The central theme of my web site is:
Good personal health information does not go on forever;
Nor, does it change with each health news story.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/home/essentials.html

I now have a second citation to support my health claim that most
health news is just noise.  There is little need to keep up research in
the areas of nutrition and exercise since it is ALL noise.

Nothing new has been researched in years. :(

And, of course, the ethical implications of repeating unnecessary
research totally escapes the physican since the bread and butter of
allopaths has been killing their patients for as long as this quackery
existed. Now a days, health insurance makes this process all the more
efficient. :(

COMMENT:

What, your "small business" isn't incorporated, even as a subchapter S?
Or do you figure that your own profits don't count as "greed" because
they go to YOU?  Or don't you make a profit?

Do let us know when you get those patents.

COMMENT:

Ahem. If it was obvious that Toyotas are always better than Fords,
nobody but Ford employees would own Fords, and the company would go
belly-up, instead of selling nearly 3 times as many cars and trucks as
Toyota does here. So it's not so obvious, is it?

COMMENT:

No, you only think you can. And that's the dangerous thing about
relying on buzz. I haven't seen anything from your posts that indicates
you can smell "garbage science." So far as I can see, that's just your
term for science whose conclusions you don't want to believe.

COMMENT:

Some examples would be helpful if you think that happens often and
makes any difference. No, I mean "As in the study is repeated by some
government or other group of scientists with no particular reason to
care which way the results come out." And that happens not once, but
again and sometimes again and again.

Who do you think discovered that Vioxx caused heart attacks?  The
government?  No. Did anybody even *suspect* it caused heart attacks
when it was launched as a product?  No. YOu can smell garbage science a
mile away, can you? So where are all YOUR postings warning us about
Vioxx, a few years ago?  Eh?

Here's what I was saying about Celebrex in April 1999:

Quote from Steve Harris:

 Celebrex produced fewer stomach ulcers than diclofenac generic 75
bid and Relafen 750 bid, but the numbers were barely significant (7% vs

9% or something).  And these were asymptomatic ulcers seen on EGD:
nobody knows if they translate directly to serious ulcers causing large

bleeds (hospitalization needed) or death.  There were large differences

between Celebrex and the old propionic acid derviatives Naprosyn/Aleve
and Ibuprofen/Motrin, now OTC.  But that just means that the safer
NSAIDS are available only by prescription, not that Celebrex has yet
proven safe than the best of these.  FDA, take note.  We thought the
purpose of the prescription status was to keep access to the least safe

drugs more controlled?  Now we see that clearly corrupted by
profit-seeking.  We either need to get rid of the Rx status for drugs
(other than antibiotics or drugs that are addictive), or else get rid
of the laws which effectively allow a higher price to be charged for a
drug which is available only by Rx, rather than OTC (there is no
reason, for example, why an insurance company should not be able to
anounce that it will pay for drugs gotten by Rx, but which can be
bought OTC also).  Which status (OTC vs generic, by Rx vs. WITH Rx
ONLY, vs OTC), of course, need have nothing to do with patent vs.
generic status, which would still allow discovering companies to make
money to pay back their research costs and investors.

=============================================

There's an example of MY nose for funny science, and that was a years
before the selective NSAID fiasco was even a cloud on the horizon, let
alone one the size of a hand.

Here's what I said in July 1999 on the same subject. Note that this is
LONG before OTC Prilosec and LONG before the current recommendations to
take a proton pump inhibitor with your NSAID.

Harris:  (July 1999)

 Yep, the stuff is not totally benign in that way.  In the Celebrex
testing the company did for the FDA they found about 30% asymptomatic
GI ulcers on endoscopy for the standard OTC NSAID controls, and
something like 7% for Celebrex.  But the kicker is that they only found

something like 9% for Voltarin/diclofenac (semi-selective) and they
didn't test Relafen/nabumetone, which is my own favorite and probably
at least as good (and not likely as hepatotoxic).  And they surely
didn't compare Celebrex to [Relafen-or-Voltarin plus
Previcid-or-Prilosec.]  Which you can just about do at the prices they
charge for Celebrex.   You can certainly add OTC Zantac to nabumetone
or etodolac for the price they charge for the COX-2 inhibitors.  So why

no comparison studies?

  Blast the FDA, anyway.  The schmucks.  We have data that proton pump

inhibitors (PPI) are better at protecting stomachs than misoprostol (in

both efficacy and side effect), but here we have a combination
"Arthrotec" and no combination NSAID/PPI.  We have no OTC PPI, and no
good reason for *that* fact (the esophageal/gastric cancer risk has
turned out to be a confounder).  Nor do we have Relafen OTC.  So people

die of GI bleeds from OTC Aleve or Motrin at the rate of thousands a
year while your wise and watchful FDA dithers about a few cases of some

godawful rare and not very dangerous thing like-- pseudoporphria, or
something.  ARGGHH.

=======================================

COMMENT:

Now, you post YOUR old sniffings.
 
SBH

Gee, Mr. Science, you obviously haven't been paying attention to
what's happened to Mercedes reliability over the last few years.
And while Chrysler has been improving, so are American cars overall.

By the way, "ever" is a long time.  And not all Toyotas are super-
reliable.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns."
                                       -- Steve Martin

COMMENT:

A fair objection, but it's also fair to point out that that was a very
unusual case. For B12 used in mega-mega doses (2000 times DRI, perhaps
the highest megadose ratio used for any vitamin, with the possible
exception of C), the mass action diffusion effects are odd, and are
contrary to about 40 years of medical teaching (that B12 is not
absorbed orally in pernicious anemia), so doctors have generally
refused to believe them. So people have kept doing confirmatory
studies-- a case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary
amounts of evidence.  That's the way science is supposed to work,
actually.  I only complained because I personally was convinced a long
time ago, after about the third study.

How many studies are enough to convince people who don't want to be
convinced, is a good question. There are nuts who still think calcium
isn't well-absorbed from cow milk, when of course it is. What do YOU
suggest we do with them? And there are another set of nuts on the other
side who reasonably accept that it's absorbed well, and think that's a
big deal for teenagers when it comes to osteoporosis prevention in
later life--- when many studies show it's not. What do we do with THEM?

SBH