things (or
people, or whatever) and does not apply to others.
   That is why we have a brain - to clasify information and
analyse how it applies to particular case and to what extent.
Multiple information sources have to be analysed, and probabilities
for them being correct have to be estimated _by every single
individual_. The hope that there will be some higher authority
(doctor? governemnt? Furher? God?) who will give you unambiquious
and perfectly optimal for your case calls for action is wain and result
of intelectual laiziness.

 If infromation could be a simple and straightforward actionable item,
we would not need a brain but only reflexes.

Unfortunately this intellectual infantilism and hope in the big brother
that will decide everythign for you dvells heavily on US society. That
is why everybody have to carry extensively heawy burden of paying for
all this approving authorities, these self-encloused and self-righteous
societies (like lawyers or doctors), that are sitting in sacred
atmosphere of their offices are deciding things that everybody should
have a right (and a responsibility!) to decide for themselfes. We should
pay them for the services and information they provide (depending on
quality of that information and services), and not for telling us
absulute truth proclamations or _allowing_ us to do something.

Regards,
Evgenij

> really makes getting true information impossible and responsibilities for
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
>>agencies that put out health information.
mcs - 07 Jul 2005 06:49 GMT
> One point that author is missing is that there is no
> such thing as "true information". Every single bit of
> information that is there applies to some class of things (or
> people, or whatever) and does not apply to others.

You sound a little more optimistic then me. In a company the best managers
get their employees to work for the common good of the companies goals. .
One would hope the best researchers would have the common goal of helping
people , and to not making fraudulent studies to enrich those who sell a
concept . How can two promotions get off the ground without hype that seems
to have little substance  other then motive of profit? Maybe?

>     That is why we have a brain - to clasify information and
> analyse how it applies to particular case and to what extent.
Yes but  don't you   assume that the best information  or accurate
informatin  is assimilated  or at least included in the analysis or study.If
that  may or maynot be the case, how is one to know when to classify that
information? If you want to be more ominous, what if false information is
given so competition is enhanced  or to even make ill a certain population?
Your assuming that we can classify information and motive without the
practicallity of having objective information.

> Multiple information sources have to be analysed, and probabilities
> for them being correct have to be estimated _by every single
> individual_. The hope that there will be some higher authority
> (doctor? governemnt? Furher? God?) who will give you unambiquious
> and perfectly optimal for your case calls for action is wain and result
> of intelectual laiziness.
No if one agency says there is absolutely  no basis for previous conclusion
of studies, it should be up to some agency or group to get back to original
company or scientists and show where or how  the contradictions happened and
why? When fraud is the culprit prosectution should be in order. It seems
weird that people have responsibilities to do right thing( earn a living,pay
taxes, credit cards, not comitt crimes) but often the leaders of these
companies don't have any obligation to do the right things.?

>   If infromation could be a simple and straightforward actionable item,
> we would not need a brain but only reflexes.

Information is analyzed all the time from the information we expect has been
somehow checked . If companies promote said items , don't they then have a
responsibilty to back those claims? If those claims are validated, then we
have contradictions still ! I gave some contradiction and to this day I
still se the same promotion for wine and green tea on the boxes of products.

> Unfortunately this intellectual infantilism and hope in the big brother
> that will decide everythign for you dvells heavily on US society. That
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> quality of that information and services), and not for telling us
> absulute truth proclamations or _allowing_ us to do something.

In Us its more and more about rich getting electing and representing rich
who support them. The information you alluded to is sometimes not provided
to people because the agencies that are there to protect  or scientists that
who are objective are often bought off at the expense of fair information .
Surely the best and brightest don't want to provide the best information
without being compensated and who can be compensated the most from
information that proves green tea is not good for one or the air we breathe
is being poisoned?   The answer is often there is no motive to tell the
truth in our society becuase the truth doesn't always sell .  Objectivity
seems to not matter. Getting away with what I regards as poisoning people
and promoting rich agenda is status quo in US.  People in US are more and
more about being sheep to tv and mass media and passive players in all this.
Image sells not necessarily the truth.
Steve

> Regards,
> Evgenij
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> >
> >>agencies that put out health information.
Richard Friedel - 07 Jul 2005 07:51 GMT
Heard at a recent meeting of the planets. First planet "How are you
keeping?" Seond ditto "I've got Homo sapiens."   First planet "No need
to worry! Its all over in a few decades".
Alison Chaiken - 04 Aug 2005 04:47 GMT
> all of sudden Fda says green tea has no positive affects on body in
> their big research. Same for aspirin. Last month I read that alcohol
> might help people only because the people taking it might be
> healthier to begin with.  Yet we still getting some of this advice.

