 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004Reverse coronary calcium deposits?
A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? Magnesium. > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to > slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to > slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? Yes, but its unpopular to mention the approach on the NG, although manditory in German as a first resort prior to permitting stints in most cases. You will have to do your own research...I have benefited to levels that I am back motorcycle racing (dirt ovals in competition) at age 63... its not a secret at all ....AMA doctors associated with preventive medicine groups nationally deliver the service..it takes a few months. costs total under $5,000 or so... search googles web tab for 'calcium, arteries, removal' Stanford University has done two studies, one in 1945 with two treatments (30 are required for lasting benefits) saying it didnt work...and a study completed in the mid 90's saying the approach routinely reversed coronary artery occlusions (not 100% though). and like all of medicine... the flake contingent is present..as with the new anti cholesterol drugs now revealed to do more harm than good iin most cases, with bogus testing. One must do his own extensive research. Phil Scott Wow! You are so scared of the medical police you can't even say the name? > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his > levels are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Phil Scott > Wow! You are so scared of the medical police you can't even say the name? its not a name..but a generic strategy... I just dont like getting hosed endlessly by vicious idiots when I mention specifics other than some drug companies specific product. I give enough information though that a person can do thier own research and arrive at a wide range of studies and options... my advice is irrelevant regardless.. no one knows who I am..in the end a person should do thier own research. Phil Scott > > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his > > levels are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > Phil Scott The intimidation is working huh? > > Wow! You are so scared of the medical police you can't even > say the name? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > > > > > Phil Scott > The intimidation is working huh? Nah...its just a total aversion to the combination of morons and clones sent in by the pharms to trash anyone mentioning the possibility of options beyond the current eye wateringly advanced state of moderrrrn mediciiiin. and..... I found out after 15 years posting the NG's that unless a person does thier own research and learns to think for themselves they dont have a chance anyway... .....and what I type up does *not constitute their research its just my view. So I spare myself the grief of coping with such mind boggling logic as these present. Life is ever more so peaceful.... and I get revenge on idiots that way.... they get to die young and painfully at the hands of thier chosen perfectly well informed and competent hired proffffessional.. Not such a bad set of options. I had come also to the conclusion that to intefere with the Darwian selection process was a crime against nature ...and also prevents these people from a chance to win or at least place in the Awards. I gave good search terms though... any of those will lead to the leading edge options one has and the body of data that either exposes it as bogus or legitimate especially if ancilliary key words found in those pieces are searched. Phil Scott > > > Wow! You are so scared of the medical police you can't even > > say the name? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > > > > > > > Phil Scott Chelation "therapy" can be found detailed in this lengthy article: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html Pay no attention to the garbage posting. There is nothing that works when the Quacks watch > Chelation "therapy" can be found detailed in this lengthy article: > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html I hear you, and although the long way around, may be the best. > > The intimidation is working huh? > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > > > > > > > > > Phil Scott > Nah...its just a total aversion to the combination of >morons and clones sent in by the pharms to trash anyone >mentioning the possibility of options beyond the current eye >wateringly advanced state of moderrrrn mediciiiin. Not so, IME. I have posted often about my success in using pantethine (I already low carbed) to lower my cholesterol dramatically, 70 points off my LDL in three months. Over all, diet and pantethine have lowered my cholesterol (and TGLs) from the highest risk to below average for CVD. My TC is 100 points below its onetime high. I have also posted abstracts such as these, following, that are in line with the benefits I've experienced. I've never been bugged nor harassed for providing cites and my story. 1: Minerva Med. 1990 Jun;81(6):475-9. Related Articles, Links [Evaluation of the cholesterol-lowering effectiveness of pantethine in women in perimenopausal age] [Article in Italian] Binaghi P, Cellina G, Lo Cicero G, Bruschi F, Porcaro E, Penotti M. Servizio di Cardiologia, Istitut Clinici di Perfezionamento, Milano. Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death also in women. Their incidence, rapidly growing in the peri-menopausal period, is related to serum levels of total cholesterol and its LDL fraction. It was also shown that the peroxidation of LDL is an additional factor in the genesis of atherosclerotic vascular disease. As long-term treatments with synthetic lipid-lowering drugs may cause undesirable side effects, while pantethine is known to be well tolerated, we treated 24 hypercholesterolemic women (total serum cholesterol greater than or equal to 240 mg/dl), in perimenopausal age (range: 45-55 years, mean +/- SD = 51.6 +/- 2.4) with 900 mg/day of pantethine. This is a precursor of coenzyme A, with an antiperoxidation effect in vivo, and our aim was to confirm its lipid lowering activity in this particular type of patients. After 16 weeks of treatment, significant reductions of total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and LDL-C/HDL-C ratio could be observed. No remarkable changes of the main laboratory parameters (fasting blood sugar, B.U.N., creatinine, uric acid) were seen. Efficacy percentages of the treatment were about 80%. None of the patients complained of adverse reactions due to the treatment with pantethine. In conclusion, we suggest that pantethine should be considered in the long-term treatment of lipid derangements occurring in the perimenopausal age. PMID: 2359503 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 1: Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense. 1984;55(1):25-42. Related Articles, Links [Hyperlipidemia, diabetes and atherosclerosis: efficacy of treatment with pantethine] [Article in Italian] Arsenio L, Caronna S, Lateana M, Magnati G, Strata A, Zammarchi G. The hypolipidemizing effects of Pantethine were investigated by the Authors in 37 hypercholesterolemic and/or hypertriglyceridemic patients. Of these, 21 were also diabetic, in a satisfying glucidic compensation, in order to verify the action of this drug also in this metabolic condition. The study was carried out for three months and during this period the patients were given Pantethine at the dose of 600 mg/die orally. At the 30th, the 60th, the 90th day of treatment the following parameters were controlled: cholesterolemia, HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins A and B, triglyceridemia, systolic and diastolic arterial pressure, uricemia, body weight. Thirty days after suspending the treatment, the parameters were controlled again to detect a possible "rebound" effect. The results were analyzed on the whole case-record, subdividing the patients in dislipidemic and diabetic-dislipidemic, and on the basis of the Fredrickson's classification. Pantethine induced in all groups a quick and progressive decrease of cholesterolemia, triglyceridemia, LDL cholesterol and Apolipoproteins B with increased HDL cholesterol and Apolipoproteins A. After suspending the treatment, there is a clear inversion of the state of these parameters. The Authors conclude that the present work shows that Pantethine, a natural and atoxic substance, an important component of Coenzyme A, is efficacious in determining a clear tendency towards normalization of the lipidic values. PMID: 6232801 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 1: Atherosclerosis. 