A
Anth
Guest
Choose the treatment of their choice without the doctor being slapped for malpractice? (For instance
high dose vitamin c intravenous for HIV and other virus) Anth
high dose vitamin c intravenous for HIV and other virus) Anth
A
Anth
Guest
Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high dose
vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run to
prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after all
they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place. Thoughts? Anth
vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run to
prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after all
they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place. Thoughts? Anth
D
D. C. Sessions
Guest
In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
> Choose the treatment of their choice without the doctor being slapped for malpractice?
Are you asking whether the patient should be able to choose someone who will do what they want, or
are you asking whether the patient can demand treatment against the provider's wishes?
Notice that in general only the patient has standing to bring malpractice charges against the
provider, so informed consent takes care of the "without the doctor being slapped" issue.
--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a | completely unintentional side
| effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
> Choose the treatment of their choice without the doctor being slapped for malpractice?
Are you asking whether the patient should be able to choose someone who will do what they want, or
are you asking whether the patient can demand treatment against the provider's wishes?
Notice that in general only the patient has standing to bring malpractice charges against the
provider, so informed consent takes care of the "without the doctor being slapped" issue.
--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a | completely unintentional side
| effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
E
Eric Bohlman
Guest
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place. Thoughts?
At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among other
things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be able to
devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined to
believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-
up situation.
If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And that's
a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers investigating a
promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently if it doesn't pan
out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually *gained* knowledge about
the mechanism of the disease from the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of
several approaches they were considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which
to pursue next.
But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of the disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is
disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
much of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a conventional researcher is doing
first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't represent the
culmination of his life's work. He hasn't staked his reputation on it.
So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have too
much to lose from it. And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion
first is the one responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to make the
assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone else will
get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both cases he could
have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the same
rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they don't want
to do what it would take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
news:[email protected]:
> Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place. Thoughts?
At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among other
things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be able to
devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined to
believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-
up situation.
If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And that's
a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers investigating a
promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently if it doesn't pan
out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually *gained* knowledge about
the mechanism of the disease from the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of
several approaches they were considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which
to pursue next.
But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of the disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is
disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
much of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a conventional researcher is doing
first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't represent the
culmination of his life's work. He hasn't staked his reputation on it.
So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have too
much to lose from it. And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion
first is the one responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to make the
assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone else will
get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both cases he could
have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the same
rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they don't want
to do what it would take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
T
Toolz Toolz
Guest
"Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> > to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> > all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > Thoughts?
>
> At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM
Only if you do not threaten the big guys.
among other things. And the supplement manufacturers are
> making plenty of money,
Um, haven't you and others here told us that big pharm produces those suppliments? so they should be
able to devote a little of it to
> research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined to believe it's because once
> you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-up situation.
In your sad little dreams, perhaps.
>
> If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it.
How bout if it only doesnt work some of the time? Like only a few per thousand? And that's a very
bad position to be in if you're a one-
> trick pony.
Why? Conventional researchers investigating a promising therapy
> don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently if it doesn't pan out they move on
> to looking for something else.
Reasonable people finding that conventional sci med therapy dose not pan out move on to something
else. That is ,if conventional has not killed or maimed them first.
In fact,
> they've actually *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
from
> the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
>
> But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> therapies to try,
Please back this up with some cites, or even personal experince. and no alternative
explanations of the
> disease mechanism.
That will fit into the sci med box. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go
> back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in
> believing that his therapy works.
???????????????????? what the hell do you base this statement on?
If a conventional
> researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't
> represent the culmination of his life's work.
He
> hasn't staked his reputation on it.
So he has little to lose, or care about. It's only a job.
>
> So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> too much to lose from it.
Man, you are so full of ****, one cannot begin to discribe your condition , conventional or
alternatitvely. Why, you are a bonified medical / genectic wonder. And the way science as
> practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one responsible to provide
> evidence for its truth.
So, you not only want to be the be-all end-all, you want to dictate how everyone "works"? Dream on .
If the first person to make
> the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
> someone else to take on the task.
Ok, lets see............ Joe has an idea that xz will work better than xy, and we have countless
testamoneys that confirm it. But joe cannot afford to do the research to prove it to the sci med
dictators. Oh well, joe should have done the research , now we move on without looking at it because
joe did not suck up to the dictators. My! that sounds
smart.............................................................
Why should he?
> At best he'll do all the work and someone else will get the credit.
Damn! And all this time I thought medicine was about helping the sick and injured! How silly of me.
We must not forget about the more important aspects, like who got "CREDIT". At
> worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort.
So???/ What , do you think it always works out as expected? In both cases
> he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
Ahh!!!! Much better to wear those extra large blinders eh?
>
> The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the
> rules that are made by the dictators. They want
other
> people to do the research for them, but they don't want to do what it
would
> take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
So, what do ya think, would a BJ from a young blond make it worthwhile? WAIT! dosn't she work
for sci-med?
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> > to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> > all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > Thoughts?
>
> At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM
Only if you do not threaten the big guys.
among other things. And the supplement manufacturers are
> making plenty of money,
Um, haven't you and others here told us that big pharm produces those suppliments? so they should be
able to devote a little of it to
> research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined to believe it's because once
> you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-up situation.
In your sad little dreams, perhaps.
>
> If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it.
How bout if it only doesnt work some of the time? Like only a few per thousand? And that's a very
bad position to be in if you're a one-
> trick pony.
Why? Conventional researchers investigating a promising therapy
> don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently if it doesn't pan out they move on
> to looking for something else.
Reasonable people finding that conventional sci med therapy dose not pan out move on to something
else. That is ,if conventional has not killed or maimed them first.
In fact,
> they've actually *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
from
> the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
>
> But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> therapies to try,
Please back this up with some cites, or even personal experince. and no alternative
explanations of the
> disease mechanism.
That will fit into the sci med box. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go
> back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in
> believing that his therapy works.
???????????????????? what the hell do you base this statement on?
If a conventional
> researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't
> represent the culmination of his life's work.
He
> hasn't staked his reputation on it.
So he has little to lose, or care about. It's only a job.