Contradictory information is especially confusing when you don't pay
attention to the source.  Most new stories that report positive
results on a particular food come from questionable sources.  When you
hear such a story, notice which journal the research is published in.
Is it the Journal of the American Medical Association, or Lancet, or
the New England Journal of Medicine, or Science, or Nature, or at
least Thorax?  If not, it's quite likely to be BS.  There's a
scientific equivalent to the National Enquirer, and lots of media
studies that get big news coverage are published in those journals.

Recent reports questioning the value of alternative therapies like
echinacea have have from the National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine, which is a division of the National Institutes
of Health.  (See http://nccam.nih.gov.)  The FDA for the most part
does not conduct its own studies, so research results do not come from
them.

> Is there any consistent good information anymore?

I like alt.support.asthma and www.intellihealth.com.

> Finally most everyone says exercise is good but many people
> especially in inner city say zipping in warning level air while
> exercising not only is not good but morbidity studies shows people
> living in those conditions detracts years of life.

I don't see a contradiction here.  Most people get so little exercise
that almost anyone would benefit from doing more.

>Same with asthma and air purifiers Asthma associations recommend a
>certain kind Ionic breeze but consumer reports doesn't.

The asthma association that recommended the Ionic Breeze was a crock,
not a real medical group.  Sharper Image not only lost to Consumers'
Union in court, they had to pay their legal fees!   See
http://www.quackwatch.org/14Legal/ionicbreeze.html for more info.
I agree that sorting all this stuff out can be difficult.

Signature

Alison Chaiken            "From:" address above is valid.
(650) 236-2231 [daytime]    http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/
Mr. Wilson [ . . . ] and even his wife's outing have as much to do with
the real story here as Janet Leigh's theft of office cash has to do
with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in "Psycho."
-- Frank Rich, NY Times, July 17

00doc - 04 Aug 2005 14:01 GMT
All of what you say is true.

But I would add that scientific studies do not always come to the same
conclusions. Sometimes this is due to chance and sometimes it has to do
with populations studied and detaisl of how the study was done. It is
an unrealistic expectation to assume that every study will always get
the same results. That is why we usually try to wait for several
different studies to show the same thing before we accept the results.

The same unrealistic expectation is at play when people post the
results of one or a few small studies and then express dismay that all
of this is not being immediately adopted. It just never occurs to them
that the issue is not settled. (But it does not stop them from
complaing in the mext breath about the contradictory studies and
advice).

Signature

00doc

mcs - 05 Aug 2005 15:04 GMT
> > all of sudden Fda says green tea has no positive affects on body in
> > their big research. Same for aspirin. Last month I read that alcohol
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> attention to the source.  Most new stories that report positive
> results on a particular food come from questionable sources.
Allison , while I agree with you now, at the time there were so many
studies, one was not expected to question the  source. (green tea or alcohol
benefits). Not only did we have the studies, we had Drs  advising people to
take those things , including aspirin. I now know no matter what it is most
anyone can prove anything they want dependending on how they slant their
criterias and who they are representing. . The world is not about each of us
protecting each other, the world is about containing wealth and carving out
a niche and deception often enough. .

When you
> hear such a story, notice which journal the research is published in.
> Is it the Journal of the American Medical Association, or Lancet, or
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I like alt.support.asthma and www.intellihealth.com.
thanks look into that.

> > Finally most everyone says exercise is good but many people
> > especially in inner city say zipping in warning level air while
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I don't see a contradiction here.  Most people get so little exercise
> that almost anyone would benefit from doing more.

Allison its iffy on this. No exercise is not good. I personally have seen
what happens though when well intentioned people try to exercise where I
live in bad weather. I have seen people just drop out. I have seen adults
get asthma . Its just not conducive to exercise outdoors sometimes. From
personal experience, I would always not exercise , on bad air days and hope
for better days to come. Unfortunately we are now experiencing Warning level
air where i would strongly advise those who can attain that warning to
listen. Unfortunately its getting worse to go to work , wait in traffic and
even breathe this air coming into home. Its a tragic nightmare if you can't
afford to move. Our city has changed to basically old people , newly arrived
immigrants and the poor peple who now are the only ones left. When I say
only thats still allot of people. We are literally being poisoned and my
final twenty years will probably be living in poverty somewhere to escape
this mess. Personally I have no idea how sane people who has asthma overcome
the daily stress from this let alone normal people. If I wanted to better my
life and do things I literally couldn't .I have tried to ask for help in
getting out of here, no one cares. Our society is everyperson for him or her
self and we have the role models to back that statement up. But this is life
and I realize many people around the world probably have it much worse.( I
have taken world geography via telecourses
) Anyway back to topic thanks for the information. I didn't know this about
Consumer Union. Are all ionizers basically useless?  Do you know?  I know
about ozone purifiers and to avoid them.

> >Same with asthma and air purifiers Asthma associations recommend a
> >certain kind Ionic breeze but consumer reports doesn't.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> http://www.quackwatch.org/14Legal/ionicbreeze.html for more info.
> I agree that sorting all this stuff out can be difficult.
 
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.