1984 Jan;50(1):73-83. Related Articles, Links Controlled evaluation of pantethine, a natural hypolipidemic compound, in patients with different forms of hyperlipoproteinemia. Gaddi A, Descovich GC, Noseda G, Fragiacomo C, Colombo L, Craveri A, Montanari G, Sirtori CR. Pantethine (P), the stable disulphate form of pantetheine, major component and precursor of coenzyme A, was evaluated within a double-blind protocol (8 weeks for P or for a corresponding placebo) in 29 patients, 11 with type IIB hyperlipoproteinemia, 15 with type IV, and 3 with an isolated reduction of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. In type IIB patients, P (300 mg t.i.d.) determined a highly significant lowering of plasma total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) associated cholesterol (-13.5% for both parameters). In the same patients, HDL-C levels increased about 10% at the end of treatment. Switching from P to placebo was associated with a rapid return to the baseline cholesterolemia. Both in type IIB and type IV patients, plasma triglyceride levels were reduced around 30%, when P was given as the first treatment; when it was preceded by placebo, reductions were less striking (respectively, -17.8% for type IIB and -13.0% for type IV, at the end of P treatment). HDL-C levels were not increased by P, either in type IV, and in the patients with low HDL cholesterolemia. In type IV, LDL cholesterol levels showed a variable response to P: they tended to increase when below 132 mg/dl, prior to treatment, and to be reduced when above this level. This study provides evidence for a significant hypocholesterolemic effect of P, a natural compound free of overt side effects. It also indicates that P may raise HDL-C levels in type IIB patients, while moderately reducing triglyceridemia. Publication Types: · Clinical Trial · Controlled Clinical Trial PMID: 6365107 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 1: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1986 Nov;24(11):630-7. Related Articles, Links Lipoprotein changes induced by pantethine in hyperlipoproteinemic patients: adults and children. Bertolini S, Donati C, Elicio N, Daga A, Cuzzolaro S, Marcenaro A, Saturnino M, Balestreri R. Following a brief outline of current knowledge concerning atherosclerosis and its treatment, the authors describe the results obtained by treating with pantethine (900-1200 mg daily for 3 to 6 months) a series of 7 children and 65 adults suffering from hypercholesterolemia alone or associated with hypertriglyceridemia (types IIa and IIb of Fredrickson's classification). Pantethine treatment produced significant reduction of the better known risk factors (total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and apo-B) and a significant increase of HDL-cholesterol (signally HDL2) and apolipoprotein A-I. The authors conclude with a discussion of these results and of the possible role of pantethine in the treatment of hyperlipoproteinemia, in view of its perfect tolerability and demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness. PMID: 3098691 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] : Atherosclerosis. 1984 Dec;53(3):255-64. Related Articles, Links Pantethine reduces plasma cholesterol and the severity of arterial lesions in experimental hypercholesterolemic rabbits. Carrara P, Matturri L, Galbussera M, Lovati MR, Franceschini G, Sirtori CR. Pantethine (P), a coenzyme A precursor, was administered to cholesterol-fed rabbits (0.5% cholesterol diet + 1% pantethine) for 90 days. At the end of treatment, plasma total cholesterol levels were reduced 64.7% and the HDL/total cholesterol ratio increased in P-treated animals; a significant rise of the apo A-I/A-II ratio was detected in HDL. VLDL lipid and protein levels were, on the other hand, reduced by P. The cholesterol-ester content of both liver and aortic tissues was not significantly affected by P. Although the total aortic area with evident plaques was reduced only 18.2%, the microscopical examination of sections from the major vessels of P-treated animals, showed a reduction in the severity of lesions, both in the aorta and in the coronary arteries. These findings suggest that P, in addition to significantly lowering plasma cholesterol levels in rabbits on an experimental diet, may modify lipid deposition in major arteries, possibly by affecting lipoprotein composition and/or exerting an arterial protective effect. PMID: 6442152 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Clin Ther. 1986;8(5):537-45. Related Articles, Links Effectiveness of long-term treatment with pantethine in patients with dyslipidemia. Arsenio L, Bodria P, Magnati G, Strata A, Trovato R. A one-year clinical trial with pantethine was conducted in 24 patients with established dyslipidemia of Fredrickson's types II A, II B, and IV, alone or associated with diabetes mellitus. The treatment was well tolerated by all patients with no subjective complaints or detectable side effects. Blood lipid assays repeated after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of treatment revealed consistent and statistically significant reductions of all atherogenic lipid fractions (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B) with parallel increases of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A. The results were equally good in patients with uncomplicated dyslipidemia and in those with associated diabetes mellitus. The authors conclude that pantethine (a drug entity related to the natural compound, pantetheine) represents a valid therapeutic support for patients with dyslipidemia not amenable to satisfactory correction of blood lipids by diet alone. PMID: 3094958 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense. 1987;58(5-6):143-52. Related Articles, Links [Clinical use of pantethine by parenteral route in the treatment of hyperlipidemia] [Article in Italian] Arsenio L, Bodria P, Bossi S, Lateana M, Strata A. Servizio di Malattie del Ricambio e Diabetologia, Ospedali Riuniti, Parma. Recent investigations have confirmed the effectiveness and the excellent tolerability of pantethine, a derivative of pantetheine, an essential part of the acetylation coenzyme CoA, administered P.O., in normalizing the blood lipid concentrations of patients with hyperlipidemias. A group of 18 patients with hyperlipidemias (9 M, 9 F), with an average age of 52.6 years, was submitted to pantethine parenteral treatment. After a 20 days wash-out, pantethine (400 mg/day; BID) was administered intramuscularly, for 20 days. Total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, apo A-1 and B lipoprotein, uric acid in serum, glycemia, CBC, B.U.N., creatininemia, E.S.R., SGOT, SGPT, bilirubinemia, cardiac frequency, blood pressure and body weight were controlled before and after treatment. The drug showed to have a therapeutic effectiveness by a rapid and significant improvement in the blood lipid pattern with reduction of total cholesterol, triglycerides and apo-B lipoprotein and increase of HDL-cholesterol and apo A-1 lipoprotein. The tolerability of pantethine at the stated dosage and mode of administration was invariably excellent, with non complaints or visible side effects imputable to the test drug. BUN, creatininemia, glycemia, SGOT, SGPT, bilirubinemia, E.S.R., CBC, cardiac frequency and blood pressure readings showed no noteworthy changes throughout the study. PMID: 2970754 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I've never been bugged nor harassed for providing cites and my story. I think we can all agree that medicines are the last resort after everything else has been tried. After that then you use the meds with the least amount of side effects. If all else fails then you use the newer meds with an unkown safety record. That is the reason why no one would or should harass you on that. When people make blanket statements then they provide no useful information and they need to be called on the carpet for it. > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his > levels are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Phil Scott Sounds like intravenous EDTA therapy. I know of several case where that technology has worked wonders. \> > Sounds like intravenous EDTA therapy. > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to > slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? Well lets see. Going by mainstream medical logic. The same that developed the lipid hypothesis/cholesterol theory I would have to say he should stop consuming calcium. Yes that is the way to go I think. Completely avoid consuming any calcium in his diet. > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > he should stop consuming calcium. Yes that is the way to go I think. > Completely avoid consuming any calcium in his diet. now there you have it... flawless medical logic...you will get no hose job for that. Phil Scott > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > he should stop consuming calcium. Yes that is the way to go I think. > Completely avoid consuming any calcium in his diet. Actually we will need to give him a drug that *removes* all the calcium from his body. And as an additional side effect, also removes all potassium and magnesium. That would do the trick, as we can be sure he won't die from arterial disease. :-) Alan > > "Bob Prichard" <bprichard@somaxsports.com> wrote in message > news:<Hngcd.259333$D%.115818@attbi_s51>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Alan The point being we all know the final event to a heart attack is the formation of a blood clot and blood clots are normal reactive process. People confuse a normal reactive process with pathological consequences as evidence that the reactive process can not be involved at all as in the cholesterol myth. The argument is that since calcium is essential it can not be involved in any pathological process which is totally stupid. They have no concept of the meaning of pathophysiology which is normal physiology gone wrong. Advanced coronary and carotid arteriopathy in young adults with childhood-onset chronic renal failure. Oh J, Wunsch R, Turzer M, Bahner M, Raggi P, Querfeld U, Mehls O, Schaefer F. Division of Pediatric Nephrology, University Children's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular mortality is excessive in young adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The factors contributing to ESRD-related vascular disease are incompletely understood. Young adults with childhood-onset chronic renal failure (CRF) are uniquely suited for risk factor assessment because of their long-term exposure at an age when vascular pathology in the general population is still minimal. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used novel noninvasive technologies to screen for coronary and carotid artery disease in 39 patients with ESRD aged 19 to 39 years with childhood-onset CRF presently treated by dialysis or renal transplantation. Coronary artery calcification burden was assessed by CT scan with ECG gating and the intima-media thickness (IMT) of the carotid arteries by high-resolution ultrasound. Coronary artery calcifications were present in 92% of patients; calcium scores exceeded the 95th age- and sex-specific percentiles >10-fold on average. Carotid IMT was significantly increased compared with matched control subjects. Both coronary calcium scores and IMT were associated with cumulative dialysis and ESRD time and the cumulative serum calcium-phosphate product. Coronary calcium scores were strongly correlated with C-reactive protein and Chlamydia pneumoniae seropositivity, time-averaged mean serum parathyroid hormone, and plasma homocysteine. C-reactive protein and parathyroid hormone independently predicted coronary calcium accumulation. Smoking, obesity, and HbA1c were correlated with IMT in the control subjects but not in the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with childhood-onset CRF have a high prevalence of arteriopathy associated with indicators of microinflammation, hyperparathyroidism, calcium-phosphate overload, and hyperhomocysteinemia but not traditional atherogenic risk factors. These risk factors persist even after successful renal transplantation. PMID: 12093777 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > "Bob Prichard" <bprichard@somaxsports.com> wrote in message > news:<Hngcd.259333$D%.115818@attbi_s51>... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and magnesium. That would do the trick, as we can be sure he won't > die from arterial disease. :-) that approach exists, it reverses the calcification of the arteries very successfully and with wonderful results... however it kills the person unless at the same time this procedure is being done to remove calcium from the ateries it is replaced back into the blood stream,,,and yes over the next 10 years it will plate out in the arteries again if you dont keep it removed... the combination works very well. ymmv. or you can visit your cardiologist just before he dies of corronary arter disease (the 70%+ leading cause of death) and ask him for any final secrets he has, him being a doctor and all. Phil Scott > Alan >A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are >three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to >slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? He could try cutting processed foods and vegetable oil out of his diet and eating more meat and animal fats instead. If you look at the epidemiology of heart disease, it was a rare condition when people ate a lot of meat and animal fats. Then, certain deluded but highly persuasive vegetarians such as Dr Kellogg duped people into thinking that vegetarian foods were healthier than meat-based ones. People started to eat cereals instead of meat, to use vegetable oils instead of animal fat for cooking, and margarine (hydrogenated vegetable oil) instead of butter. The epidemic of heart disease closely parallels this change in diet. Our digestive system is adapted for a carnivorous diet, cereals and vegetable oils are not our natural food and it shouldn't be surprising that consuming them in large amounts causes health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Although I think I agree with your last statement(s) you may want to watch your punctuation closer. The stement appears to disagree with itself. Try this: Our digestive system is adapted for a carnivorous diet. *** Cereals and vegetable oils are not our natural food and it shouldn't be surprising that consuming them in large amounts causes health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. > Our digestive system is adapted for a carnivorous diet, cereals and > vegetable oils are not our natural food and it shouldn't be surprising > that consuming them in large amounts causes health problems such as > obesity, heart disease and diabetes. > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to > slow down or reverse the calcium deposits in his arteries? If he gets his HDL/total-cholesterol high enough, the deposits may very gradually reverse. Not a magic bullet. The same advice he doesn't want to hear: diet, weight loss and exercise. There was a thread in sci.med.cardiology within the last couple months. It talked about a study where researchers had given infusions of HDL intraveneously - something like 3x/week for 6 weeks. They got rather dramatic removals of ateriosclerotic plaques. But that's research, not an available therapy. BTW, does anybody have a cite for that HDL infusion study? I googled for it but couldn't find. Other folks on this thread are steering you towards calcium chelation with EDTA. I haven't entirely made up my mind about this therapy - I've heard some pretty glowing testimonials from people I know. But be sure and read both sides. A site skeptical of EDTA claims: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html While we're on the subject, how much radiation is involved in a coronary calcium scan? (after I'd had my stress test I found out it was equivalent to having smoked about 1200 cigarettes.) I'm going to ask my doc for an ankle/brachial blood-pressure test. Are there any other good tests with lower radiation exposure that can estimate the magnitude of arterial blockage? Adam Becker > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I've heard some pretty glowing testimonials from people I know. But > be sure and read both sides. A site skeptical of EDTA claims: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html I have not mentioned chelation.. I read the above link... the 'study' is of a *2 month* (gasp whata run) trial, with *only15 out of 38 showing significant improvement. Amazing. Just stunning. Why its easily seen that chelation is virtually FATAL! In FACT, over a dozen of those in the study were found to have DIED later... one lasting only another 27 years...then DEAD as he was struck down in mid life at 107. Thank God for such research. Many more lives could be lost otherwise. Next they need to expose that UTTER FRAUD Dr Linus Pauling! Did you see that he even fooled the Nobel prize award committee TWICE, alone with no other contributors...almost a first in history.... with his vitamin C based BOGUS heart technology ... he DIED too. It goes to show you. Another idiot dead at his own hand for not trusting his doctor. Modern medicine thank GOD for such wonderful research as the above listed report has gone on to CURE heart disease in America.... see what the QUACKS have to say to THAT. Cured I tell you. Coronary artery disease is a thing of the past thanks to moderrrn Mediciniiin. Go with you doctor...DO NOT READ ANY OF THAT QUACK STUFF. The superb quality research link above did not go into how painful such a death must be out of fairness and objectivity I am sure. Death is just death, by chelation its death and the article was just reporting, those deaths by CHELATION and NOT mentioning the searing pain and sadness and loved ones who's lives were UTTERLY ruined by these CHELATION FRAUDS, none of that was mentioned in the article so we know how fair and unbiased it was....why they even tested the protocol over a *2 month span. what a buncha guys. A process that usually takes a year or two to reach full efficacy is tested at 2 months and the report issued demonstrating how it falls so worthlessly short. NOW thats what I can *real research. And balanced too. Just think how many lives will be saved by steering people away from chelation and to the absolutely long lasting and STUNNING improvement by use of stints, and bypass surgery...now thats efficacy (and do not go looking up the related brain degradation issues)... why.... stints in some cases have been shown to provide lasting benefits for YEARS... There is something magical about stints. A stint in just one cogged portion of the artery CURES and cleans up the rest of the system!! And unlike CHELATION the patients live forever after stints have been placed...they do NOT DIE eventually as with so many of the chelation subjects even after just a 2 month run. One gasps to think what might have happened to these poor unfortunates if had been given a full course of treatments...probably all would have died by the end. Thank God for Quack watch. Why without Quack Watch no one one would we watching the Quacks. Absolute magic... I was impressed also by previous AMA funded studies