The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months

#1 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.

1. Accutane
2. Avastin
3. Calcium Channel Blockers
5. Celebrex
6. Cordarone
7. Crestor
8. Depakote
9. Erythromycin
10. Fortovase
11. Gabitril
12. Geodon
13. Halcion
14. Hismanal
15. Invirase
16. Lamictal
17. Lamisil
18. Lovanox
19. Mellaril
20. Phenergan
21. Permax
22. Prempro
23. Premphase
24. Premarin
25. Propulsid
26. Ritodrine
27. Serentil
28. Tasmar
29. Topamax
30. Trovan
31. Viagra
32. Vioxx
33. Viramune
34. Warfarin
35. Zyvox

For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
nutrition, see:

http://www.ajcn.org
http://arborcom.com
http://glycoscience.com
http://hni.ilsi.org

#2 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

Why those 35 among the thousands? You are not the source of the list of
course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they
must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is
thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years
to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood
pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive
in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to
mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it
up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally.

However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas
having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in
the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not
required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden
goose of marketing, naturally.

>Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
>natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
>drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
>provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
>should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
>associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
>show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
>the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
>is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
>symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
>drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
>
>1. Accutane
>2. Avastin
>3. Calcium Channel Blockers
>5. Celebrex
>6. Cordarone
>7. Crestor
>8. Depakote
>9. Erythromycin
>10. Fortovase
>11. Gabitril
>12. Geodon
>13. Halcion
>14. Hismanal
>15. Invirase
>16. Lamictal
>17. Lamisil
>18. Lovanox
>19. Mellaril
>20. Phenergan
>21. Permax
>22. Prempro
>23. Premphase
>24. Premarin
>25. Propulsid
>26. Ritodrine
>27. Serentil
>28. Tasmar
>29. Topamax
>30. Trovan
>31. Viagra
>32. Vioxx
>33. Viramune
>34. Warfarin
>35. Zyvox
>
>For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
>nutrition, see:
>
>http://www.ajcn.org
>http://arborcom.com
>http://glycoscience.com
>http://hni.ilsi.org

#3 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> Why those 35 among the thousands?

Why not? They happen to be the top revenue-generating drugs and should
be easy to find data for. Why not just admit you can't do it?

> You are not the source of the list of
> course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they
> must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is
> thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years
> to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood
> pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive
> in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to
> mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it
> up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally.

In other words, you can't produce risk-adjusted outcomes for even one
drug in the list.

> However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas
> having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in
> the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not
> required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden
> goose of marketing, naturally.

Which is why drugs are not "proven safe." What did you think was the
point of all this?

> >Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
> >natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
> >drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
> >provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
> >should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
> >associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
> >show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
> >the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
> >is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
> >symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
> >drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
> >
> >1. Accutane
> >2. Avastin
> >3. Calcium Channel Blockers
> >5. Celebrex
> >6. Cordarone
> >7. Crestor
> >8. Depakote
> >9. Erythromycin
> >10. Fortovase
> >11. Gabitril
> >12. Geodon
> >13. Halcion
> >14. Hismanal
> >15. Invirase
> >16. Lamictal
> >17. Lamisil
> >18. Lovanox
> >19. Mellaril
> >20. Phenergan
> >21. Permax
> >22. Prempro
> >23. Premphase
> >24. Premarin
> >25. Propulsid
> >26. Ritodrine
> >27. Serentil
> >28. Tasmar
> >29. Topamax
> >30. Trovan
> >31. Viagra
> >32. Vioxx
> >33. Viramune
> >34. Warfarin
> >35. Zyvox
> >
> >For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
> >nutrition, see:
> >
> >http://www.ajcn.org
> >http://arborcom.com
> >http://glycoscience.com
> >http://hni.ilsi.org

#4 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

<capmack@shipper.com> wrote in message
news:45a7c132$0$266$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu. edu...
> Why those 35 among the thousands?

Why not?

IF, note, IF, you cared one damned iota about the world of medicine, you
would be concerned with how those things reach the market.
If you were a Doctor who gave a damn, you would want answers because, in all
probability, you prescribed some.

