Does this place serve any purpose?



[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, soft-head
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-12CC00.21000015012004@news4-
> >ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> >> Of course, I also point out to some of these alties that if they're using herbs to treat
> >> something, they're using drugs. Any herbs that actually do anything beneficial for diseases
> >> accomplish their action because they have compounds in them that act as drugs.
> >
> >Very accurate!!
> >
> >And have you though about what then is the difference between those you superstitiously defend,
> >vs the "alties"?
> >
> >It's very simple. If a medicine is known to work but cannot be patented, a conventional
> >practitioner is unable to prescribe it.
>
> Gee, that must be why my doctor tells me to take ibuprofen, or Pepto-bismol, or any of a dozen
> other OTC remedies.
>

It's not that difficult to figure out -- if you had stopped and thought for a couple of minutes
instead of jumping to a reflexive defense, I am sure you would have seen for yourself, in a couple
of minutes, how that works.

Btw, just as a matter of record, would you want to state whether you get paid for anything by
anybody related to the pharmaceutical industry? Or not?

[There have been reports from respectable sources, about the pharmaceutical industry paying KOL's,
i.e. "Key Opinion Leaders". The KOL's are supposed to maintain their independence, but nonetheless
get paid on something tangential. It would help in forums like this to have the more vocal defenders
state outright if they are such a paid KOL or not.]
 
"HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<YIgOb.86991$8H.129788@attbi_s03>...
> "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]... ...> So many useful medicines will not get
> pursued, simply because
> > of the commerce involved. Nothing to do with the efficacy of the medicine or the lack thereof.
> > Commerce, not science, is the actual driving force here.
> >
> > Alternative medicine is providing a very vital role, in this environment.
>
> What an interesting statement... considering that there is a facet of alternative medicine which
> is only being driven by financial gain: some of the alternative treatments for autism...
>
> First they convince the parents that a component of vaccines that was removed in 1999 is causing
> "heavy metal poisening" of their kids and is responsible for the autism (even if the kid is under
> 3 years old, and may only really have a language delay). Usually in a Yahoo group called "Autism-
> Mercury".
>
> THEN... they charge the parents a fee to do an analysis of hair for all sorts of "metal
> toxicity"... not telling the parents that taking hair samples has to be done very carefully to
> reduce the chance of cross-contamination (one parent was told her child's hair showed bismuth
> toxicity... she did not seem to be aware that bismuth is the active ingredient of Pepto Bismol).
> Of course, they can say they do an analysis in their lab two states away... but they don't have
> to, just send a report (there have been cases of labs being tested by folks sending hair from the
> same heads to different labs and getting completely different "analysis").
>
> THEN... they convince the parent to put the kid on oral chelation... even though there is no
> approven medication to chelate organic mercury like thimerosal. So the kids are give meds like
> DMSO, which has its own problems... but the parents are not told what. There are even cases of the
> kids being put on EDTA... and suffering from the side-effects of that and getting worse.
>
> All for lots of money... one family spent over $40000 to "cure" their child of autism:
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html

Where there is despair combined with money -- there will be people to take advantage of it.

That doesn't change the ground realities. There is a lot of evidence to suggest mercury damage --
and also to suggest there are powerful interests that want to cover it up. If there wasn't fire,
there wouldn't be the smoke -- of legislators writing a bill to say you can't sue anybody for
mercury damage!

Some cases of mercury damage can be helped for 200-300 dollars, by using cilantro off your grocery
store shelves, preferably combined with chlorella.

If you have $40,000 to throw and can't do your own research, someone will be too happy to take
the $40,000.

Not knowing who to trust, in the current environment, doesn't help either. That's a direct result of
the muddying up of the issue, instead of open-minded honest investigation.
 
PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using food for
treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you have lost $200,
but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not the patient's health.
In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there may be other health benefits.