that proved that H Pylori did *NOT cause ulcers... and that the swedish nut case doctor who inplimented the therapy for two decades was actually just halucinating his results all over Europe... a case of an entire continent going NUTZ. Unfortunately now the AMA (29 years later) is recommending the anti biotic/Acid pump blocker therapy...and americans are starting to halucinate cures instead of dying with the problem. I think we should get Quack watch to look into that....these bullshit treatments MUST be stopped even if the AMA is fooled. Damn...I hate to see our own AMA go south like that... 20 years of AMA study had already proven that antibiotics didnt help ulcers...well actually they had not tested it...any idiot could see that it couldnt be a bacteria there was no need for actual testing. We had the same with our wonderful new cholesterol lowering drugs... any FOOL could see that its bad.. . THANK GOD FOR THE AMA... One is left stunned by the scope, range and pure...well well..pure rationality of such a wonderful set of studys... and there are more. It has been modern pharmacy that has brought health to the first world... all major diseases are now on the decline, heart, arthritis, diabetes especially. Yours in humble gratitude, Phil Scott, age 63, maybe the worlds oldest flat tracker (it was a fluke) > While we're on the subject, how much radiation is involved in a > coronary calcium scan? (after I'd had my stress test I found out it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Adam Becker >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. > >>bla, bla, bla > >>bla, bla, bla > >>bla, bla, bla > > Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. Phil is pure crap at it's best. He likes to tap into the mainstream medical incompetence speech to generate some kind of validation for his opinions based on nothing but philosophy. There is nothing there folks. Do your research on him for yourself and you will find nothing there. "http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html I have not mentioned chelation.. I read the above link... the 'study' is of a *2 month* (gasp whata run) trial, with *only15 out of 38 showing significant improvement. Amazing. Just stunning. Why its easily seen that chelation is virtually FATAL! In FACT, over a dozen of those in the study were found to have DIED later... one lasting only another 27 years...then DEAD as he was struck down in mid life at 107." I see you read only the very beginning of the article. If the above is sarcasim, fine, if it is intended as your understanding of the results then you flop. The test you mention was the first reported, the authors of the article document many others that followed the above, no clear evidence yet. You also mention pauling, at the beginning of this thread a link to the pauling institute was provided, they say his mega vit c approach has no demonstrated evidence of helping heart disease. It pays to pay attention. > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I've heard some pretty glowing testimonials from people I know. But > be sure and read both sides. A site skeptical of EDTA claims: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html > While we're on the subject, how much radiation is involved in a > coronary calcium scan? (after I'd had my stress test I found out it > was equivalent to having smoked about 1200 cigarettes.) I'm going to > ask my doc for an ankle/brachial blood-pressure test. Are there any > other good tests with lower radiation exposure that can estimate the > magnitude of arterial blockage? yer local preventive medicine specialist, is well aware of the options. > Adam Becker "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a ?crit dans le message de news:41Scd.32034$QJ3.29848@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. > > A client recently had a coronary calcium scan, and found his levels are > > three times what they were four years ago. Is there anything he can do to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I've heard some pretty glowing testimonials from people I know. But > be sure and read both sides. A site skeptical of EDTA claims: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html You might find this interesting, first posted to this NG by 'zee' The Bullshit Parade... (its all about Quacks, fraud and etc) Enjoy From www.nofreelunch.org/comments For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck Pfizer benefits. Zee Subject: You missed the biggest problem Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600 From: <gorby@wt.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places, but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about the product. Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit parade were big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take. The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical test might be tried. If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a "consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory board". This can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income per year for very little actual work. Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad results and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying up of public funds for research in the past two decades, academic institutions have had to rely more and more on private funding. When I graduated medical school in 1979 medical journals did not require financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a sad reflection of the influence of commercial research funding, and the closest anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious problem. When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a sales pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are usually taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores (after all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the articles - they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they have published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years to undo. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Nice hu? Phil Scott > While we're on the subject, how much radiation is involved in a > coronary calcium scan? (after I'd had my stress test I found out it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Adam Becker "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a ?crit dans le message de news:41Scd.32034$QJ3.29848@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. > "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a ?crit dans le message de > news:41Scd.32034$QJ3.29848@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. Do your own research is my point. Search the key words of your interest subject on google and/ or many other references. Use the 'web' tab, not the groups tab... the web tab gets to to the university level research.......screen out the sales and hype, and quackery related material, including of course anything from a drug company, thats all vested interests and there are literally *trillions of dollars at stake... so those are really well vested most usually in thier own product, or conn...... and read instead the university research from around the world. Then you will have the understanding and developed insight to see past the wide range of health care scams, quacks and conn jobs. So thats my point. thats about all Ive ever said lately except to congratulate a few various Darwin Awards contestants and others on a job well done. My very very best to all, each person in his or her own way helps the advance of humanity...and all such are appreciated. Especially those going for it all... the Darwin. Phil Scott Hiiiiiiii Phil. ROFL. Zee > > "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a écrit dans le > message de [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Phil Scott Another nut case that uses Zee references. Great. > > "Bob Prichard" <bprichard@somaxsports.com> wrote in > sci.med.nutrition [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > > > > Adam Becker > Another nut case that uses Zee references. Great. There you go...any single article posted is attacked by Darwin Award contestants... very well done. That is the very crux of what it take to win! Fine examples all. I wish you well on your journey and at the least runner up positions or honorable mention in the awards. One must do his own research. Research and the ability to conduct it effectively and evealuate other research, is both a screening process for the Awards, and a necessary base to comprehending the issues of Life itself.. Best Regards, and again GOOD GOING! Without YOU genetic advance, indeed, even human evolution would be utterly stymied. Very Best Regards, Phil Scott > > > "Bob Prichard" <bprichard@somaxsports.com> wrote in > > sci.med.nutrition [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > be sure and read both sides. A site skeptical of EDTA > > claims: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html > > You might find this interesting, first posted to this NG by > > 'zee' [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > > > > > Adam Becker Do me a favor Phil and do a search on the net for "Crap" and you will find plenty of it. Your posts included. Now I am too smart to do it for you because I know all