For you information, there are many traditional M.D.s, cardiologists,
internists, pediatricians, oncologists (top level ones) who are VERY
concerned about that very question. AND they don't just poo poo any
possibility of non prescription answers or ESPECIALLY prevention.

THEY are also concerned about the likes of you who make their traditional
(AMA) medical practice questioned and more difficult.

#5 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

>> Why those 35 among the thousands?
>
>Why not?
>
>IF, note, IF, you cared one damned iota about the world of medicine, you
>would be concerned with how those things reach the market.
>If you were a Doctor who gave a damn, you would want answers because, in all
>probability, you prescribed some.
>
>For you information, there are many traditional M.D.s, cardiologists,
>internists, pediatricians, oncologists (top level ones) who are VERY
>concerned about that very question. AND they don't just poo poo any
>possibility of non prescription answers or ESPECIALLY prevention.
>
>THEY are also concerned about the likes of you who make their traditional
>(AMA) medical practice questioned and more difficult.

Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The
rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are
shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If
any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them.

If any "alternative drugs" fail likewise the same fate should await.
The problem is that the last point of demonstrated evidence is missing
in too many, the great majority, cases.

#6 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

>> Why those 35 among the thousands?
>
>Why not? They happen to be the top revenue-generating drugs and should
>be easy to find data for. Why not just admit you can't do it?

Because the implied strawman logic is a crock. Because I'm not being
taken in by the fools errand you have created. All were shown to do
exactly as claimed or they were not approved. If they should in the
long term reduce mortality by their demonstrated effect thought
connected to their target disorder then fine. Thousands of drugs have
in the long term done this. Lower mortality is sought but is not
required because of the time involved of years to cover the lifetimes of
the population as a whole for many disorders.

Research is done all the time after the passage of enough years for
large enough population to see if for example a blood pressure reducing
drug such as one of your examples translates to lower mortality. Others
such as vaccines don't require such time periods as do metabolic
disorder related drugs.

>> You are not the source of the list of
>> course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they
>> must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is
>> thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years
>> to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood
>> pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive
>> in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to
>> mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it
>> up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally.
>
>In other words, you can't produce risk-adjusted outcomes for even one
>drug in the list.

No, but it is irrelevant as above.

>> However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas
>> having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in
>> the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not
>> required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden
>> goose of marketing, naturally.

>
>Which is why drugs are not "proven safe." What did you think was the
>point of all this?

To create a tempest in a teapot and send folk on an empty fools errand
in diversion of the more important question of does the damn thing work
and is it safe as demonstrated by hard evidence. The answer we well too
often know for "alternative drugs" as no and for those meeting fda
thresholds yes.

..

#7 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, capmack@shipper.com wrote:

>
snip
>Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The
>rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are
>shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If
>any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them.

Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever shit the pharma reps dole
out.

Research, unfortunately, has been turned into shit by pharma. Research
has been corrupted, folded, spindled and mutilated to sell drugs with
no regard to health effects and primacy given to return on minimal
investment.

Research has deteriorated as fewer new chemical entities than ever
have been brought to market. Little or nothing has been done on global
and serious infectious diseases. The "free market" system has been
distorted by the destructive perversion of intellectual property
rights.

Physicians don't have time to really read the research because they're
too busy filling out reams of paperwork by an insurance industry
pontedly working to maximize profits, regardless of the patients'
needs (particularly in the US).

>If any "alternative drugs" fail likewise the same fate should await.
>The problem is that the last point of demonstrated evidence is missing
>in too many, the great majority, cases.

Because research has been turned into a big fat steaming pile of shit.

Sorta like Iraq and Bush.

George M. Carter

#8 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vc9gq2pblu6chdmatcnrbcuctnf23i30qr@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, capmack@shipper.com wrote:
>
>>
> snip
>>Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The
>>rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are
>>shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If
>>any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them.
>
> Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever **** the pharma reps dole
> out.
>

The prettier the legs and the greater the freebies, the more is "sold"

#9 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

On 12 Jan 2007 09:41:26 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>Which is why drugs are not "proven safe."