>
> So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> too much to lose from it.
Man, you are so full of ****, one cannot begin to discribe your condition , conventional or
alternatitvely. Why, you are a bonified medical / genectic wonder. And the way science as
> practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one responsible to provide
> evidence for its truth.
So, you not only want to be the be-all end-all, you want to dictate how everyone "works"? Dream on .
If the first person to make
> the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
> someone else to take on the task.
Ok, lets see............ Joe has an idea that xz will work better than xy, and we have countless
testamoneys that confirm it. But joe cannot afford to do the research to prove it to the sci med
dictators. Oh well, joe should have done the research , now we move on without looking at it because
joe did not suck up to the dictators. My! that sounds
smart.............................................................
Why should he?
> At best he'll do all the work and someone else will get the credit.
Damn! And all this time I thought medicine was about helping the sick and injured! How silly of me.
We must not forget about the more important aspects, like who got "CREDIT". At
> worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort.
So???/ What , do you think it always works out as expected? In both cases
> he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
Ahh!!!! Much better to wear those extra large blinders eh?
>
> The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the
> rules that are made by the dictators. They want
other
> people to do the research for them, but they don't want to do what it
would
> take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
So, what do ya think, would a BJ from a young blond make it worthwhile? WAIT! dosn't she work
for sci-med?
A
Anth
Guest
"Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> > to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> > all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > Thoughts?
>
> At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among
> other things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be able
> to devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined
> to believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-
> up situation.
Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
> If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And
> that's a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers
> investigating a promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently
> if it doesn't pan out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually
> *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
from
> the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
What if your research works, but it is shown not to work by badly designed experiments etc? This is
typical of what is seen in alternative health circles.
> But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of
the
> disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and
> start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in believing that his
> therapy works. If a
conventional
> researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't
> represent the culmination of his life's work.
He
> hasn't staked his reputation on it.
I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I see a
lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this does a great
deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders the progress of
science. This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> too much to lose from it.
Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any trials on atherosclerosis. The
reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me wondering why he claims that
the no1 killer has been cured by his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
> And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
make
> the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
> someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone else
> will get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both cases
> he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
>
> The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the same
> rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they don't
> want to do what it
would
> take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored. Anth
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long run
> > to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes - after
> > all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > Thoughts?
>
> At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among
> other things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be able
> to devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly inclined
> to believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're in a put-up-or-shut-
> up situation.
Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
> If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And
> that's a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers
> investigating a promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently
> if it doesn't pan out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually
> *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
from
> the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
What if your research works, but it is shown not to work by badly designed experiments etc? This is
typical of what is seen in alternative health circles.
> But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of
the
> disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and
> start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in believing that his
> therapy works. If a
conventional
> researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy doesn't
> represent the culmination of his life's work.
He
> hasn't staked his reputation on it.
I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I see a
lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this does a great
deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders the progress of
science. This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> too much to lose from it.
Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any trials on atherosclerosis. The
reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me wondering why he claims that
the no1 killer has been cured by his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
> And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
make
> the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable for
> someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone else
> will get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both cases
> he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
>
> The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the same
> rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they don't
> want to do what it
would
> take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored. Anth
O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> > > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long
> > > run to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes -
> > > after all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among
> > other things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be
> > able to devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly
> > inclined to believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're
> > in a put-up-or-shut-up situation.
>
> Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
making lots of money.
> > If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And
> > that's a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers
> > investigating a promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently
> > if it doesn't pan out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually
> > *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
> from
> > the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> > considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
>
> What if your research works, but it is shown not to work by badly designed experiments etc?
Then prove it works by well-designed experiments.
> This is typical of what is seen in alternative health circles.
Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit, but
that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy for
atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
> > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> > therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of
> the
> > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and
> > start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in believing that his
> > therapy works. If a
> conventional
> > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy
> > doesn't represent the culmination of his life's work.
> He
> > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
>
> I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I see
> a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this does a
> great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders the
> progress of science.
Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they do
no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
> This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy had
been elucidated.
> > So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> > too much to lose from it.
>
> Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any trials on atherosclerosis.
> The reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me wondering why he claims
> that the no1 killer has been cured by his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
You are wise to wonder about this. No true medical scientist ever thinks he has the ultimate therapy
that can't be improved upon. Even for diseases where we have good treatments, we are always looking
for better treatments. In evaluating new therapies, there is always the risk of unexpected findings,
a risk scientists are willing to take. A lack of curiosity to find better treatments (or even to do
the research necessary to determine whether or not their treatments actually work) is,
unfortunately, a hallmark of "alternative" medical practitioners.
> > And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> > responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
> make
> > the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable
> > for someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone
> > else will get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both
> > cases he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
> >
> > The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the
> > same rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they
> > don't want to do what it
> would
> > take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
>
> I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants into
alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional scientist
trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research proposal, with some
preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and justification for the budget.
There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The
proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as study sections. It will probably be
rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound and the scientist can address the
reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or third time around. The problem is, too
few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to play by the same rules every other scientist
has to play by to get funding and to go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for
funding. They seem to think that, just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them
funding to pursue their research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that their
project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> > > Currently money dictates the direction of the research, with potential therapies (such as high
> > > dose vitamins etc.) being ignored for treatments that will be on a whole useless in the long
> > > run to prevent the disease. Shouldn't the people have the choice of where the research goes -
> > > after all they are ultimately the source of the revenue for the companies in the first place.
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > At least in the US, there's plenty of money available for such research, from the NCCAM among
> > other things. And the supplement manufacturers are making plenty of money, so they should be
> > able to devote a little of it to research. But nobody seems interested, and I'm very strongly
> > inclined to believe it's because once you've committed yourself to doing proper research, you're
> > in a put-up-or-shut-up situation.
>
> Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
making lots of money.
> > If your research shows that the therapy in question doesn't work, you have to abandon it. And
> > that's a very bad position to be in if you're a one- trick pony. Conventional researchers
> > investigating a promising therapy don't believe that it's The One True Therapy, and consequently
> > if it doesn't pan out they move on to looking for something else. In fact, they've actually
> > *gained* knowledge about the mechanism of the disease
> from
> > the fact that the therapy didn't work. It was merely one of several approaches they were
> > considering, and its failure provides valuable information as to which to pursue next.