the answers and you will just have to find them for yourself. That makes me infallible as you must find your own answers. Phil, I guess you don't believe in the Zen philosophy that "the harder you look the more difficult it will be to be found." You need to empty your brain before it can be filled. The answer should come to everyone without effort otherwise it is not true. Deceit takes a lot of hard work and it takes the form of a lie being told over and over in order for people to believe it. Go back to your hours of research in the net and you get hours of crap because you already have a preconceived notion of what you are looking for. > Do me a favor Phil and do a search on the net for "Crap" and you will find > plenty of it. Your posts included. Now I am too smart to do it for you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Go back to your hours of research in the net and you get hours of crap > because you already have a preconceived notion of what you are looking for. ahhh I see that you have entered the Essay category of the Awards. Well done. And not a bad start. I was unclear on a few of your points however,. could you please go over some of these to clarify?. Possibly you can tell me how *my very limited research, and conclusions, a single viewpoint of the many thousands in the world, would constitute any valid source of information for anyone. I can't see that. to me it seems that I would simply be an undocumented source of an unverified opinion. Thats pretty thin. Only and idiot would accept that as worth more than mouse pee. Not someones data point.... at least that I can see. To me, these data points are founded across a very broad spectrum and the only way to get that spread is to go to the sources of this research and read up.... Is there something you see wrong with a person doing thier own research? Mabye I missed something. What I think though is that you are a SERIOUS Awards candidate and it would be grossly inappropriate of me to interfere with you while you are 'in contest' so to speak. Regardless. I salute you. Phil Scott (gives a salute.. of sorts) > > Do me a favor Phil and do a search on the net for "Crap" and > you will find [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > single viewpoint of the many thousands in the world, would > constitute any valid source of information for anyone. That is my whole point as I never said you were a valid source of information for anyone but only crap. You are full of anti-mainstream medical practice that you are and will always be useless. No one in their right mind would or can follow any of your sensless suggestions. > I can't see that. to me it seems that I would simply be an > undocumented source of an unverified opinion. Thats pretty > thin. Only and idiot would accept that as worth more than > mouse pee. Not someones data point.... at least that I can > see. Oh you give plenty of opionion all right and plenty of undocumented sources. "and like all of medicine... the flake contingent is present..as with the new anti cholesterol drugs now revealed to do more harm than good iin most cases, with bogus testing." Stanford University has done two studies, one in 1945 with two treatments (30 are required for lasting benefits) saying it didnt work...and a study completed in the mid 90's saying the approach routinely reversed coronary artery occlusions (not 100% though)." "Nah...its just a total aversion to the combination of morons and clones sent in by the pharms to trash anyone mentioning the possibility of options beyond the current eye wateringly advanced state of moderrrrn mediciiiin. and..... I found out after 15 years posting the NG's that unless a person does thier own research and learns to think for themselves they dont have a chance anyway..." "Modern medicine thank GOD for such wonderful research as the above listed report has gone on to CURE heart disease in America.... see what the QUACKS have to say to THAT. Cured I tell you. Coronary artery disease is a thing of the past thanks to moderrrn Mediciniiin. "Go with you doctor...DO NOT READ ANY OF THAT QUACK STUFF." Let me conclude in saying that you are a lunatic. > To me, these data points are founded across a very broad > spectrum and the only way to get that spread is to go to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Phil Scott > (gives a salute.. of sorts) "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > You are full of anti-mainstream medical practice that you are and will > always be useless. No one in their right mind would or can follow any of > your sensless suggestions. NICE Revearsal Robert! Very good. Spinning advice to simply "look up and read the university research" into 'anti- mainstream medical practice'.... wow. Thats exciting. Maybe you can clarify...Im still fuzzy. Who is harmed by doing research or studying the latest advances around the world? Ah...NOW I see Robert. Somebody MUST be harmed when 50 million people world wide switch from one drug to another...... or just quit taking a drug...///such has has been the case severely flawed anti cholesterol drugs.. Lemme see, at $160 a month and 50 million people... why ROBERT!. Thats almost 8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH at stake...and at over 90% gross profit, well over 7 BILLION A MONTH. I understand now Robert! For 7 billion plus a month gross or 85 billion dolleeeers a year...man on man... I would hire an absolute army of people with no brains, ethcis or conscience to flood these newsgroups trashing any HINT that there could be problems in the nations need for so many drugs... Thanks! I got it now... hell, Id even start with operations in the colleges. Because its not just one drug, its a WIDE range of drugs... and in the US those are selling at 300 ro 400% MORE than in say Mexico for instance in most cases...so we know from that the gross profit is way up there...90% or more. The nations drug bill approaches a TRILLION dollars a year! Now with kind of money at stake we don't need no *steeenking research*... no sireeee Robert. NO RESEARCH IS NEEDED BY THE PUBLIC. Thanks for getting me to think about it in more depth. You know Robert this research thingie is spreading I think....did you see all the recent expose on the issue...spread ALL OVER the mainstream press. Keep up the good work though Robert, I understand fully your position and need to remain employed. Once again Robert... Salute' Phil Scott > Oh you give plenty of opionion all right and plenty of undocumented sources. Can you give an example? Is this a good example Robert... 'The Bullshit Parade'... Lemme know what you think. Here it is again. . From www.nofreelunch.org/comments For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck Pfizer benefits. Zee Subject: You missed the biggest problem Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600 From: <gorby@wt.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places, but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about the product. Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit parade were big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take. The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical test might be tried. If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a "consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory board". This can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income per year for very little actual work. Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad results and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying up of public funds for research in the past two decades, academic institutions have had to rely more and more on private funding. When I graduated medical school in 1979 medical journals did not require financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a sad reflection of the influence of commercial research funding, and the closest anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious problem. When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a sales pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are usually taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores (after all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the articles - they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they have published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years to undo. -------------------------------------------------------------- Nice hu Robert? > "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > doing research or studying the latest advances around the > world? You mean the latest research advances around the world most of which are sponsored by drug companies don't you? Oh, I see only the research you feel is anti-drug is valid. You are real fair and balanced, yes indeed. > Ah...NOW I see Robert. Somebody MUST be harmed when 50 > million people world wide switch from one drug to > another...... or just quit taking a drug...