The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: Orac [email protected] Date: 1/17/04 11:30 AM
> >Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> >> What the orthopaths had and did is a matter of record if you wish to dig
> >deep
> >> enough and hard enough.
> >
> >I already did, in another post. It is you who clearly misunderstand the hisory of diabetes
> >management.
> >
> >
>
> The history of diabetes management you refer to is the allopathic mismanagement of diabetes.

When the etiology of a disease is not yet understood, as it wasn't before 1921, then the treatments
in retrospect will look that way. That doesn't mean they were "mismanagement." After the etiology of
diabetes was understood in 1922, management improved immensely.

You have shown us no evidence that "orthpathic medicine" understood the etiology of diabetes or was
any better able to treat it.

> What was the orhtopathic management of the
> disorder and what were their results?

Why don't you tell us? Oh, and don't forget to provide actual evidence that "orthopathic" management
did any good.

> >Dietary treatment for childhood diabetics is useless in the long term. The only reason
> >conventional medicine tried it was, before insulin, it was the only treatment that worked even a
> >little bit, even in the short term.
>
> ********. You incompetents in allopthy had no ability or knowledge of how to use diet and
> lifestyle changes on the one hand and ran to insulin because it fits your mentality of "doing
> something ( even if it kills them )" and always trying to "poison the sick into getting well."

Diet and lifestyle changes will not treat Type I diabetes effectively, as was shown before 1921. You
have yet to show that "orthopaths" can do any better. You talk a good game, but when it comes to
laying out the evidence, you prefer polemics to data.

> I do agree, however, that Type I diabetes whereby the body is no longer producing its own insulin
> can only be treated with the needed insulin. The question still remains as to what in the world
> are we doing to our children that causes this to happen? I maintain that it is due to the improper
> feeding of our infants followed by poisoning them with vaccines.

********. Type I diabetes has existed as long as man has. It was first described over 3500 years
ago. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew about it. They described it as the disease of "the melting
down of flesh and limbs into urine." Throughout the first millenium, it was diagnosed by urine
tasters, who could detect the sweetness of the sugar being spilled into the urine.

> Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind allows you to believe. I do not
> believe that you have ever read and studied the work of Be'champ or Enderlein.

And I do not believe that you have ever read anything published since them that shows why what they
think they showed was incorrect. Your thinking seems to be stuck in the early 1900's, before this
work was shown not to be correct.

> And what about Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that bacteria are
> pleomorphic and not monomorphic as your germ theory of disease demands?

The germ theory of disease demands no such thing, and you mischaracterize his work. You also seem to
be stuck in the science of 1914.

>This Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific doubt that staph germs and strep germs were one
>and the same. All you had to do was change their food. You will find that data in the Journal of
>Infectious Diseases. Your Journal. Your data. And you are ignorant of it.

"Beyond all scientific doubt"? Wrong. The techniques for characterizing bacteria in 1914 were crude
compared to today, and he was unable to detect differences among what are highly related bacteria.
What appeared to be correct in 1914 was later shown not to be correct. It happens all the time.

Why is it you alties like to acknowledge outdated science from 90 years ago, but won't acknowledge
more recent science?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, DRCEEPHD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: Orac [email protected] Date: 1/17/04 11:30 AM
> >>Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >>Dietary treatment for childhood diabetics is useless in the long term. The only reason
> >>conventional medicine tried it was, before insulin, it was the only treatment that worked even a
> >>little bit, even in the short term.
> >
> >I do agree, however, that Type I diabetes whereby the body is no longer producing its own insulin
> >can only be treated with the needed insulin. The question still remains as to what in the world
> >are we doing to our children that causes this to happen? I maintain that it is due to the
> >improper feeding of our infants followed by poisoning them with vaccines.
>
> That's because you're a loon, Chuck. As has been pointed out, diabetes predates vaccination and
> infant formula. Hippocrates knew about diabetes, for pity's sake.