>
> What if your research works, but it is shown not to work by badly designed experiments etc?
Then prove it works by well-designed experiments.
> This is typical of what is seen in alternative health circles.
Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit, but
that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy for
atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
> > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the true sense of the word)
> > therapies to try, and no alternative explanations of
> the
> > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is go back to square one and
> > start from scratch. And he's just got way too much of himself invested in believing that his
> > therapy works. If a
> conventional
> > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to say that said therapy
> > doesn't represent the culmination of his life's work.
> He
> > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
>
> I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I see
> a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this does a
> great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders the
> progress of science.
Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they do
no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
> This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy had
been elucidated.
> > So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it have
> > too much to lose from it.
>
> Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any trials on atherosclerosis.
> The reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me wondering why he claims
> that the no1 killer has been cured by his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
You are wise to wonder about this. No true medical scientist ever thinks he has the ultimate therapy
that can't be improved upon. Even for diseases where we have good treatments, we are always looking
for better treatments. In evaluating new therapies, there is always the risk of unexpected findings,
a risk scientists are willing to take. A lack of curiosity to find better treatments (or even to do
the research necessary to determine whether or not their treatments actually work) is,
unfortunately, a hallmark of "alternative" medical practitioners.
> > And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> > responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
> make
> > the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned, it is *not* reasonable
> > for someone else to take on the task. Why should he? At best he'll do all the work and someone
> > else will get the credit. At worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both
> > cases he could have used that time and money to do research into his own area.
> >
> > The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C don't want to play by the
> > same rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the research for them, but they
> > don't want to do what it
> would
> > take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
>
> I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants into
alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional scientist
trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research proposal, with some
preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and justification for the budget.
There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The
proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as study sections. It will probably be
rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound and the scientist can address the
reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or third time around. The problem is, too
few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to play by the same rules every other scientist
has to play by to get funding and to go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for
funding. They seem to think that, just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them
funding to pursue their research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that their
project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
D
David Wright
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
>> making lots of money.
>
>******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
>'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
-- 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)
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
>> making lots of money.
>
>******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
>'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
-- 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)
D
David Wright
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sources are all in the book The Story of Vitamin B17
>
Which alone should make one suspicious -- laetrile is not a vitamin.
-- 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)
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sources are all in the book The Story of Vitamin B17
>
Which alone should make one suspicious -- laetrile is not a vitamin.
-- 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)
D
David Wright
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <dPenb.11758$%[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
>Wright) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
>> >> are making lots of money.
>> >
>> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
>> >'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>>
>> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
>> vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
>> therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
>
>Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now one
>of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and bounds.
>There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating patients, and
>that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine how the ability
>to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for medications it has a
>large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy techniques are patented,
>and those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet there's a lot of radiation
>therapy research out there looking for better methods and schedules of delivering radiation, better
>ways of combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In alternative medicine, analogous
>techniques might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture, etc., none of which depend on
>patents for their viability. Yet, where is the research in these topics?
A very legitimate question.
After thinking it over a bit more, I realized that the pharm companies probably wouldn't bother to
do research into therapeutic uses of vitamins, even with gov't grants, for a couple of reasons:
1) It's probably less profitable than researching new drugs
2) They only have so many researchers on staff
3) The results would be viewed with suspicion by practically everyone.
-- 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)
Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <dPenb.11758$%[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
>Wright) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
>> >> are making lots of money.
>> >
>> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
>> >'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>>
>> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
>> vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
>> therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
>
>Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now one
>of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and bounds.
>There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating patients, and
>that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine how the ability
>to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for medications it has a
>large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy techniques are patented,
>and those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet there's a lot of radiation
>therapy research out there looking for better methods and schedules of delivering radiation, better
>ways of combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In alternative medicine, analogous
>techniques might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture, etc., none of which depend on
>patents for their viability. Yet, where is the research in these topics?
A very legitimate question.
After thinking it over a bit more, I realized that the pharm companies probably wouldn't bother to
do research into therapeutic uses of vitamins, even with gov't grants, for a couple of reasons:
1) It's probably less profitable than researching new drugs
2) They only have so many researchers on staff
3) The results would be viewed with suspicion by practically everyone.
-- 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)
A
Anth
Guest
> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
> making lots of money.
******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
> Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit, but
> that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy for
> atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2 years is now on the same
scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going to come of the blood pressure pills she's been
taking for the past 5 years. Why did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she started
supplementing her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a **** about.
> > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the
true
> > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative explanations
of
> > the
> > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is
go
> > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
much
> > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > conventional
> > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to
say
> > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
work.
> > He
> > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> >
> > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I
> > see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this
> > does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders
> > the progress of science.
Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you look deep enough into Hulda's
mad cap therapies you see there is theory behind them. The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad
cap claims. If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another Hulda.
> Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they do
> no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
>
> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> had been elucidated.
It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
> > > So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it
> > > have too much to lose from it.
> >
> > Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any
trials
> > on atherosclerosis. The reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me
> > wondering why he claims that the no1 killer has been cured
by
> > his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
>
> You are wise to wonder about this. No true medical scientist ever thinks he has the ultimate
> therapy that can't be improved upon. Even for diseases where we have good treatments, we are
> always looking for better treatments. In evaluating new therapies, there is always the risk of
> unexpected findings, a risk scientists are willing to take. A lack of curiosity to find better
> treatments (or even to do the research necessary to determine whether or not their treatments
> actually work) is, unfortunately, a hallmark of "alternative" medical practitioners.
>
>
> > > And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> > > responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
> > make
> > > the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned,
it
> > > is *not* reasonable for someone else to take on the task. Why should
he?
> > > At best he'll do all the work and someone else will get the credit.
At
> > > worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both
cases
> > > he could have used that time and money to do research into his own
area.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C
don't
> > > want to play by the same rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the
> > > research for them, but they don't want to do what it
> > would
> > > take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
> >
> > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
>
> Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research proposal,
> with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and justification for
> the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February 1, June 1, and
> October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as study sections.