///such has has > been the case severely flawed anti cholesterol drugs.. What is flawed? You have more people than ever taking anti-cholesterol meds to the point where they are showing up in the water supply. Don't you believe your sweetheart ZEE? You read somebodies propaganda and you think it is reality. Scoreboard? Cholesterol takers in the millions and paranoid schizophrenics are in the hundreds. People stop taking the drug because it has side effects and not because of your bullshit logic. > Lemme see, at $160 a month and 50 million people... why > ROBERT!. Thats almost 8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH at stake...and > at over 90% gross profit, well over 7 BILLION A MONTH. Your point is that life should be cheap and people who can not afford the drug should not take them then I agree. I think they should charge $1000 a month for the drugs. That has no bearing on whether they work or not. Supply and demand pricing has nothing to do with the science in which the use is based on. It is totally empirical. If 4 billion people die from muscle damage renal failure then that proves that they are bad and they will be withdrawn and if they are not so good at preventing CAD then the price will go down or they will find something else. > I understand now Robert! For 7 billion plus a month gross > or 85 billion dolleeeers a year...man on man... I would hire > an absolute army of people with no brains, ethcis or > conscience to flood these newsgroups trashing any HINT that > there could be problems in the nations need for so many > drugs... Whose trashing? You haven't mentioned your secret formula used in curing CAD that you have mentioned before. I don't want to take meds forever so let me know what that miracle treatment is? Oh, I forgot I have to seek and I shall find bullshit again, right? > Thanks! I got it now... hell, Id even start with > operations in the colleges. Because its not just one drug, > its a WIDE range of drugs... and in the US those are selling > at 300 ro 400% MORE than in say Mexico for instance in most > cases...so we know from that the gross profit is way up > there...90% or more. There you go again with that money bullshit again. Your miracle treatment costs in the thousands. Surgeons push for surgery and internists push for meds and OB's push out babies idiot. You really don't know anything about medicine dude or about the medical specialties and competition. > The nations drug bill approaches a TRILLION dollars a year! > Now with kind of money at stake we don't need no *steeenking > research*... no sireeee Robert. NO RESEARCH IS NEEDED BY THE > PUBLIC. Research, again most of the research is sponsored by the pharm companies and you use those reports as toilet paper so stop whinning about research. Your side does not produce any research and it is only opinion and conspiracy about money interests. > Thanks for getting me to think about it in more depth. You > know Robert this research thingie is spreading I think....did > you see all the recent expose on the issue...spread ALL OVER > the mainstream press. I see now so the mainstream press is your "research" on medical issues. Do you do your research on the throne each morning? > Keep up the good work though Robert, I understand fully > your position and need to remain employed. > > Once again Robert... Salute' LOL, another Canadian "salute". When is Montreal leaving Canada and joining France? > Phil Scott > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can you give an example? Is this a good example Robert... > 'The Bullshit Parade'... Here's a better example for your with indepth discussion on the subject matter http://www.pinds.com/photo-album/photo?photo_id=7212 > Lemme know what you think. Here it is again. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > school. This > operates at several levels. He wants to pass a law against private research or what? Whats the point in making such a self serving statement? Childish attitudes from a doctor who did not get research grants for what he wanted to research. You publish or you perish and anybody who works in universities knows that idiot. > First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like > catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with > that What a revelation and know let me tell you another little secret that Harvard grads from law school make millions. MIT grads make millions too and I wonder how long that has been going on. Maybe like FOREVER. It's like being a doctor and then finding out that you do not like the sight of blood. No, let me correct him in that universities look for professors who are good teachers. LOL, Enstein was a very good teacher, NOT. > power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time > actually > having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in > academics > it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). What a moron. I know a doctor who gave up being a primary clinician and became a radiologist simply because he did not want called at every hour of the day and night, not to mention the high divorce rate. > Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily > from > grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other > toys that may > find their way home. They should have asked him if he would want to make what a canadian doctor makes and then you would really see him change his story. > Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at > fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on > the take. Most world authorities are private consultants who are asked for input from a large variety of sources including governmental agencies. Sour grapes there by that doctor who evidently didn't get any. He does not have a big reputation. All doctors use drugs so I don't know of any drug that doctors would not use in his practice unless he does not use drugs at all. > The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings > are > the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. What do the attendees get out of it then? Idiotic statements like that have no meaning. The primary speaker is paid and yes is wined and dined. Whoh! what a revelation. I thought and I am sure everyone attending those meetings thought that the speaker paid for his own plane ticket and lodging and food to go across the entire country to give testimonials. > One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to > present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > statistical > test might be tried. Here's some more revelations turkey, if the study gets published and it is peer reviewed then the statistical tool is included and is likewise evaluated as to study size and proper tool to use in analysis. Is he serious about giving his own lecture on a sponsored meeting? He should give his own lecture on his own paid for meeting. I want Zee to sponsor a meeting on drug therapies and I want her to pay me to give my own lecture. Yup, sounds fair to me. > If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering > studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > per year for > very little actual work. Or if he doesn't play it well he will not be well liked, will not get anything published, not be invited to give any lectures and not be on any advisory boards. He would be very happy with his very own beeper and treating patients in which he loves. There's still hope for him though. He can get paid by Zee and her anti-drug group as a consultant. He can charge them for meetings and go on the other side and make money that way. > Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the > private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. OK make it illegal to have private sector research. Idiotic statements again. Have the government do all the research. Bad > results > and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious > problem. What a bunch of bullshit. Even with the public funds there was cutt throat competition for the money. There has and was always competition. People cheated on research and would do anything to continue receiveing grants. > When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a > sales pitch. Why would anyone allow themselves to go with a drug rep and let them buy lunch? Just say no moron. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that > published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are > usually > taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores > (after > all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the > articles - Just don't go to the lectures moron. It showing the sponsores name in black and white in very very large letters and it shows the speakers name. Put one and one together as the speaker is always presented showing his ties with the company. > they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they > have > published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years > to undo. Misinformation? If you can prove contrary findings to any research then it should be done but to make a blanket statement like that is meaningless. Ok, I am wrong all authorites who publish a lot are all bought and paid for and you can not listen to any of them. The last thing you want to do is go to a world authority. Go to somebody who is not an expert and has never published anything at all. >-------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nice hu Robert? Oh those where really strong arguments that were really hard to combat. Let me see, what did I learn? Drugs are bad and world authorities can not be trusted. > > "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You mean the latest research advances around the world most of which