Did you not relaise that NOTHING can be proven safe?
Not even putting your sox on while sitting on your bed.
This has apparently caused at least one death and probably countless
injuries. jack

#10 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

vernon wrote:
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:vc9gq2pblu6chdmatcnrbcuctnf23i30qr@4ax.com...
> > On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, capmack@shipper.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> > snip
> >>Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The
> >>rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are
> >>shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If
> >>any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them.
> >
> > Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever **** the pharma reps dole
> > out.
> >
>
> The prettier the legs and the greater the freebies, the more is "sold"

Excellent!

Was it the Wall Street Journal or possibly the Washington Post that
exposed the fact that a dozen or so cheerleaders from the University of
Kentucky's national champion cheerleading squad were given jobs as drug
reps?

Those perky reps did not have degrees in science, but they sure looked
good in a short skirt.

There you are sitting and waiting for your five minutes with the doctor
and in rolls a cheerleader-drug rep. Who sees the doctor first?

And what are the chances that you'll be prescribed the cutiepie's
latest through the professional hands of the doctor's prescription pad?

Meanwhile, we are learning that hot peppers might be better for you,
even if it doesn't pad the cutiepie's bank account.

PS. Cholesterol drugs do two things, (1) they lower cholesterol, and
(2) they cause heart attacks by blocking CoQ10. Ya wanna bet that
Ms.Cutiepie with the degree in Marketing didn't tell the salivating
doctor that her 'fave' statin might kill off some of his patients?

#11 01-13-2007, 05:58 PM

PeterB wrote:
> Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
> natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
> drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
> provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
> should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
> associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
> show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
> the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
> is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
> symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
> drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
>
> 1. Accutane
> 2. Avastin
> 3. Calcium Channel Blockers
> 5. Celebrex
> 6. Cordarone
> 7. Crestor
> 8. Depakote
> 9. Erythromycin
> 10. Fortovase
> 11. Gabitril
> 12. Geodon
> 13. Halcion
> 14. Hismanal
> 15. Invirase
> 16. Lamictal
> 17. Lamisil
> 18. Lovanox
> 19. Mellaril
> 20. Phenergan
> 21. Permax
> 22. Prempro
> 23. Premphase
> 24. Premarin
> 25. Propulsid
> 26. Ritodrine
> 27. Serentil
> 28. Tasmar
> 29. Topamax
> 30. Trovan
> 31. Viagra
> 32. Vioxx
> 33. Viramune
> 34. Warfarin
> 35. Zyvox
>
> For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
> nutrition, see:
>
> http://www.ajcn.org

There is a whole section in the latest publication of this journal on
the problem of side effects from vitamin and mineral supplements.
pointing out that fewer than 1% of the ill effects from them are
probably ever reported.

But I agree the drugs are generally riskier than most nutritional and
alternative treatments because they have distinctive, different kinds
of pharamacological activity, and usually serve different purposes. It
is obviously utterly ridiculous to propose that nutritional methods can
substitute entirely for drugs, although some supplements when taken in
larger dosages have overlapping effects with some drugs.

This describes the process that drugs go through to get onto the market
and explains why thousands of potential drugs never get onto the
market.
http://www.australianprescriber.com/...e/29/6/159/61/

> http://arborcom.com
> http://glycoscience.com

Mannatech is an MLM scam with scarcely a trace of evidence of benefit
for its claims.

Peter Moran

> http://hni.ilsi.org

#12 01-14-2007, 03:18 AM

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168670131.435721.85400@38g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:vc9gq2pblu6chdmatcnrbcuctnf23i30qr@4ax.com...
>> > On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, capmack@shipper.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> > snip
>> >>Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The
>> >>rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that
>> >>are
>> >>shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If
>> >>any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them.
>> >
>> > Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever **** the pharma reps dole
>> > out.
>> >
>>
>> The prettier the legs and the greater the freebies, the more is "sold"
>
> Excellent!
>
> Was it the Wall Street Journal or possibly the Washington Post that
> exposed the fact that a dozen or so cheerleaders from the University of
> Kentucky's national champion cheerleading squad were given jobs as drug
> reps?
>
> Those perky reps did not have degrees in science, but they sure looked
> good in a short skirt.
>
> There you are sitting and waiting for your five minutes with the doctor
> and in rolls a cheerleader-drug rep. Who sees the doctor first?
>
> And what are the chances that you'll be prescribed the cutiepie's
> latest through the professional hands of the doctor's prescription pad?
>
>
> Meanwhile, we are learning that hot peppers might be better for you,
> even if it doesn't pad the cutiepie's bank account.
>
> PS. Cholesterol drugs do two things, (1) they lower cholesterol, and
> (2) they cause heart attacks by blocking CoQ10. Ya wanna bet that
> Ms.Cutiepie with the degree in Marketing didn't tell the salivating
> doctor that her 'fave' statin might kill off some of his patients?
>