> It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound and the scientist
> can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or third time around.
> The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to play by the same rules
> every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to go through the same sometimes brutal
> process of applying for funding. They seem to think that, just because they are "alternative," the
> government OWES them funding to pursue their research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the
> NIH/NCCAM that their project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any) adding ammunition against the
therapy. Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
nutritional arm? Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of day as a
proven cancer therapy.
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me it seems to dispel the most
common misconceptions? Anth
> making lots of money.
******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
> Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit, but
> that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy for
> atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2 years is now on the same
scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going to come of the blood pressure pills she's been
taking for the past 5 years. Why did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she started
supplementing her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a **** about.
> > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the
true
> > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative explanations
of
> > the
> > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is
go
> > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
much
> > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > conventional
> > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to
say
> > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
work.
> > He
> > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> >
> > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I
> > see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this
> > does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders
> > the progress of science.
Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you look deep enough into Hulda's
mad cap therapies you see there is theory behind them. The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad
cap claims. If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another Hulda.
> Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they do
> no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
>
> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> had been elucidated.
It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
> > > So a lot of the research you talk about won't be done because the only people who can do it
> > > have too much to lose from it.
> >
> > Interesting, I asked DrRath if he was doing or planning on doing any
trials
> > on atherosclerosis. The reply back I got was along the lines of no current plans. This has me
> > wondering why he claims that the no1 killer has been cured
by
> > his and Paulings work, and is not anxious to plan trials.
>
> You are wise to wonder about this. No true medical scientist ever thinks he has the ultimate
> therapy that can't be improved upon. Even for diseases where we have good treatments, we are
> always looking for better treatments. In evaluating new therapies, there is always the risk of
> unexpected findings, a risk scientists are willing to take. A lack of curiosity to find better
> treatments (or even to do the research necessary to determine whether or not their treatments
> actually work) is, unfortunately, a hallmark of "alternative" medical practitioners.
>
>
> > > And the way science as practiced works is that he who makes the assertion first is the one
> > > responsible to provide evidence for its truth. If the first person to
> > make
> > > the assertion can't/won't do the research for the reasons I mentioned,
it
> > > is *not* reasonable for someone else to take on the task. Why should
he?
> > > At best he'll do all the work and someone else will get the credit.
At
> > > worst he'll have sunk time and money into a futile effort. In both
cases
> > > he could have used that time and money to do research into his own
area.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the people advocating, say, high-dose Vitamin C
don't
> > > want to play by the same rules everybody else has to. They want other people to do the
> > > research for them, but they don't want to do what it
> > would
> > > take to persuade others that it was worthwhile for them to do so.
> >
> > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
>
> Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research proposal,
> with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and justification for
> the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February 1, June 1, and
> October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as study sections.
> It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound and the scientist
> can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or third time around.
> The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to play by the same rules
> every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to go through the same sometimes brutal
> process of applying for funding. They seem to think that, just because they are "alternative," the
> government OWES them funding to pursue their research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the
> NIH/NCCAM that their project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any) adding ammunition against the
therapy. Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
nutritional arm? Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of day as a
proven cancer therapy.
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me it seems to dispel the most
common misconceptions? Anth
O
Orac
Guest
In article <dPenb.11758$%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> >> are making lots of money.
> >
> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
> >'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>
> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
> vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
> therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now one
of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and bounds.
There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating patients, and
that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine how the ability
to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for medications it has a
large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy techniques are patented, and
those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet there's a lot of radiation therapy
research out there looking for better methods and schedules of delivering radiation, better ways of
combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In alternative medicine, analogous techniques
might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture, etc., none of which depend on patents for their
viability. Yet, where is the research in these topics?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> >> are making lots of money.
> >
> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
> >'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>
> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is that
> vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to benefit,
> therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now one
of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and bounds.
There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating patients, and
that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine how the ability
to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for medications it has a
large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy techniques are patented, and
those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet there's a lot of radiation therapy
research out there looking for better methods and schedules of delivering radiation, better ways of
combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In alternative medicine, analogous techniques
might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture, etc., none of which depend on patents for their
viability. Yet, where is the research in these topics?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
A
Anth
Guest
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <dPenb.11758$%[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> >Wright) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine
> >> >> industries are making lots of money.
> >> >
> >> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the
whole
> >> >pharm business is a 'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose
> >> >vitamin C?
> >>
> >> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is
> >> that vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to
> >> benefit, therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
> >
> >Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now
> >one of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and
> >bounds. There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating
> >patients, and that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine
> >how the ability to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for
> >medications it has a large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy
> >techniques are patented, and those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet
> >there's a lot of radiation therapy research out there looking for better methods and schedules of
> >delivering radiation, better ways of combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In
> >alternative medicine, analogous techniques might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture,
> >etc., none of which depend on patents for their viability. Yet, where is the research in these
> >topics?
>
> A very legitimate question.
>
> After thinking it over a bit more, I realized that the pharm companies probably wouldn't bother to
> do research into therapeutic uses of vitamins, even with gov't grants, for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) It's probably less profitable than researching new drugs
>
> 2) They only have so many researchers on staff
>
> 3) The results would be viewed with suspicion by practically everyone.
>
> -- 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)
That is pretty much it. I remember reading a transcript of a government discussion on articles like
this, and they pretty much raised these points. Anth
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <dPenb.11758$%[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> >Wright) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine
> >> >> industries are making lots of money.
> >> >
> >> >******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the
whole
> >> >pharm business is a 'business with disease.' Why do statins get funding and not high dose
> >> >vitamin C?
> >>
> >> You two are talking past each other. Orac is right that there's money in it; the problem is
> >> that vitamins are off-patent, so if one company does the research, everyone else gets to
> >> benefit, therefore nobody does the (expensive) research.