are > sponsored by drug companies don't you? Robert it must be difficult for you with an IQ under 35... you are not doing badly with it though. Of course much research is sponsored by the drug companies (plural) and they compete against one another so much good research gets out regardless,,,because of the competion,,, and also you said 'most'...that was accurate. that leaves the door open for research in countries such as say china and japan for instance that do not cater to the drug companies. then Robert a person must have the intellectual capacity to parse the lies and bogus testing from the rest of the research and also come to understand the boiphysics him or herself...at that point the analysis and crap detection abiility allows one to eventually but not always see though bad research. No one said it was easy Robert.... And I have found that even if you give a half wit good data he will not be able to separate it from all the bogus notions regardless...so we get arguments such as yours then...wishing to be fed data so you can trash it with your bogus notions. thats a waste of time Robert... but not entirely... those going for the Darwin Award in that fashion benefit and the world benefits as these finally achieve thier full potential. Lacking an inate ability to do your own research and evaluate other research you will not do well in other areas Robert... especially if you make a practice of trashing anything said to you except 'trust yer doctor'... Robert, there are as many illiterate, incompetent, fraudulent, doctors in the world as there are in the general poplulation on a percentage basis.......... if you were up to doing your own research and reading the broad spectrum of the rest, this would be abundantly clear to you. Of course what ive said is eitehr not clear to you, or you are one of the drug companies hired idiots, paid to discourage a look at thier trillion dollar rip offs. Regardless Robt, I understand. Most people though are capable of good research if they put thier mind to it. It takes an ability to simply not believe anything and to just gather data, and then as it accumulates see what fits...and over time the full picture develops. Those looking to be told though are not prone to integration of data, they go into 'either / or ' mode... and either accept or reject...this creates thier problem. Truth is most often a broad collage...there is some truth usually found in the fatally flawed areas....and there are fatal flaws in some of the best thinking. If you are in black and white thinking mode, or a trasher moron looking for targets, you become unable to parse net reality... and THIS is why the Darwing Awards program was begun in the first place you see? The process of data alignment, factoring and integration is not complex Robert.... it just takes genuine interest. Genuine interest to these levels requires personal *integrity... lacking that Robert there is no hope what so ever for the person in life, unless of course he or she comes to develop integrity later in life. Phil Scott > Oh, I see only the research you feel is anti-drug is valid. You are real > fair and balanced, yes indeed. [quoted text clipped - 284 lines] > Let me see, what did I learn? > Drugs are bad and world authorities can not be trusted. > Of course much research is sponsored by the drug > companies (plural) and they compete against one another so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>bla, bla, bla >>bla, bla, bla Cut the crap and get to the point, Phil. Again Look, 'br'... teaming with another half wit as you have with Robt only creates a complete moron... you cant multiply fractions and get a whole! Did you know that bud... the more half wits you send in to counter just one fully witted person the worse you loose... can you see that? Its like the three stooges. They do badly in battle. But nice try... I will be posting the Quack/ Bullshit parade series for some time now...lets see what that does for for you mentors and funding hero's the drug companies...which ARE the peak of special interests... promoting one QUACK drug after another.... Amazing you guys... learn algebra. Phil Scott From www.nofreelunch.org/comments For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck Pfizer benefits. Zee Subject: You missed the biggest problem Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600 From: <gorby@wt.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places, but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about the product. Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit parade were big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take. The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical test might be tried. If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a "consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory board". This can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income per year for very little actual work. Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad results and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying up of public funds for research in the past two decades, academic institutions have had to rely more and more on private funding. When I graduated medical school in 1979 medical journals did not require financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a sad reflection of the influence of commercial research funding, and the closest anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious problem. When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a sales pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are usually taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores (after all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the articles - they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they have published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years to undo. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > > Of course much research is sponsored by the drug > > companies (plural) and they compete against one another so [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Again > Look, 'br'... teaming with another half wit as you have with > Robt only creates a complete moron... you cant multiply > fractions and get a whole! All I said was "cut the crap and get to the point". I've teamed up with nobody and I'm not necessarily a half-wit. If you could put your verbal diarrhea in a more concise, readable form; perhaps you would have a larger audience, which is exactly what you want, isn't it? BR > > Look, 'br'... teaming with another half wit as you have with > > Robt only creates a complete moron... you cant multiply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > diarrhea in a more concise, readable form; perhaps you would have a larger > audience, which is exactly what you want, isn't it? I used to post on the protocls that have restored my health from basket case levels at age 55 to robust at 63 and competing again on the flat tracks... the attack from the slob contingent was ruthless and unending however... no matter how many world class links I posted to major university studies they all trashed me and said there was no cure for the range of issues I overcame (even though the entire EU has cures for some of these...others I developed myself ..but had not recommended because of the risks and myself being the only case study. ).. the tactics used against me are listed in my post on that issue yesterday, all low ball underhanded crap..and these trashers didnt read the references....or they would dig though one to find some fraction of a sentence they could take out of context ....then trash. Kiddie ploys. I have much much better things to do. so now I just post key word searches .... an individual with very little effort can discover what a few million others have known for decades. .. my own reseach is distributed only within qualified circles...and these love it, and thier lives change. You get to visit your doctor. Thrilling isnt it? If you are not bright enough to do those searches...then I am not interested in exposing myself to a trash job from you.... as you began with. If you are the typical american male over 50 you have significant coronary artery disease now...which will become severe by age 60 most likely... and you will have by then a 50% chance of becoming diabetic type 2 ...those complications are nasty. But enjoy your trash job...and DO NOT do the searches I mentioned to get fully non biases advice, unless you thing a few thousand researchers from around the world all share the same bias...................... they dont. These disease are entirely reversable at the early to mid advanced stages in many if not most cases. . I suggest you do some research .. or go see an MD specializing in 'preventive medicine' you can pay him to get some of the clues I used to offer... the rest has not penetrated even that contingent yet... they can't explain my resurgence though. I invite em to the races... Accordingly now...I am 63 and chasing off the women with a stick as those lard assed morons that trashed me are dropping dead of those diseases...STILL unwilling to listen, OR do research..... OR see an accomplished Preventive Medicine specialist. My own advance now has included the central nervous system... there was a lot to learn..and much of it