Heck, diabetes was described hundreds of years BEFORE Hippocrates, even, back around 1552 B.C. by an
Egyptian physician named Hesy-Ra. In the early part of the A.D. era, there were even "urine
tasters," who could diagnose it by the sweet taste in the urine of diabetics.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
soft-eng <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, soft-head
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-12CC00.21000015012004@news4-
>> >ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> >
>> >> Of course, I also point out to some of these alties that if they're using herbs to treat
>> >> something, they're using drugs. Any herbs that actually do anything beneficial for diseases
>> >> accomplish their action because they have compounds in them that act as drugs.
>> >
>> >Very accurate!!
>> >
>> >And have you though about what then is the difference between those you superstitiously defend,
>> >vs the "alties"?
>> >
>> >It's very simple. If a medicine is known to work but cannot be patented, a conventional
>> >practitioner is unable to prescribe it.
>>
>> Gee, that must be why my doctor tells me to take ibuprofen, or Pepto-bismol, or any of a dozen
>> other OTC remedies.
>>
>It's not that difficult to figure out -- if you had stopped and thought for a couple of minutes
>instead of jumping to a reflexive defense, I am sure you would have seen for yourself, in a couple
>of minutes, how that works.

If you would bother to think about what you write, you'd realize that your claim was nonsensical. A
doctor can write a prescription for damn near anything -- aspirin, exercise, you name it. Whether a
drug store can fill it, or whether insurance will pay for it, is a separate matter.

>Btw, just as a matter of record, would you want to state whether you get paid for anything by
>anybody related to the pharmaceutical industry? Or not?

Sure -- I don't get paid for what I write here, nor do I get paid for any other work I do by any
drug companies.

I won't bother to ask you the same question, as I can't imagine anyone would pay you for the stuff
you write -- unless the AMA is paying you to make the pro-alts look like dopes. And there are other
posters doing a better job of that anyway.

>[There have been reports from respectable sources, about the pharmaceutical industry paying KOL's,
>i.e. "Key Opinion Leaders". The KOL's are supposed to maintain their independence, but nonetheless
>get paid on something tangential. It would help in forums like this to have the more vocal
>defenders state outright if they are such a paid KOL or not.]

If I were such a person, there's a good chance I'd deny it, or refuse to answer. It's one of the
favorite tactics of the alties, when cornered, to accuse their antagonists of being paid agents. It
gets very tiresome, and it really doesn't prove anything anyway -- even if someone *is* a paid
agent, it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.

For example, I don't care if Steve Harris, or Orac, or JX Brown, or a number of other contributors,
are staff memebers at Merck as long as what they write is accurate. (As far as I know, none of them
work for drug companies, but, as I said, I don't care if they do. Everyone has to work for someone.)

Besides, I don't think I qualify as an "opinion leader" on this newsgroup.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >[There have been reports from respectable sources, about the pharmaceutical industry paying
> >KOL's, i.e. "Key Opinion Leaders". The KOL's are supposed to maintain their independence, but
> >nonetheless get paid on something tangential. It would help in forums like this to have the more
> >vocal defenders state outright if they are such a paid KOL or not.]
>
> If I were such a person, there's a good chance I'd deny it, or refuse to answer. It's one of the
> favorite tactics of the alties, when cornered, to accuse their antagonists of being paid agents.

Ad hominem attacks are part and parcel of too many of the alties around here.

>It gets very tiresome, and it really doesn't prove anything anyway -- even if someone *is* a paid
>agent, it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.

Certainly if someone is a paid agent, that person's writings will be examined in that context and
considered with more skepticism. The should be. However, you are correct. If what they post is
accurate and their arguments sound, then it is irrelevant that they are paid.

> For example, I don't care if Steve Harris, or Orac, or JX Brown, or a number of other
> contributors, are staff memebers at Merck as long as what they write is accurate. (As far as I
> know, none of them work for drug companies, but, as I said, I don't care if they do. Everyone has
> to work for someone.)

My standard response when an altie accuses me of being a "paid agent" is to tell them I really wish
that were the case, because I could use the money. But, alas, I'm doing this for free. Sometimes
I'll even ask them if they can tell me how to become one of these "paid agents." ;-)

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<h-KdnQ6LdPlBwpTdRVn-
> [email protected]>...
>
> > It is interesting that you selected digitalis as your example. This drug is quite toxic in
> > overdose, and the toxic dose is only slightly greater than
>
> Did you know an overdose of salt will kill you?