> >
> >Well, partially. There is lots of money for research out there, as alternative medicine is now
> >one of the "hot" areas for clinical research and the NCCAM's budget is growing by leaps and
> >bounds. There's also plenty of money for alternative medicine practitioners to make treating
> >patients, and that's not dependent on any patents. I'll give an example in conventional medicine
> >how the ability to patent does not necessarily have to drive research (although clearly for
> >medications it has a large influence in "conventional medicine"). Very few radiation therapy
> >techniques are patented, and those few that are almost always involve proprietary devices. Yet
> >there's a lot of radiation therapy research out there looking for better methods and schedules of
> >delivering radiation, better ways of combining it with other modalities of therapy, etc. In
> >alternative medicine, analogous techniques might be chiropracty, massage therapy, acupuncture,
> >etc., none of which depend on patents for their viability. Yet, where is the research in these
> >topics?
>
> A very legitimate question.
>
> After thinking it over a bit more, I realized that the pharm companies probably wouldn't bother to
> do research into therapeutic uses of vitamins, even with gov't grants, for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) It's probably less profitable than researching new drugs
>
> 2) They only have so many researchers on staff
>
> 3) The results would be viewed with suspicion by practically everyone.
>
> -- 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)
That is pretty much it. I remember reading a transcript of a government discussion on articles like
this, and they pretty much raised these points. Anth
R
Rich Shewmaker
Guest
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
>
> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
> making lots of money.
>
>
A current estimate of the supplement industry is $17.7 Billion! The alties here claim that the
impoverished supplement makers cannot afford to do research. What a joke! What they really cannot
afford is the risk that research might show their products to be ineffective or even dangerous.
--Rich
news
[email protected]...> In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Nobody is interested because there's no money in it.
>
> Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries are
> making lots of money.
>
>
A current estimate of the supplement industry is $17.7 Billion! The alties here claim that the
impoverished supplement makers cannot afford to do research. What a joke! What they really cannot
afford is the risk that research might show their products to be ineffective or even dangerous.
--Rich
O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> > are making lots of money.
>
> ******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
> 'business with disease.'
No, it's ******** to claim there's no money in the supplement and alternative medicine industries.
The whine that "there's no money" is nothing more than an excuse not to do research to show that
> Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
You mean like this study?
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00001870
> > Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit,
> > but that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy
> > for atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
>
> For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2 years is now on the same
> scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going to come of the blood pressure pills she's
> been taking for the past 5 years. Why did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she
> started supplementing her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a
> **** about.
Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
> > > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the
> true
> > > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative explanations
> of
> > > the
> > > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is
> go
> > > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
> much
> > > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > > conventional
> > > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to
> say
> > > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
> work.
> > > He
> > > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> > >
> > > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I
> > > see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this
> > > does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders
> > > the progress of science.
>
> Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you look deep enough into
> Hulda's mad cap therapies you see there is theory behind them.
So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it a
"theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the "theory of
evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis, and there is
abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an hypothesis.
>The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims.
Indeed she does. But worse, she makes money treating people with useless therapies based on those
crazy madcap claims.
>If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another Hulda.
Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I would
also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
> > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they
> > do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
>
> > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> >
> > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> > had been elucidated.
>
> It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
> costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
> good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
[Snip]
> > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
> >
> > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February
> > 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as
> > study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound
> > and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or
> > third time around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to
> > play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to go through the
> > same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that, just because
> > they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their research, that they
> > shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that their project is scientifically promising enough
> > to be worth funding.
>
> NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any) adding ammunition against the
> therapy.
The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets, etc.,
etc., etc.
Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical trials
(or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact that
these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because being
powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the investigators pretty
early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
> Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the nutritional arm?
I knew that months ago.
I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are for
4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my guess is
that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
> Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of day as a proven cancer
> therapy.
You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible to
blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
> How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me it seems to dispel the most
> common misconceptions?
I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> > are making lots of money.
>
> ******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the whole pharm business is a
> 'business with disease.'
No, it's ******** to claim there's no money in the supplement and alternative medicine industries.
The whine that "there's no money" is nothing more than an excuse not to do research to show that
> Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
You mean like this study?
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00001870
> > Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit,
> > but that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation therapy
> > for atherosclerosis is a good example of this.
>
> For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2 years is now on the same
> scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going to come of the blood pressure pills she's
> been taking for the past 5 years. Why did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she
> started supplementing her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a
> **** about.
Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
> > > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in the
> true
> > > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative explanations
> of
> > > the
> > > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do is
> go
> > > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way too
> much
> > > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > > conventional
> > > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe to
> say
> > > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
> work.
> > > He
> > > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> > >
> > > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey. I
> > > see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think this
> > > does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and hinders
> > > the progress of science.
>
> Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you look deep enough into
> Hulda's mad cap therapies you see there is theory behind them.
So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it a
"theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the "theory of
evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis, and there is
abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an hypothesis.
>The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims.
Indeed she does. But worse, she makes money treating people with useless therapies based on those
crazy madcap claims.
>If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another Hulda.
Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I would
also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
> > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that they
> > do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes to mind as an excellent example.
>
> > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> >
> > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> > had been elucidated.
>
> It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
> costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
> good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
[Snip]
> > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large are being ignored.
> >
> > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals (February
> > 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in groups known as
> > study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the proposal is sound
> > and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get funded the second or
> > third time around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners are willing to
> > play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to go through the
> > same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that, just because
> > they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their research, that they
> > shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that their project is scientifically promising enough
> > to be worth funding.
>
> NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any) adding ammunition against the
> therapy.
The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets, etc.,
etc., etc.
Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical trials
(or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact that
these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because being
powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the investigators pretty
early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
> Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the nutritional arm?
I knew that months ago.
I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are for
4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my guess is
that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
> Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of day as a proven cancer
> therapy.
You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible to
blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
> How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me it seems to dispel the most
> common misconceptions?
I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
E
Eric Bohlman
Guest
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
>>
>> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
>> had been elucidated.
>
> It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
> costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
> good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
*What* "scientific dogma"? The discovery by James Lind that scurvy was most likely the result of a
missing nutrient ocurred in 1747, a time when science as we know it today was barely in its
infancy. In fact, the discovery was one of the earliest examples of medical science. You can hardly
claim that medical science prevented scurvy from being explored during a time when medical science
didn't exist.