beyond the realm of medication or diet etc... So now...with that track record from idiots and drug company ops posting the medicine related NG's you expect me to step up for more abuse.? After YOU began with a trash job? ..sorry I have a race bike to keep looking natty (600cc single), a body to keep muscular and fit at the gym...and a few ladies that require my attention. For you.. I have no time... For the lurkers I have some time. I can post occasionally and drop these hints and put them onto the correct searches....its all there if you dig and with a little luck but if I DARE mention a product... instant trash job..so I guess that just has to be tough hu? The drug company operatives do work to that level...but they cant stop people from researching and finding these alternatives for themselves... that way you see, none of it is biased, from me at least. I notice others on the NG are well aware of a wide range of solutions and will live a lot longer and healthier because of it... you though and stooges like Robert and a dozen others trash these people too, and most dont need the stress of that, even as they present world class articles on these issues. Morons deprive themselves of vital information... you see how that works? So you get clues on the research. thats it. ..you should be grateful...but apparently you are not the grateful type. Your reward for being one of the trasher contingent. enjoy. Tell me how those nitro tabs, drugs work out for you smart a.s. Phil Scott > BR "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:%tzdd.16581 $nj.2656@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com: >> "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a ?crit dans le > message de [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > >> BR While your protocols may have restored your health they apparently didn't help your dismissive and angry attitude. L. > > "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> a ?crit dans le > message de [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > health from basket case levels at age 55 to robust at 63 and > competing again on the flat tracks... Phil don't give any specifics and thereby brake your golden rule. Giving key words can be construed as specifics. I suggest you talk in broad general terms and stop being specific otherwise people will attack you again and we don't want that do we? > > "Phil Scott" <philscott888@sf.sbcglobal.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > say china and japan for instance that do not cater to the drug > companies. Cater to the drug companies? If you have a new med you need to have research done on it and it won't be by third parties. Are you saying that japan does not do drug research? Try looking for the Lescol launch in Japan. > then Robert a person must have the intellectual capacity to > parse the lies and bogus testing from the rest of the research > and also come to understand the boiphysics him or herself...at > that point the analysis and crap detection abiility allows one > to eventually but not always see though bad research. Bad research is not limited to the private sector but is by all means research in general. The phrase "good enough for government work", means something. > No one said it was easy Robert.... > > And I have found that even if you give a half wit good data > he will not be able to separate it from all the bogus notions > regardless...so we get arguments such as yours then...wishing > to be fed data so you can trash it with your bogus notions. The process you just described is call "research". People read it in journals and others trash it. Only the ones that stand the test of time still stand. > thats a waste of time Robert... but not entirely... those > going for the Darwin Award in that fashion benefit and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Robert... especially if you make a practice of trashing > anything said to you except 'trust yer doctor'... No as I learned from you that all doctors are whores from the drug companies. I learned a lot of useless information from you. > Robert, there are as many illiterate, incompetent, > fraudulent, doctors in the world as there are in the general > poplulation on a percentage basis.......... if you were up to > doing your own research and reading the broad spectrum of the > rest, this would be abundantly clear to you. Most of them are in the government as it is hard to sue a government doctor compared to private practice. > Of course what ive said is eitehr not clear to you, or you > are one of the drug companies hired idiots, paid to discourage > a look at thier trillion dollar rip offs. They pay me a million dollares a year to post here. You guys really scare them when people stop their meds and they don't paid. Phil, don't take your heart medicine because you will make some drug rep rich. That really is a scary message. Please stop it. That's a very powerful message, don't take your meds because somebody will get rich, especially when you don't even pay for it meds as most insurance companies do. > Regardless Robt, I understand. > > Most people though are capable of good research if they put > thier mind to it. It takes an ability to simply not believe > anything and to just gather data, and then as it accumulates > see what fits...and over time the full picture develops. Data is corrupt remember. All data is biased either against or for. That has always happened with research. > Those looking to be told though are not prone to integration > of data, they go into 'either / or ' mode... and either accept > or reject...this creates thier problem. Truth is most > often a broad collage...there is some truth usually found in > the fatally flawed areas....and there are fatal flaws in some > of the best thinking. It's better not to do any thinking and just use nice phrases that people will remember like "all doctors are whores for the drug companies". That says it all and does not need critical thinking. > If you are in black and white thinking mode, or a trasher > moron looking for targets, you become unable to parse net > reality... and THIS is why the Darwing Awards program was > begun in the first place you see? You are the one thinking in terms of black and white. Drugs are bad and doctors are whores. Private research is all invalid. > The process of data alignment, factoring and integration is > not complex Robert.... it just takes genuine interest. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Phil Scott Good rhetoric Phil as a hospital worker being in charge of your life I will take into consideration all you have said and treat you accordingly. Hey Robert...are you loosing in this QUACK debate... all those bogus drugs... now off the market...all the bullshit lies from the drug companies about vioxx and the anti cholesterol drugs...pure quackery. Enjoy the quack series pal..as it spreads across the web the issue is raised and these bogus drug company practices and prices are comming under scrutiny... all because of morons like you. Impressive 'Robert' Carry on... such integrity. Phil Scott From www.nofreelunch.org/comments For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck Pfizer benefits. Zee Subject: You missed the biggest problem Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600 From: <gorby@wt.net> To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org> The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed the excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical school. This operates at several levels. First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs. They didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the publishing and reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant, whether it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but they are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works for. Those who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with that power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time actually having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in academics it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager). Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily from grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other toys that may find their way home. Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to nice places, but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they are listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about the product. Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the bullshit parade were big names in the field, including departmental chairmen. Some of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on the take. The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings are the "mouthpieces", not the attendees. One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I balked and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it caused a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked another colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When the results came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different statistical test might be tried. If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a real plum: a "consultant's |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message