A friend of mine, (a jock type) started by selling Kotex to stores, was a
success, then switched to selling drugs to doctors- made a fortune (knew
NOTHING about ANYTHING he sold, went on to selling Caterpillar Tractors and
didn't know how to start one, retired a multi-millionaire after owning a
hardware store (couldn't operate a hammer). His major end source of income?
Drugs to doctors. Who he, or his family members, went to if in medical
trouble? Never a doctor. (often me) ( I would tell him to go to three
doctors and not tell any that he had been to a different doctor.) (He had
the money to do it) His answer after getting a fix was always, "amazing".

Want to have fun the next time you go to a doctor? Carry a brief case or
satchel, even if it has nothing in it. Make certain that anyone who comes
in with same sees you.

#13 01-14-2007, 03:18 AM

"pmoran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1168672910.245089.132610@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>
> PeterB wrote:
>> Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
>> natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
>> drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
>> provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
>> should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
>> associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
>> show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
>> the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
>> is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
>> symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
>> drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
>>
>> 1. Accutane
>> 2. Avastin
>> 3. Calcium Channel Blockers
>> 5. Celebrex
>> 6. Cordarone
>> 7. Crestor
>> 8. Depakote
>> 9. Erythromycin
>> 10. Fortovase
>> 11. Gabitril
>> 12. Geodon
>> 13. Halcion
>> 14. Hismanal
>> 15. Invirase
>> 16. Lamictal
>> 17. Lamisil
>> 18. Lovanox
>> 19. Mellaril
>> 20. Phenergan
>> 21. Permax
>> 22. Prempro
>> 23. Premphase
>> 24. Premarin
>> 25. Propulsid
>> 26. Ritodrine
>> 27. Serentil
>> 28. Tasmar
>> 29. Topamax
>> 30. Trovan
>> 31. Viagra
>> 32. Vioxx
>> 33. Viramune
>> 34. Warfarin
>> 35. Zyvox
>>
>> For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
>> nutrition, see:
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org
>
> There is a whole section in the latest publication of this journal on
> the problem of side effects from vitamin and mineral supplements.

Hey, twit, the question wasn't about vitamins and minerals AND the article
you suggest is REALLY stupid and anyone referencing in is even more stupid.

#14 01-14-2007, 04:51 AM

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:03:43 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>A friend of mine, (a jock type) started by selling Kotex to stores, was a
>success, then switched to selling drugs to doctors- made a fortune (knew
>NOTHING about ANYTHING he sold, went on to selling Caterpillar Tractors and
>didn't know how to start one, retired a multi-millionaire after owning a
>hardware store (couldn't operate a hammer). His major end source of income?
>Drugs to doctors. Who he, or his family members, went to if in medical
>trouble? Never a doctor. (often me) ( I would tell him to go to three
>doctors and not tell any that he had been to a different doctor.) (He had
>the money to do it) His answer after getting a fix was always, "amazing".
>
>Want to have fun the next time you go to a doctor? Carry a brief case or
>satchel, even if it has nothing in it. Make certain that anyone who comes
>in with same sees you.

Your medical setup must be more like our alternative medicine
industry.