It is not fair to attribute the misdeeds of pre-Enlightenment "conventional" medicine, or even eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century conventional medicine, to "medical science" because conventional medicine had
very little scientific basis until about 100 years ago. And in fact, much of the unscientific
nonsense that "conventional" medicine used to practice survives on as "alternative" practices.
news:[email protected]:
>> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
>>
>> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
>> had been elucidated.
>
> It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
> costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
> good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
*What* "scientific dogma"? The discovery by James Lind that scurvy was most likely the result of a
missing nutrient ocurred in 1747, a time when science as we know it today was barely in its
infancy. In fact, the discovery was one of the earliest examples of medical science. You can hardly
claim that medical science prevented scurvy from being explored during a time when medical science
didn't exist.
It is not fair to attribute the misdeeds of pre-Enlightenment "conventional" medicine, or even eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century conventional medicine, to "medical science" because conventional medicine had
very little scientific basis until about 100 years ago. And in fact, much of the unscientific
nonsense that "conventional" medicine used to practice survives on as "alternative" practices.
P
Peter Bowditch
Guest
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
>costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
>good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
And good scientists did explore this. The first ever clinical trial was carried out by J A Lind, who
reported in 1753:
On the 20th of May, 1747, I took twelve patients in the scurvy aboard the Salisbury at sea. Their
cases were as similar as I could have them... Two of these were ordered a quart of cider a-day. Two
others took twenty-five gutts of elixil vitriol... Two others took two spoonfuls of vinegar... Two
were put under a course of sea water. Two others had each two oranges and one lemon given them each
day... The two remaining took the bigness of a nutmeg... The consequence was the most sudden and
visible good were perceived from the use of the oranges and lemons.
Lind JA. A Treatise on the Scurvy. Edinburgh, Sands, Murray and Cocharan; 1753
So that makes it 250 years since scientists have been exploring alternative medicines and natural
cures and then adopting what worked.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
>It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored -
>costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks' a
>good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
And good scientists did explore this. The first ever clinical trial was carried out by J A Lind, who
reported in 1753:
On the 20th of May, 1747, I took twelve patients in the scurvy aboard the Salisbury at sea. Their
cases were as similar as I could have them... Two of these were ordered a quart of cider a-day. Two
others took twenty-five gutts of elixil vitriol... Two others took two spoonfuls of vinegar... Two
were put under a course of sea water. Two others had each two oranges and one lemon given them each
day... The two remaining took the bigness of a nutmeg... The consequence was the most sudden and
visible good were perceived from the use of the oranges and lemons.
Lind JA. A Treatise on the Scurvy. Edinburgh, Sands, Murray and Cocharan; 1753
So that makes it 250 years since scientists have been exploring alternative medicines and natural
cures and then adopting what worked.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
A
Anth
Guest
You know exactly what I mean by no money in it. Anth
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> > > are making lots of money.
> >
> > ******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the
whole
> > pharm business is a 'business with disease.'
>
> No, it's ******** to claim there's no money in the supplement and alternative medicine industries.
> The whine that "there's no money" is nothing more than an excuse not to do research to show that
>
>
> > Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>
> You mean like this study?
>
> http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00001870
>
>
> > > Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit,
> > > but that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation
> > > therapy for
atherosclerosis
> > > is a good example of this.
> >
> > For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2
years
> > is now on the same scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going
to
> > come of the blood pressure pills she's been taking for the past 5 years.
Why
> > did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she started
supplementing
> > her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a **** about.
>
> Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
> trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
>
>
> > > > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in
the
> > true
> > > > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative
explanations
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do
is
> > go
> > > > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way
too
> > much
> > > > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > > > conventional
> > > > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe
to
> > say
> > > > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
> > work.
> > > > He
> > > > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> > > >
> > > > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey.
> > > > I see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think
> > > > this does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and
> > > > hinders the progress of science.
> >
> > Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you
look
> > deep enough into Hulda's mad cap therapies you see there is theory
behind
> > them.
>
> So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it
> a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an
> hypothesis.
>
>
> >The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims.
>
> Indeed she does. But worse, she makes money treating people with useless therapies based on those
> crazy madcap claims.
>
>
> >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
Hulda.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
>
>
> > > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that
> > > they do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes
to
> > > mind as an excellent example.
> >
> > > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the
truth to
> > > > come out.
> > >
> > > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent
> > > scurvy had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even
cholera
> > from being explored - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by
> > 'ignorant scientific quacks' a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
>
> You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
>
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
>
> A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
>
>
> [Snip]
>
> > > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large
are
> > > > being ignored.
> > >
> > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals
> > > (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in
groups
> > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > funded the second or third
time
> > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
are
> > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that,
> > > just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
their
> > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> >
> > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
adding
> > ammunition against the therapy.
>
> The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
> high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
> incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact
> that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because
> being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
>
>
> > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
> > nutritional arm?
>
> I knew that months ago.
>
> I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
>
>
> > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
day as
> > a proven cancer therapy.
>
> You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
> show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
> possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible
> to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
>
>
> > How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me
it
> > seems to dispel the most common misconceptions?
>
> I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
> over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
> that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
[email protected]...> In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, please. Of course there's money in it. The supplement and alternative medicine industries
> > > are making lots of money.
> >
> > ******** and you know it, there's no money in it, thus no funding, the
whole
> > pharm business is a 'business with disease.'
>
> No, it's ******** to claim there's no money in the supplement and alternative medicine industries.
> The whine that "there's no money" is nothing more than an excuse not to do research to show that
>
>
> > Why do statins get funding and not high dose vitamin C?
>
> You mean like this study?
>
> http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00001870
>
>
> > > Not really. What's more typical is that small, poorly-designed trials show a possible benefit,
> > > but that benefit isn't confirmed in larger, better-designed randomized trials. Chelation
> > > therapy for
atherosclerosis
> > > is a good example of this.
> >
> > For the record Orac my sister here who's had high blood pressure for 2
years
> > is now on the same scale blood pressure as me, and she's probably going
to
> > come of the blood pressure pills she's been taking for the past 5 years.
