WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health

On 1 Jan 2007 09:13:20 -0800, "martha"
wrote:

I think you miss the point of my research. I could not find any
positive results in conventional medicine for curing depression -
drugs, ECTs and brain surgery do not cure depression and very often
sufferers do not know that there are alternatives available, or they
are not available on the health service and people can't afford them.

I have found positive results among some alternative therapy
practitioners e.g. spiritual healing, hypnotherapy, and thought field
therapy. Of course, there are many alternative therapies and there are
negative results too, but the point is while conventional medicine
cannot cure depression, there are alternative therapies that can and I
am interested to know about them. Aren't you?

Are you avoiding saying that alternative therapies "cure" depression?
Drugs surely alleviate the symptoms of depression in a proportion of
the depressed population. About the same proportion as are helped by
cognitive behavioural therapy. jack

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:33:16 +0900, en wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:19:38 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

Something that has been destroyed
almost entirely by the lies of the industry...

Which industry, though? Surely both.

More so the "patent medicine" industry by a LONG shot than the "CAM"
industry. It is a matter of great degree.

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

However, the structures are in place and need merely decent funding,
good people and some organizational changes (e.g., stronger conflicts
of interest laws but better pay for researchers and post-docs) in
order to have that capacity to do good research and defend against
fraud.

On the industry side, failure to undertake promised phase IV
post-marketing studies on predicated FDA approval should come with
severe penalties. Like the CEO and BoD gets no salary or bonus or
golden parachute.

George M. Carter

Hi to all,

Researchers have found that longevity has nothing to do with drugs or
health. It's down to education - and if you think about it, there are
good reasons why this is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/he...136e&ei= 5070

Cheers
Martha

GMCarter wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:33:16 +0900, en wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:19:38 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

Something that has been destroyed
almost entirely by the lies of the industry...

Which industry, though? Surely both.

More so the "patent medicine" industry by a LONG shot than the "CAM"
industry. It is a matter of great degree.

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

However, the structures are in place and need merely decent funding,
good people and some organizational changes (e.g., stronger conflicts
of interest laws but better pay for researchers and post-docs) in
order to have that capacity to do good research and defend against
fraud.

On the industry side, failure to undertake promised phase IV
post-marketing studies on predicated FDA approval should come with
severe penalties. Like the CEO and BoD gets no salary or bonus or
golden parachute.

George M. Carter

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:44:08 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:33:16 +0900, en wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:19:38 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

Something that has been destroyed
almost entirely by the lies of the industry...

Which industry, though? Surely both.

More so the "patent medicine" industry by a LONG shot than the "CAM"
industry. It is a matter of great degree.

Only in proportion to the relative sizes of the two industries.
The PM industry has many more government controls over it than the CAM
industry, well at least they do in Australia. The PM industry must
show efficacy, the CAM only that their product does no harm.

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

Hey, the FDA is your baby, you voted for the Bush administration. Go
ask your electorate.

However, the structures are in place and need merely decent funding,
good people and some organizational changes (e.g., stronger conflicts
of interest laws but better pay for researchers and post-docs) in
order to have that capacity to do good research and defend against
fraud.

I'm sure you are right

On the industry side, failure to undertake promised phase IV
post-marketing studies on predicated FDA approval should come with
severe penalties. Like the CEO and BoD gets no salary or bonus or
golden parachute.

That's a bit too interfering in corporate affairs, I would have
thought. Let the business do what it is meant to do, invest
shareholders' money advantageously. Then you should elect folk to make
strong laws to be carried out without fear or favour. I would guess
this starts with the electorate. You tend to vote (or not) for the
administration you deserve. Then again, this could be best tackled at
the source. EDUCATION. What percentage of the American population
believes that the universe was created since the domestication of the
dog? jack

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:57:19 +0900, en wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:44:08 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:33:16 +0900, en wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:19:38 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

Something that has been destroyed
almost entirely by the lies of the industry...

Which industry, though? Surely both.

More so the "patent medicine" industry by a LONG shot than the "CAM"
industry. It is a matter of great degree.

Only in proportion to the relative sizes of the two industries.

On what basis do you make THAT claim? Pharmaceutical companies do a
LOT more research--or get the NIH to do it--and then cover up the
negative results. The CAM industry is only beginning to do some
research. More of it is done by universities who haven't yet lost
their last vestige of credibility, so results are published as they
are, good or bad.

The PM industry has many more government controls over it than the CAM
industry, well at least they do in Australia. The PM industry must
show efficacy, the CAM only that their product does no harm.

CAM--dietary supplements at least in the US--is for the most part
stuff that has LONG been used and generally recognized as safe.

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

Hey, the FDA is your baby, you voted for the Bush administration.

I most certainly did NOT. And that piece of lying, murdering **** was
NOT elected--he stole the office twice.

Feh.

George M. Carter

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:03:34 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:57:19 +0900, en wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:44:08 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:33:16 +0900, en wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:19:38 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

Something that has been destroyed
almost entirely by the lies of the industry...

Which industry, though? Surely both.