Our medical practitioners are not generally swayed by drug industry
advertising. They usually prescribe a drug and as often or not, the
pharmacist dispenses a generic brand which our Pharmaceutial Benefit
Scheme subsidises. On the other hand, some pharmacists (in private
shops) and health food shops peddle the most extraordinary bullshit to
get you to buy their overpriced alternative crap.

jack

#15 01-14-2007, 11:56 AM

On 12 Jan 2007 22:35:31 -0800, awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

>PS. Cholesterol drugs do two things, (1) they lower cholesterol, and
>(2) they cause heart attacks by blocking CoQ10. Ya wanna bet that
>Ms.Cutiepie with the degree in Marketing didn't tell the salivating
>doctor that her 'fave' statin might kill off some of his patients?

My doc would not act like that, she's a gem.

I do despair at the stories I hear of the American health system. Not
only doctors that apparently couldn't be trusted to treat your
daughter, but an insurance industry that jacks up prices
astronomially, and disenfranchises a big proportion of the population,
while crushing all political efforts to reform it.

jack

#16 01-15-2007, 01:45 AM

<spamfree@spam.heaven> wrote in message
news:biejq2lfdthlt5k4di7bn8ghjq1rahuu8g@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jan 2007 22:35:31 -0800, awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>PS. Cholesterol drugs do two things, (1) they lower cholesterol, and
>>(2) they cause heart attacks by blocking CoQ10. Ya wanna bet that
>>Ms.Cutiepie with the degree in Marketing didn't tell the salivating
>>doctor that her 'fave' statin might kill off some of his patients?
>
> My doc would not act like that, she's a gem.
>
> I do despair at the stories I hear of the American health system. Not
> only doctors that apparently couldn't be trusted to treat your
> daughter, but an insurance industry that jacks up prices
> astronomially, and disenfranchises a big proportion of the population,
> while crushing all political efforts to reform it.
>
> jack

Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.

The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the very
simple minded.

Governments are barely able to handle armed defense and NEVER (N-E-V-E-R)
good at administering health or wealth.

#17 01-15-2007, 01:45 AM

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.

Some come to Australia, so what?

>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the very
>simple minded.

That's why America is so jealous of the Australian system?
Everyone fully covered for a lot less per person than America.

>Governments are barely able to handle armed defense and NEVER (N-E-V-E-R)
>good at administering health or wealth.

Your government, apparently, but then what does that say about the
electorate who voted them in. Our government is pretty good at
everything it does. Afterall, a good manager is a good manager,
wherever he comes from, and if you "simple minded" (to use your
phrase) folk vote for crooks and fraudsters, then you should know who
to blame. jack

#18 01-15-2007, 12:56 PM

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

snip
>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.

Then I'm sure you have references for this. (Skip the UK: Thatcher
fucked their system up and it has been reeling ever since....there are
better models.)

>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the very
>simple minded.

LOL...spoken by a true defender of the pharma/insurance industrial
complex.

#19 01-15-2007, 03:03 PM

<spamfree@spam.heaven> wrote in message
news:d8ilq2ha16gkrqk7o529qnes5rqjk2pp9u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>
>>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.
>
> Some come to Australia, so what?
>
>>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the
>>very
>>simple minded.
>
> That's why America is so jealous of the Australian system?
> Everyone fully covered for a lot less per person than America.
>
>>Governments are barely able to handle armed defense and NEVER (N-E-V-E-R)
>>good at administering health or wealth.
>
> Your government, apparently, but then what does that say about the
> electorate who voted them in. Our government is pretty good at
> everything it does. Afterall, a good manager is a good manager,
> wherever he comes from, and if you "simple minded" (to use your
> phrase) folk vote for crooks and fraudsters, then you should know who
> to blame. jack

Let's see.
Choice
1. An individual and a chosen Doctor.
2. A government employee stating what EVERYBODY should have.

1. Personal choice.
2. Government (political) dictate.

#20 01-15-2007, 03:03 PM

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gtlmq2p0kb87dkhn2049he62p47k6bcb0a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>
> snip
>>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.
>
> Then I'm sure you have references for this. (Skip the UK: Thatcher
> fucked their system up and it has been reeling ever since....there are
> better models.)
>
>>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the
>>very
>>simple minded.
>
> LOL...spoken by a true defender of the pharma/insurance industrial
> complex.
>

FYI ANY government system is CONTROLLED by the Pharma industrial complex.
You can't be stupid enough to believe that those few people in the
government actually have knowledge, have a practice, care.