Why
> > did the pills suddently 'kick in' at the same time she started
supplementing
> > her diet? She's healthy, the blood pressure is low - that's all I give a **** about.
>
> Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
> trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
>
>
> > > > > But the typical "alternative" researcher has *no* alternative (in
the
> > true
> > > > > sense of the word) therapies to try, and no alternative
explanations
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > disease mechanism. If his pet therapy is disproven, all he can do
is
> > go
> > > > > back to square one and start from scratch. And he's just got way
too
> > much
> > > > > of himself invested in believing that his therapy works. If a
> > > > conventional
> > > > > researcher is doing first-level tests of a new therapy, it's safe
to
> > say
> > > > > that said therapy doesn't represent the culmination of his life's
> > work.
> > > > He
> > > > > hasn't staked his reputation on it.
> > > >
> > > > I think from a failed experiment you still learn a great deal - that is part of the journey.
> > > > I see a lot of therapies being blasted on sites like quackwatch as being quackery, I think
> > > > this does a great deal of damage to the scientists that are working on those therapies and
> > > > hinders the progress of science.
> >
> > Hulda is an easy target - usually because of lack of evidence, if you
look
> > deep enough into Hulda's mad cap therapies you see there is theory
behind
> > them.
>
> So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it
> a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an
> hypothesis.
>
>
> >The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims.
>
> Indeed she does. But worse, she makes money treating people with useless therapies based on those
> crazy madcap claims.
>
>
> >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
Hulda.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
>
>
> > > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that
> > > they do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes
to
> > > mind as an excellent example.
> >
> > > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the
truth to
> > > > come out.
> > >
> > > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent
> > > scurvy had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even
cholera
> > from being explored - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by
> > 'ignorant scientific quacks' a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
>
> You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
>
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
>
> A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
>
>
> [Snip]
>
> > > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large
are
> > > > being ignored.
> > >
> > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals
> > > (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in
groups
> > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > funded the second or third
time
> > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
are
> > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that,
> > > just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
their
> > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> >
> > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
adding
> > ammunition against the therapy.
>
> The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
> high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
> incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact
> that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because
> being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
>
>
> > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
> > nutritional arm?
>
> I knew that months ago.
>
> I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
>
>
> > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
day as
> > a proven cancer therapy.
>
> You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
> show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
> possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible
> to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
>
>
> > How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me
it
> > seems to dispel the most common misconceptions?
>
> I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
> over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
> that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
A
Anth
Guest
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
> trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
How can they show benefits when both sides just raise the bar or mess about with the criteria
(Laetrile springs to mind)? I quoted that an untested therapy which 'works' has lowered my sisters
blood pressure. Atenolol didn't. Her doctor doesn't seem concerned, as far as she thinks - the drug
did it's job. When I look on the internet for the causes of high blood pressure, I see science
scratching it's head? I also see all kinds of crazy schemes, out of which I choose something that
was safe, maintainable and looked feasible. Something as simple as supplements can do this, which is
what people have been saying for ages.
> So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it
> a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an
> hypothesis.
Hulda's work is emperical work based on Rife's (who cured 100% cancer patients according to the
University of Southern California), Beard, and many other treatments which she's added. You or I do
not know if Hulda's therapy is 'nuttyness' or 'genious' there's ignorance in that respect. You
cannot refute her claims because you don't have enough experience or the science to refute them,
neither can she prove them. You can have an opinion that they don't work. Something I would like to
see - Hulda on NCCAM - how's about a small wager that that will never happen?
> The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims. Indeed she does. But worse, she makes
> money treating people with useless therapies based on those crazy madcap claims.
Again how do you know they are useless? There's no evidence? And yes she makes money and is
guilty of shameless advertisement. "I've got cancer let's go to Hulda or Schultz - they will make
t better."
> >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
Hulda.
> Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
If you started making claims about how your therapy healed people on the basis of a few case
histories you would join the quacks pretty soon.
> > > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that
> > > they do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes
to
> > > mind as an excellent example.
> >
> > > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the
truth to
> > > > come out.
> > >
> > > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent
> > > scurvy had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even
cholera
> > from being explored - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by
> > 'ignorant scientific quacks' a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
> You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
>
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
>
> A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
Yes Indeed, how long before it weas accepted? Look at cholera - again and again the evidence was
there, again and again it was ignored because of dogma. Finally they accepted that it was the water
on the basis of one person they did tests.
> [Snip]
>
> > > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large
are
> > > > being ignored.
> > >
> > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals
> > > (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in
groups
> > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > funded the second or third
time
> > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
are
> > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that,
> > > just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
their
> > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> >
> > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
adding
> > ammunition against the therapy.
>
> The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> etc., etc., etc.
It funded the Gonzalez study - for what - the same situation as before another set of Dr Kelly's
anecdotes, but with this time Dr Gonzalez name to it? This really doesn't effect me because I live
in another country, but you guys pay your taxes for that. I think it needs 'a right kick up the
backside.' and some serious restructuring. Or maybe the NCCAM is just another front to disprove
things or cast dis information?.
> Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
> high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
> incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact
> that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because
> being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
Gonzalez study showed a large effect, and in the group which were not selected for inclusion into
the pilot study, because they had not met the study critera also showed that effect. So either
Gonzalez was just was good at selecting survivors or there was some effect.
> > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
> > nutritional arm?
>
> I knew that months ago.
>
> I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
Gonzalez protocal is still being tested on NCCAM by other doctors as I recall.
> > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
day as
> > a proven cancer therapy.
>
> You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
> show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
> possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible
> to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
I do understand, but when the trials are controversial win or fail, the bar is raised. A good
scientist should just swallow their pride and say "It didn't work game over"
> > How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me
it
> > seems to dispel the most common misconceptions?
>
> I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
> over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
> that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
I noticed that a few regulars are not posting with frequency, I put it down to the weather. (As for
Nutrition and Cancer - I would publically post the article but it's copywrited, so only small fair
use snippets are allowed). Anth
P.S.Another anecdote I believe in - "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
news
[email protected]...> Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger randomized
> trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
How can they show benefits when both sides just raise the bar or mess about with the criteria
(Laetrile springs to mind)? I quoted that an untested therapy which 'works' has lowered my sisters
blood pressure. Atenolol didn't. Her doctor doesn't seem concerned, as far as she thinks - the drug
did it's job. When I look on the internet for the causes of high blood pressure, I see science
scratching it's head? I also see all kinds of crazy schemes, out of which I choose something that
was safe, maintainable and looked feasible. Something as simple as supplements can do this, which is
what people have been saying for ages.