More so the "patent medicine" industry by a LONG shot than the "CAM"
industry. It is a matter of great degree.

Only in proportion to the relative sizes of the two industries.

On what basis do you make THAT claim? Pharmaceutical companies do a
LOT more research--or get the NIH to do it--and then cover up the
negative results. The CAM industry is only beginning to do some
research. More of it is done by universities who haven't yet lost
their last vestige of credibility, so results are published as they
are, good or bad.

Well, from my reading and experience, universities do much research
for both industries. The problem with CAM is that the vast majority of
studies show no pharmacological activity, or activity that is well
known and avauilable more accurately from a PM pill.
Of course, there are some areas where much research is directed and
that is looking for new molecules in all sorts of strange places.

The PM industry has many more government controls over it than the CAM
industry, well at least they do in Australia. The PM industry must
show efficacy, the CAM only that their product does no harm.

CAM--dietary supplements at least in the US--is for the most part
stuff that has LONG been used and generally recognized as safe.

Can you give a few examples of any that are efficaceous as well?

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

Hey, the FDA is your baby, you voted for the Bush administration.

I most certainly did NOT. And that piece of lying, murdering **** was
NOT elected--he stole the office twice.

Good point, but I didn't mean you personally (I credit you with much
more sense) I meant the American electorate, or at least a rather
large minority of it.

jack

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:39:03 +0900, en wrote:

snip
Only in proportion to the relative sizes of the two industries.

On what basis do you make THAT claim? Pharmaceutical companies do a
LOT more research--or get the NIH to do it--and then cover up the
negative results. The CAM industry is only beginning to do some
research. More of it is done by universities who haven't yet lost
their last vestige of credibility, so results are published as they
are, good or bad.

Well, from my reading and experience, universities do much research
for both industries. The problem with CAM is that the vast majority of
studies show no pharmacological activity, or activity that is well
known and avauilable more accurately from a PM pill.

That's a false statement. There are scads of studies that show a
variety of agents can work as well as or better than--very often at
much less cost and fewer side effects--the corresponding overpriced,
overhyped drug.

Glucosamine/chondroitin worked BETTER than a COX2 inhibitor for severe
osteoarthritis in the big substudy. St. John's wort compares favorably
to a wide array of antidepressants with fewer side effects and
comparable efficacy in mild-to-moderate depression. Fish oils are much
safer for hypertriglyceridemia and effective; hell, counseling with
diet and exercise can have FAR more greater effect not only on markers
like LDL/HDL but on mortality and cardiovascular events.

They'd rather shove statins down everyone's throat.

Of course, there are some areas where much research is directed and
that is looking for new molecules in all sorts of strange places.

What? Like Caribbean sponges?

The PM industry has many more government controls over it than the CAM
industry, well at least they do in Australia. The PM industry must
show efficacy, the CAM only that their product does no harm.

CAM--dietary supplements at least in the US--is for the most part
stuff that has LONG been used and generally recognized as safe.

Can you give a few examples of any that are efficaceous as well?

See above.

Anyone will guild their lily for money if there are no sanctions
against it. That's why we have govt regulation and the scientific
community have such strong sanctions against scientific fraud.
Well at least in most developed places in the world.

LOL...you're kidding, right? The FDA has become so corrupt under the
Bush administration--and NIH ain't exactly a land lacking "conflicts
of interest."

Hey, the FDA is your baby, you voted for the Bush administration.

I most certainly did NOT. And that piece of lying, murdering **** was
NOT elected--he stole the office twice.

Good point, but I didn't mean you personally (I credit you with much
more sense) I meant the American electorate, or at least a rather
large minority of it.

The American electorate didn't elect the sonofabitch either. He stole
the election twice, Florida the first time, Ohio the second. And the
media let that lying, murdering, thieving piece of **** get away with
it. It's a ****ed up country but let's hope it is changing rapidly.

Unfortunately, it IS the superpower of the planet and they have
squandered that power, creating horrible situations in the Middle
East, exacerbating global warming, raping the resources of the
world--and the effect may well be an eradication of our species.

George M. Carter

Peter Bowditch wrote:
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: I don't push products, I merely point out the differences between drugs
: and nutrients.

What deficiency disease is caused by a lack of "Vitamin B17" in the diet?



Hypocyanosis?

They made up a word for "losing in court?"

PeterB wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: I don't push products, I merely point out the differences between drugs
: and nutrients.

What deficiency disease is caused by a lack of "Vitamin B17" in the diet?


Hypocyanosis?

They made up a word for "losing in court?"


You make even less sense that you usually do.

Mark Probert wrote:

PeterB wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: I don't push products, I merely point out the differences between drugs
: and nutrients.

What deficiency disease is caused by a lack of "Vitamin B17" in the diet?


Hypocyanosis?

They made up a word for "losing in court?"


You make even less sense that you usually do.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with medical terminology
could work out what "hypocyanosis" means even if they had never seen
the word before, I guess we can assume that the language of medicine
is another thing that quack supporters don't need to know about.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com