But it would take a hell of a lot to do so in a person with normal kidney function.

> Or that a little bit less than a fatal overdose would damage your brain? Or that overdoing it even
> in normal usage would increase your blood pressure? And yet, if salt weren't available at all, you
> would have many health problems from salt deprivation?

The vast majority of people get more than adequate salt in their daily diet. Even vegans.
Supplementation is rarely necessary or helpful.

> Many everyday ingestibles are toxic in overdose.

Straw man. The difference is that, in contrast to your other example, digitalis has a rather narrow
range of efficacy. The range between an ineffective dose and a toxic dose is narrow and easily
crossed. Moreover, its pharmacokinetics are such that it takes a long time to build up a therapeutic
dose and a long time for it to be metabolized away when the toxic dose has been passed. Worse, there
is a fair amount of person-to-person variation in its metabolism.

> But Foxglove was actually IN USE by herbal dispensers before medicine in its modern form
> acquired it.
>
> I am not saying standardization is not of benefit. Obviously it is. But that doesn't relate to any
> arguments of substance in this thread.

Yes it does. The whole point is that using digitalis in a pure, standardized form is inherently
safer and more efficacious than relying on hit-and-miss dosing through the administration of
foxglove leaves.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using food
> for treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you have lost
> $200, but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not the patient's
> health. In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there may be other health
> benefits.
>
> The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.

Evidence please. Post the references to this treatment, and be particular to which kind of mercury
poisoning you are referring to... since there are several kinds that are treated differently.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > It is interesting that you selected digitalis as your example. This drug
is
> > quite toxic in overdose, and the toxic dose is only slightly greater
than
>
> Did you know an overdose of salt will kill you?

Wow! Talk about selective snipping to change meaning....

> Or that a little bit less than a fatal overdose would damage your brain? Or that overdoing it even
> in normal usage would increase your blood pressure? And yet, if salt weren't available at all, you
> would have many health problems from salt deprivation?
>
> Many everyday ingestibles are toxic in overdose.
>
> But Foxglove was actually IN USE by herbal dispensers before medicine in its modern form
> acquired it.
>
> I am not saying standardization is not of benefit. Obviously it is. But that doesn't relate to any
> arguments of substance in this thread.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bronsing <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Commerce most certainly is a driving force. After all, pharmaceutical companies, like many other
> > want to make a profit. However, the idea that patents is all there is to it is simply too short
> > sighted: many large pharmaceutical companies exist because they sell supplements, generics and
> > other non-patentable compounds. The method of isolation
>
> Note that these either existed in medicine prior to modern times, or have had their patent
> expired.
>
> The general theory is that for any _new_ medication, it is very costly now to obtain FDA approval.
> Therefore no pharmacy will undertake the paperwork necessary for the approval without patent
> protection.
>
> This tends to put them, commercially, on the opposing side of some alternative remedies that might
> work. Because alternative remedies are liable to reduce their market.

Do a bit of research on the alternative sellers and see the incredible profit margins that they have
in comparison to that of the pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals spend year investing money in
developing medications that may, or may not, reach marketability.

The altie companies do not have to worry about government regulation, R&D costs, etc.

To make this money claim is utterly bogus.

>
> MDs are generally more receptive to alternative therapies these days. However, I don't know why
> there is no system in place that would allow them to prescribe something like, say, Milk Thistle.
> You may claim there is no valid testing. That to me is meaningless -- I would wonder why it is not
> there. The answer to its efficacy or lack of efficacy, should have been very well-known in a
> society as science-drive as us.
>
> Of course, the MD may very well use Milk Thistle for himself/herself, but prescribing things like
> that is a no-no for now.
>
> In the meanwhile, there does exist the fact of its _actually_ working or not. If it does work, and
> you have a liver problem that it might fix but you refuse to use it because of some convoluted
> logic, nobody else is the loser. You can perhaps release some frustration on ng's such as this,
> but ultimately most people visiting these ng's aren't here to listen to nay-sayers, but to see if
> there happens to be something that will help _them_. Preferably without causing harm to their
> bodies or much lightening of their wallets.
 
"mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:YIgOb.86991$8H.129788@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]... ...> So many useful medicines will not
> > get pursued, simply because
> > > of the commerce involved. Nothing to do with the efficacy of the medicine or the lack thereof.
> > > Commerce, not science, is the actual driving force here.
> > >
> > > Alternative medicine is providing a very vital role, in this environment.
> >
> > What an interesting statement... considering that there is a facet of alternative medicine which
> > is only being driven by financial gain: some
> of
> > the alternative treatments for autism...
> >
> > First they convince the parents that a component of vaccines that was removed in 1999 is causing
> > "heavy metal poisening" of their kids and is responsible for the autism (even if the kid is
> > under 3 years old, and
may
> > only really have a language delay). Usually in a Yahoo group called "Autism-Mercury".
> >
> > THEN... they charge the parents a fee to do an analysis of hair for all sorts of "metal
> > toxicity"... not telling the parents that taking hair samples has to be done very carefully to
> > reduce the chance of cross-contamination (one parent was told her child's hair showed bismuth
> > toxicity... she did not seem to be aware that bismuth is the active ingredient of Pepto Bismol).
> > Of course, they can say they do an
analysis
> in
> > their lab two states away... but they don't have to, just send a report (there have been cases
> > of labs being tested by folks sending hair from
the
> > same heads to different labs and getting completely different
"analysis").
> >
> > THEN... they convince the parent to put the kid on oral chelation...
even
> > though there is no approven medication to chelate organic mercury like thimerosal. So the kids
> > are give meds like DMSO, which has its own problems... but the parents are not told what. There
> > are even cases of
> the
> > kids being put on EDTA... and suffering from the side-effects of that
and
> > getting worse.
> >
> > All for lots of money... one family spent over $40000 to "cure" their
> child
> > of autism: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html
> >
> >
> Ah! and in your opinion, it would be better if that money was spent with
the
> "doctors", even though they have nothing to offer to help? I think you
just
> are angry that you did not get the money.

NOPE. In my opinion, it would have been far better fo rthe parents to not have been scammed and have
kept the money to help them raise a special child. Being the parent of two special children, I can
attest that it is not cheap, even with excellent health insurance.

My home renovations a few years ago far exceeded $40K for making all doors 32", installing interior
and exterior ramps, a stair lift, etc.

While I do not know what the extra costs are of raising an autistic child, I can imagine that they
could use some help around the house, special vacations and camps, etc.

The $40K was wasted on a quack, when it could have been spent on a kid.

Now, please get a clue.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<YIgOb.86991$8H.129788@attbi_s03>...
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]... ...> So many useful medicines will not
> > get pursued, simply because
> > > of the commerce involved. Nothing to do with the efficacy of the medicine or the lack thereof.
> > > Commerce, not science, is the actual driving force here.
> > >
> > > Alternative medicine is providing a very vital role, in this environment.
> >
> > What an interesting statement... considering that there is a facet of alternative medicine which
> > is only being driven by financial gain: some
of
> > the alternative treatments for autism...
> >
> > First they convince the parents that a component of vaccines that was removed in 1999 is causing
> > "heavy metal poisening" of their kids and is responsible for the autism (even if the kid is
> > under 3 years old, and
may
> > only really have a language delay). Usually in a Yahoo group called "Autism-Mercury".
> >
> > THEN... they charge the parents a fee to do an analysis of hair for all sorts of "metal
> > toxicity"... not telling the parents that taking hair samples has to be done very carefully to
> > reduce the chance of cross-contamination (one parent was told her child's hair showed bismuth
> > toxicity... she did not seem to be aware that bismuth is the active ingredient of Pepto Bismol).
> > Of course, they can say they do an
analysis in
> > their lab two states away... but they don't have to, just send a report (there have been cases
> > of labs being tested by folks sending hair from
the
> > same heads to different labs and getting completely different
"analysis").
> >
> > THEN... they convince the parent to put the kid on oral chelation...
even
> > though there is no approven medication to chelate organic mercury like thimerosal. So the kids
> > are give meds like DMSO, which has its own problems... but the parents are not told what. There
> > are even cases of
the
> > kids being put on EDTA... and suffering from the side-effects of that
and
> > getting worse.
> >
> > All for lots of money... one family spent over $40000 to "cure" their
child
> > of autism: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html
>
>
> Where there is despair combined with money -- there will be people to take advantage of it.