> So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling it
> a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with an
> hypothesis.
Hulda's work is emperical work based on Rife's (who cured 100% cancer patients according to the
University of Southern California), Beard, and many other treatments which she's added. You or I do
not know if Hulda's therapy is 'nuttyness' or 'genious' there's ignorance in that respect. You
cannot refute her claims because you don't have enough experience or the science to refute them,
neither can she prove them. You can have an opinion that they don't work. Something I would like to
see - Hulda on NCCAM - how's about a small wager that that will never happen?
> The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims. Indeed she does. But worse, she makes
> money treating people with useless therapies based on those crazy madcap claims.
Again how do you know they are useless? There's no evidence? And yes she makes money and is
guilty of shameless advertisement. "I've got cancer let's go to Hulda or Schultz - they will make
t better."
> >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
Hulda.
> Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
If you started making claims about how your therapy healed people on the basis of a few case
histories you would join the quacks pretty soon.
> > > Not if the therapies in question truly have no scientific basis and there is evidence that
> > > they do no good. Hulda Clark's quackery comes
to
> > > mind as an excellent example.
> >
> > > > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the
truth to
> > > > come out.
> > >
> > > This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent
> > > scurvy had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even
cholera
> > from being explored - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by
> > 'ignorant scientific quacks' a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
> You mean the way ship's physician James Lind did here:
>
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/scurvy.html
>
> A pretty good example of an early clinical trial, I'd say.
Yes Indeed, how long before it weas accepted? Look at cholera - again and again the evidence was
there, again and again it was ignored because of dogma. Finally they accepted that it was the water
on the basis of one person they did tests.
> [Snip]
>
> > > > I think they do want to do the research and trials, but are on large
are
> > > > being ignored.
> > >
> > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research grants
> > > into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any conventional
> > > scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed research
> > > proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed budget and
> > > justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these proposals
> > > (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by scientists in
groups
> > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > funded the second or third
time
> > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
are
> > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think that,
> > > just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
their
> > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> >
> > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
adding
> > ammunition against the therapy.
>
> The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> etc., etc., etc.
It funded the Gonzalez study - for what - the same situation as before another set of Dr Kelly's
anecdotes, but with this time Dr Gonzalez name to it? This really doesn't effect me because I live
in another country, but you guys pay your taxes for that. I think it needs 'a right kick up the
backside.' and some serious restructuring. Or maybe the NCCAM is just another front to disprove
things or cast dis information?.
> Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of very
> high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates for
> incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very fact
> that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant, because
> being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
Gonzalez study showed a large effect, and in the group which were not selected for inclusion into
the pilot study, because they had not met the study critera also showed that effect. So either
Gonzalez was just was good at selecting survivors or there was some effect.
> > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the
> > nutritional arm?
>
> I knew that months ago.
>
> I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
Gonzalez protocal is still being tested on NCCAM by other doctors as I recall.
> > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
day as
> > a proven cancer therapy.
>
> You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can adequately
> show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control trials are not
> possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned near impossible
> to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
I do understand, but when the trials are controversial win or fail, the bar is raised. A good
scientist should just swallow their pride and say "It didn't work game over"
> > How's the Gonzalez coming along - I have the paper here in front of me
it
> > seems to dispel the most common misconceptions?
>
> I've been out of town for a week and busy as hell since (you may have noticed the paucity of posts
> over the last 10 days or so). I haven't made it to the library yet. However, I did check and know
> that they do carry the journal in which the article appeared.
I noticed that a few regulars are not posting with frequency, I put it down to the weather. (As for
Nutrition and Cancer - I would publically post the article but it's copywrited, so only small fair
use snippets are allowed). Anth
P.S.Another anecdote I believe in - "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
A
Anth
Guest
IMO - It's happening today with atherosclerosis. Check out the story of cholera also - runs along
similar lines. Anth
"Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> >>
> >> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> >> had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored
> > - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks'
> > a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
>
> *What* "scientific dogma"? The discovery by James Lind that scurvy was most likely the result of a
> missing nutrient ocurred in 1747, a time when science as we know it today was barely in its
> infancy. In fact, the discovery was one of the earliest examples of medical science. You can
> hardly claim that medical science prevented scurvy from being explored during a time when medical
> science didn't exist.
>
> It is not fair to attribute the misdeeds of pre-Enlightenment "conventional" medicine, or even eighteenth-
> and nineteenth-century conventional medicine, to "medical science" because conventional medicine
> had very little scientific basis until about 100 years ago. And in fact, much of the unscientific
> nonsense that "conventional" medicine used to practice survives on as "alternative" practices.
similar lines. Anth
"Eric Bohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >> > This is atypical of scurvy which took hundreds of years for the truth to come out.
> >>
> >> This was, of course, before the scientific basis to understand why citrus fruits prevent scurvy
> >> had been elucidated.
> >
> > It was the ignorant scientific dogma that prevented scurvy and even cholera from being explored
> > - costing countless lives in the process. Most of this is caused by 'ignorant scientific quacks'
> > a good scientist would say ok let's explore this.
>
> *What* "scientific dogma"? The discovery by James Lind that scurvy was most likely the result of a
> missing nutrient ocurred in 1747, a time when science as we know it today was barely in its
> infancy. In fact, the discovery was one of the earliest examples of medical science. You can
> hardly claim that medical science prevented scurvy from being explored during a time when medical
> science didn't exist.
>
> It is not fair to attribute the misdeeds of pre-Enlightenment "conventional" medicine, or even eighteenth-
> and nineteenth-century conventional medicine, to "medical science" because conventional medicine
> had very little scientific basis until about 100 years ago. And in fact, much of the unscientific
> nonsense that "conventional" medicine used to practice survives on as "alternative" practices.