#21 01-15-2007, 05:49 PM

vernon wrote:
> "pmoran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1168672910.245089.132610@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > PeterB wrote:
> >> Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
> >> natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
> >> drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
> >> provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
> >> should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
> >> associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
> >> show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
> >> the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as
> >> is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
> >> symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35
> >> drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
> >>
> >> 1. Accutane
> >> 2. Avastin
> >> 3. Calcium Channel Blockers
> >> 5. Celebrex
> >> 6. Cordarone
> >> 7. Crestor
> >> 8. Depakote
> >> 9. Erythromycin
> >> 10. Fortovase
> >> 11. Gabitril
> >> 12. Geodon
> >> 13. Halcion
> >> 14. Hismanal
> >> 15. Invirase
> >> 16. Lamictal
> >> 17. Lamisil
> >> 18. Lovanox
> >> 19. Mellaril
> >> 20. Phenergan
> >> 21. Permax
> >> 22. Prempro
> >> 23. Premphase
> >> 24. Premarin
> >> 25. Propulsid
> >> 26. Ritodrine
> >> 27. Serentil
> >> 28. Tasmar
> >> 29. Topamax
> >> 30. Trovan
> >> 31. Viagra
> >> 32. Vioxx
> >> 33. Viramune
> >> 34. Warfarin
> >> 35. Zyvox
> >>
> >> For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
> >> nutrition, see:
> >>
> >> http://www.ajcn.org
> >
> > There is a whole section in the latest publication of this journal on
> > the problem of side effects from vitamin and mineral supplements.
>
>
> Hey, twit, the question wasn't about vitamins and minerals AND the article
> you suggest is REALLY stupid and anyone referencing in is even more stupid.

Moran is notorious for knocking what he perceives as "the competition."
When asked to post the efficacy data on chemotherapy, he posted a
diatribe on the failures of various metabolic diets. These guys are so
predictable you can set your atomic clock by them.

#22 01-15-2007, 05:49 PM

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168876529.818676.22400@q2g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>> "pmoran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1168672910.245089.132610@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > PeterB wrote:
>> >> Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative
>> >> to
>> >> natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved
>> >> drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please
>> >> provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You
>> >> should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof)
>> >> associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to
>> >> show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if
>> >> the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease,
>> >> as
>> >> is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of
>> >> symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are
>> >> 35
>> >> drugs in the list. Let's see how you do.
>> >>
>> >> 1. Accutane
>> >> 2. Avastin
>> >> 3. Calcium Channel Blockers
>> >> 5. Celebrex
>> >> 6. Cordarone
>> >> 7. Crestor
>> >> 8. Depakote
>> >> 9. Erythromycin
>> >> 10. Fortovase
>> >> 11. Gabitril
>> >> 12. Geodon
>> >> 13. Halcion
>> >> 14. Hismanal
>> >> 15. Invirase
>> >> 16. Lamictal
>> >> 17. Lamisil
>> >> 18. Lovanox
>> >> 19. Mellaril
>> >> 20. Phenergan
>> >> 21. Permax
>> >> 22. Prempro
>> >> 23. Premphase
>> >> 24. Premarin
>> >> 25. Propulsid
>> >> 26. Ritodrine
>> >> 27. Serentil
>> >> 28. Tasmar
>> >> 29. Topamax
>> >> 30. Trovan
>> >> 31. Viagra
>> >> 32. Vioxx
>> >> 33. Viramune
>> >> 34. Warfarin
>> >> 35. Zyvox
>> >>
>> >> For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic
>> >> nutrition, see:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ajcn.org
>> >
>> > There is a whole section in the latest publication of this journal on
>> > the problem of side effects from vitamin and mineral supplements.
>>
>>
>> Hey, twit, the question wasn't about vitamins and minerals AND the
>> article
>> you suggest is REALLY stupid and anyone referencing in is even more
>> stupid.
>
> Moran is notorious for knocking what he perceives as "the competition."
> When asked to post the efficacy data on chemotherapy, he posted a
> diatribe on the failures of various metabolic diets. These guys are so
> predictable you can set your atomic clock by them.
>

I don't mean to say that many alternative methods are better qualified, but
very few alternative methods kill and maim with the accreditation and
non-expectation of a doctor prescribed prescription "DRUG".