EXACTLY! Blood-sucking quuacks who sell useless treatments.

> That doesn't change the ground realities. There is a lot of evidence to suggest mercury damage --
> and also to suggest there are powerful interests that want to cover it up.

Actually, there is NO evidence to suggest that mercury in vaccines causes autism.

> If there wasn't fire, there wouldn't be the smoke -- of legislators writing a bill to say you
> can't sue anybody for mercury damage!

Irrelevant. Even if they could sue, they could not prove it.

> Some cases of mercury damage can be helped for 200-300 dollars, by using cilantro off your grocery
> store shelves, preferably combined with chlorella.
>
> If you have $40,000 to throw and can't do your own research, someone will be too happy to take the
> $40,000.

And should go to jail for doing so.

> Not knowing who to trust, in the current environment, doesn't help either. That's a direct result
> of the muddying up of the issue, instead of open-minded honest investigation.

Correct. The anti-vac liars and science know-nothings persist in spouting their
fearmongering and lies.
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, soft-head
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-12CC00.21000015012004@news4-
> >> >ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >> >
> >> >> Of course, I also point out to some of these alties that if they're using herbs to treat
> >> >> something, they're using drugs. Any herbs that actually do anything beneficial for diseases
> >> >> accomplish their action because they have compounds in them that act as drugs.
> >> >
> >> >Very accurate!!
> >> >
> >> >And have you though about what then is the difference between those you superstitiously
> >> >defend, vs the "alties"?
> >> >
> >> >It's very simple. If a medicine is known to work but cannot be patented, a conventional
> >> >practitioner is unable to prescribe it.
> >>
> >> Gee, that must be why my doctor tells me to take ibuprofen, or Pepto-bismol, or any of a dozen
> >> other OTC remedies.
> >>
> >It's not that difficult to figure out -- if you had stopped and thought for a couple of minutes
> >instead of jumping to a reflexive defense, I am sure you would have seen for yourself, in a
> >couple of minutes, how that works.
>
> If you would bother to think about what you write, you'd realize that your claim was nonsensical.
> A doctor can write a prescription for damn near anything -- aspirin, exercise, you name it.
> Whether a drug store can fill it, or whether insurance will pay for it, is a separate matter.
>
> >Btw, just as a matter of record, would you want to state whether you get paid for anything by
> >anybody related to the pharmaceutical industry? Or not?
>
> Sure -- I don't get paid for what I write here, nor do I get paid for any other work I do by any
> drug companies.
>
> I won't bother to ask you the same question, as I can't imagine anyone would pay you for the stuff
> you write -- unless the AMA is paying you to make the pro-alts look like dopes. And there are
> other posters doing a better job of that anyway.
>
> >[There have been reports from respectable sources, about the pharmaceutical industry paying
> >KOL's, i.e. "Key Opinion Leaders". The KOL's are supposed to maintain their independence, but
> >nonetheless get paid on something tangential. It would help in forums like this to have the more
> >vocal defenders state outright if they are such a paid KOL or not.]
>
> If I were such a person, there's a good chance I'd deny it, or refuse to answer. It's one of the
> favorite tactics of the alties, when cornered, to accuse their antagonists of being paid agents.
> It gets very tiresome, and it really doesn't prove anything anyway -- even if someone *is* a paid
> agent, it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.
>
> For example, I don't care if Steve Harris, or Orac, or JX Brown, or a number of other
> contributors, are staff memebers at Merck as long as what they write is accurate. (As far as I
> know, none of them work for drug companies, but, as I said, I don't care if they do. Everyone has
> to work for someone.)
>

There are valid reasons to wonder along these lines. I posted a link about this earlier:

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2092442&

In general I agree that it doesn't matter who pays somebody to write what, and only the writing the
matters. But it's hard to imagine subtle biases not getting into the material, therefore I think
under the very unusual circumstances -- respected medical scientists selling their names for use by
ghostwritten journal articles for money where they haven't even been allowed to see the data -- such
questions are reasonable.
 
"mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
..> Ah! and in your opinion, it would be better if that money was spent with the
> "doctors", even though they have nothing to offer to help? I think you
just
> are angry that you did not get the money.
>
>

My opinion is that the money would have been better off spent on occupentional and physical
therapists, speech and language therapists, behavioral therapists and enhanced eduational
situations. Unfortunately the OT/PT's and SLP's services are often not covered by insurance. BUT...
there are charitable organizations that do help kids get treatment.

The only doctor that is visited is perhaps a child neurologist ONCE a year, and the annual checkup
with pediatrician or family doctor... hardly the amount spent on the quack Edelson..

By the way, I am only a parent of a child with a speech/language disability who is dismayed at
seeing well meaning parents get scammed. Our family has been a beneficiary of the speech therapy
through a group who provides free therapy to children, they are now the main recipients of our
donations to charity.

Funny comments from a person advocating consumption of another kind of metal.
 
Hmmm, have you ever wondered what causes a child to be autistic?
I will resist the opportunity to ask some extra nasty questions about why
you have two autistic children.
"Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:YIgOb.86991$8H.129788@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]... ...> So many useful medicines will not
> > > get pursued, simply because
> > > > of the commerce involved. Nothing to do with the efficacy of the medicine or the lack
> > > > thereof. Commerce, not science, is the actual driving force here.
> > > >
> > > > Alternative medicine is providing a very vital role, in this environment.
> > >
> > > What an interesting statement... considering that there is a facet of alternative medicine
> > > which is only being driven by financial gain:
some
> > of
> > > the alternative treatments for autism...
> > >
> > > First they convince the parents that a component of vaccines that was removed in 1999 is
> > > causing "heavy metal poisening" of their kids and
is
> > > responsible for the autism (even if the kid is under 3 years old, and
> may
> > > only really have a language delay). Usually in a Yahoo group called "Autism-Mercury".
> > >
> > > THEN... they charge the parents a fee to do an analysis of hair for
all
> > > sorts of "metal toxicity"... not telling the parents that taking hair samples has to be done
> > > very carefully to reduce the chance of cross-contamination (one parent was told her child's
> > > hair showed
bismuth
> > > toxicity... she did not seem to be aware that bismuth is the active ingredient of Pepto
> > > Bismol). Of course, they can say they do an
> analysis
> > in
> > > their lab two states away... but they don't have to, just send a
report
> > > (there have been cases of labs being tested by folks sending hair from
> the
> > > same heads to different labs and getting completely different
> "analysis").
> > >
> > > THEN... they convince the parent to put the kid on oral chelation...
> even
> > > though there is no approven medication to chelate organic mercury like thimerosal. So the kids
> > > are give meds like DMSO, which has its own problems... but the parents are not told what.
> > > There are even cases
of
> > the
> > > kids being put on EDTA... and suffering from the side-effects of that
> and
> > > getting worse.
> > >
> > > All for lots of money... one family spent over $40000 to "cure" their
> > child
> > > of autism: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html
> > >
> > >
> > Ah! and in your opinion, it would be better if that money was spent with
> the
> > "doctors", even though they have nothing to offer to help? I think you
> just
> > are angry that you did not get the money.
>
> NOPE. In my opinion, it would have been far better fo rthe parents to not have been scammed and
> have kept the money to help them raise a special child. Being the parent of two special children,
> I can attest that it is
not
> cheap, even with excellent health insurance.
>
> My home renovations a few years ago far exceeded $40K for making all doors 32", installing
> interior and exterior ramps, a stair lift, etc.
>
> While I do not know what the extra costs are of raising an autistic child,
I
> can imagine that they could use some help around the house, special vacations and camps, etc.
>
> The $40K was wasted on a quack, when it could have been spent on a kid.
>
> Now, please get a clue.
 
"mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hmmm, have you ever wondered what causes a child to be autistic? I will resist the opportunity to
> ask some extra nasty questions about why you have two autistic children.
...

The latest real research indicates that autism is genetic... PLUT there are some disabilities being
"autistic like" due to other neurological conditions (seizures, other genetic anomalies, traumatic
brain injury, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, infections such pertussis, mumps, etc., lead poisoning
and others).

By the way, neither of Mark's boys are autistic, and neither are any of my kids. There are other
disabilities that do exist... and some that are more recent types of diagnoses. Not too long ago
(about 20 years) many of these kids were given the "mentally retarded" label and then often
warehoused, even after passage of the first form of IDEA. There are even newer types of autism being
diagnosed these days. Oddly enough, as the rate of "autism" has gone up... the rate of "mentally
retarded" labels have gone down.
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> You seem to be somewhat confused about the difference between a pharmacy, which is a retail
> business that sells medicines (and often other products) and a pharmaceutical company, which is a
> business that manufactures medicines.

Goodness, you must be really desparate for anything, anything at all, to support your pov!

What's next, exposing spelling errors in my posts as irrefutable proof that I must be wrong?
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> Wright) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >[There have been reports from respectable sources, about the pharmaceutical industry paying
> > >KOL's, i.e. "Key Opinion Leaders". The KOL's are supposed to maintain their independence, but
> > >nonetheless get paid on something tangential. It would help in forums like this to have the
> > >more vocal defenders state outright if they are such a paid KOL or not.]
> >
> > If I were such a person, there's a good chance I'd deny it, or refuse to answer. It's one of the
> > favorite tactics of the alties, when cornered, to accuse their antagonists of being paid agents.
>
> Ad hominem attacks are part and parcel of too many of the alties around here.
>
>
> >It gets very tiresome, and it really doesn't prove anything anyway -- even if someone *is* a paid
> >agent, it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.
>
> Certainly if someone is a paid agent, that person's writings will be examined in that context and
> considered with more skepticism. The should be. However, you are correct. If what they post is
> accurate and their arguments sound, then it is irrelevant that they are paid.
>
>
>
> > For example, I don't care if Steve Harris, or Orac, or JX Brown, or a number of other
> > contributors, are staff memebers at Merck as long as what they write is accurate. (As far as I
> > know, none of them work for drug companies, but, as I said, I don't care if they do. Everyone
> > has to work for someone.)
>
> My standard response when an altie accuses me of being a "paid agent" is to tell them I really
> wish that were the case, because I could use the money. But, alas, I'm doing this for free.
> Sometimes I'll even ask them if they can tell me how to become one of these "paid agents." ;-)

But why?

When one reads "misc.health.alternative", one hopes to find arguments for and against various
alternative treatments, anecdotal evidence, and so on.

It's really a surprise to see people arguing against the whole idea of altetnative treatments itself
in an ng called "misc.health.alternative"!

Hijacking a newsgroup is certainly no public service. People who are interested in alternative
medicine have minds of their own. They presumably have reasons of their own too, for having such
an interest.

Isn't there an ng where those opposed to alternative treatments can congragate and congratulate
each other?

At best, you can start a thread like "Alternative medicines are wrong" in this ng. Then people would
know what to expect.

But the situation is, the anti-alts just jump on many threads and make it difficult to find real
objective information or even anecdotes.

It's not like the anti-alts are popping up on cross-posted threads. They are popping up on threads
posted to the single ng "misc.health.alternative", indicating they actually subscribe to it and read
everything!

So I have this to say to the anti-alts -- Dear Anti-Alts, Please, please, go get a life of your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back