With all of the shortcomings of many alternative theories it is still
absolutely SICK that the medical industry takes 30 to 50 years to recognize
and use a new methodology and THEN ONLY when SOLD to them.

#23 01-15-2007, 09:38 PM

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:44:25 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:gtlmq2p0kb87dkhn2049he62p47k6bcb0a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.
>>
>> Then I'm sure you have references for this. (Skip the UK: Thatcher
>> fucked their system up and it has been reeling ever since....there are
>> better models.)
>>
>>>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the
>>>very
>>>simple minded.
>>
>> LOL...spoken by a true defender of the pharma/insurance industrial
>> complex.
>>
>
>FYI ANY government system is CONTROLLED by the Pharma industrial complex.

I disagree and I think there is evidence to show that single payer
systems can provide directly measurable outcomes (e.g., infant
mortality, longevity, etc.) at MUCH lower percentage of the GDP. This
underscores a great deal more success than we have attained in the
United States where those outcome measures are more akin to those
currently achieved by the Czech Republic. With the notable exception
that the US squanders VASTLY more of its resources on healthcare costs
than they do.

>You can't be stupid enough to believe that those few people in the
>government actually have knowledge, have a practice, care.

When it comes to most repugnicans and a good chunk of democrats,
you're probably right although you're way more cynical than me. God
knows, in the US, we got Fristed by a physician something seriously.

George M. Carter

#24 01-16-2007, 12:32 AM

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tnpnq2hrlvgbf3ifpsjrv2vllh8ado1gbm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:44:25 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>
>>

You will get exactly what your ignorance and hate deserves.

You don't even know where the stats you quote come from.

#25 01-16-2007, 12:32 AM

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:02:50 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:tnpnq2hrlvgbf3ifpsjrv2vllh8ado1gbm@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:44:25 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>You will get exactly what your ignorance and hate deserves.

LOL...and fuck you very much too!

>You don't even know where the stats you quote come from.

Actually, sweetie bumpkins, I do. A rather excellent presentation by a
fellow, Hans Rosling, at the Karolinska Institute.
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalks...flashEnabled=1

Unlike you, I do have references to back my commentary. You by
contrast merely have either the unctuous ooze of brain dead
libertarianism or "unconservative" fiscal neocon horseshit or worse,
the financial incentive to protect at all costs the increasing and
debilitating profits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries
extract while holding our lives hostage.

George M. Carter

#26 01-16-2007, 04:15 AM

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:30:49 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>I don't mean to say that many alternative methods are better qualified, but
>very few alternative methods kill and maim with the accreditation and
>non-expectation of a doctor prescribed prescription "DRUG".

You have stats for this assertion? Number of doses taken and number
of adverse outcomes?

>With all of the shortcomings of many alternative theories it is still
>absolutely SICK that the medical industry takes 30 to 50 years to recognize
>and use a new methodology and THEN ONLY when SOLD to them.

Can you give us an example of what you ae referring to here?

jack

#27 01-16-2007, 04:15 AM

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:44:25 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:gtlmq2p0kb87dkhn2049he62p47k6bcb0a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:05 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>Canadian and English and German "Doctors" come to the U.S. for treatment.
>>
>> Then I'm sure you have references for this. (Skip the UK: Thatcher
>> fucked their system up and it has been reeling ever since....there are
>> better models.)
>>
>>>The socialized medical system is a TOTAL disaster and adhered to by the
>>>very
>>>simple minded.
>>
>> LOL...spoken by a true defender of the pharma/insurance industrial
>> complex.
>>
>
>FYI ANY government system is CONTROLLED by the Pharma industrial complex.

Only perhaps in the US, and guess what, you (the electorate) voted for
this.

>You can't be stupid enough to believe that those few people in the
>government actually have knowledge, have a practice, care.

Well if you vote for that. In Australia, we vote for the most
competent manager of our common wealth.

jack

#28 01-16-2007, 04:15 AM