WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> "I'll be the first to admit that many "alties" take it too far and begin
> to believe that anything medically related is evil and that anything
> "alternative" is good, even without first seeing evidence of the
> efficacy of whatever that alternative method may be. In those cases,
> questions SHOULD be raised.
>
> Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
> deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis. That does not
> mean they don't work. It only means that the information is harder to
> find."
>
> The real question lies at a broader level still. It has to do with the
> core truth claims many "alternative" methods make without substantive
> support.

If you mean marketing hype, there is no industry free of this in a free
market society. If that's your issue, you should focus your energies
on the marketing strategies of both the supplement makers *and* the
drug makers, and why the FTC does not restrict the drug makers to the
same degree as it does the former. I would also argue that promotional
hype by the drug makers is far, far more dangerous by comparison, if
data collected by Poison Control in Washington is any indication.

> This requires confirmation before one looks at details of any
> specific application of them. "Reflexology" is one such. Claims are
> made about what it is and how it works while none of its assumptions by
> which that method is asserted has been demonstrated. Lack of evidence
> then about such specific application such as treating sinus problems for
> example are meaningless.

Reflexology was discovered by surgeon William Fitzgerald and
popularized nearly 100 years ago. He documented a variety of positive
physiological responses following its use. Based on your argument, the
majority of physiological responses ensuing from use of prescription
drugs (including intended *and* unintended side effects), are also
meaningless, since both remain largely a mystery. [ref.
http://www.internethealthlibrary.com...ology%20.htm.]

> All that is "alternative" is not such as above. "Supplements" have
> truth claims that can and have in part been confirmed,ie. consuming a
> substance can modify internal organic processes because of the way some
> organic chemicals in the substance interact with internal processes,ex.
> vitamins. No one would question those truth claims and all treatments
> assume their validity. However each specific proposed substance can be
> evaluated for its specific claim as to outcomes.

So you accept that all life on this planet could never have evolved
(and would cease to exist) without adequate access to these substances.
That is also the premise for applying nutritional therapy first as a
feature of intelligent healthcare, rather than relying on
pharmaceutical drugs, which represent an inferior (though patentable)
substitute.

> Far too often however pseudoscientific explanations about the specific
> substance is asserted without those truth claims being verified, such as
> consuming dietary enzymes, which most often do not survive digestion or
> that some herb will put back in balance distorted energy flows which
> cause disease.

As for dietary enzymes, many of these products *are* the digestive
chemicals required for breaking up food, so they don't have to
"survive" digestion, they help facilitate it. If you are referring to
probiotics, the technology provides for effective encapsulation so that
the micro-organisms are able to populate areas from the upper small
intestines all the way down.

On the other point, please provide the specific herb and health claim
you are referring to.

> If a "supplement" has a positive effect it is for the same basic
> biochemestry that all drugs work.

That's a little like saying that a space shuttle launch relies on the
same basic physics as an automobile, and that the outcome is therefore
equivalent. The first part of the statement is true enough, because
controlled combustion is useful for moving objects around. The problem
is that setting your grandmother on fire at the bottom of a launch pad
is not necessarily a good thing. Ok, it's never a good thing. In like
manner, drugs are a highly combustible "solution" (ie., problem) to a
problem (ie., sub-optimal nutrient intake) that only requires the
engine of a scooter (ie., an essential, or at least conditionally
essential, nutrient.)

> By trial and error some substances
> have been found which have an effect but this is for the same truth
> claims made about something developed in a lab and also showing a
> positive effect.

Syntactically, that was a very good splicing effort designed to blur
the line between drugs and nutrients. The fact is, drugs are to
nutrients what gasoline is to water, an entirely different thing in
terms of adaptive response from the evolutionary standpoint.
Nutrients, for instance, drive beneficial gene expression, as an
article I posted the other day demonstrates. You cannot say that about
drugs.

> Using the example above, it is a waste of time to debate the use of
> "reflexology" in sinus treatment when its foundational truth claims have
> not been confirmed.

Have you even looked at the available medical literature on this
natural medicine modality? There are clinically relevant studies
demonstrating a reduced need for medication in patients so treated. It
will take more than a few hours to get through the research that is
available, much of it quite positive. [ref.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/medlinesearch.htm.] BTW, even if
these benefits are largely related to stress reduction, isn't that
better than popping pills?

PeterB

"Subjects such as miss-applied reflexology die VERY quickly unless a
pharm troll basically changes the subject, so the example is moot.

Although I have no personal interest in enzyme use, some foods aid or
"cure" digestive problems. The example of the digestive system
destroying "enzymes" is as good as the theory that germs and viruses
cannot survive the acid and digestive system and thus the disease must
have come from something else (An argument often given regarding food
poisoning).

"Energy Flows" is a term used to explain what the presenter is incapable
of verbalizing in "standard" "acceptable" terms. Consumption of sugar
creates an "energy flow". SO does a shot of Brandy.

So, speaking of digestive problems one must attempt to read the language
of the presenter without getting any digestive distress."

Huh, was all of that an attempt to suggest that "alternative" methods
can provide support for the foundational truth claims as to what they
assert? Perhaps you would like to propose an an example where said
foundational truth claims have been demonstrated. Perhaps "reflexology"
since it was brought up as an example.

By definition this confirmation must be offered without reference to
traditional medicine as the "alternative" must stand or fall on its own
merits of evidence.

PeterB wrote:
> isn't appropriate to the purpose of the newsgroups. Am I a troll
> because I discuss natural medicine *and* the media efforts of industry?

Actually, I pretty much a supplement and natural health "nut" and very
cynical and suspicious of the Drug companies.****

But some of the blatant fanaticism, paranoia or spamming I see (moreso
on some other groups) would neutralize most of the criticism one would
direct at the suspected pharma-trolls and their supposed serpentine
subtelty.

>Do you think the newsgroups and the Internet represent a poor
>cost/exposure ratio in terms of audience reach?

Yes. The stockboard trolls directly profited by their influence on
other shareholders in the particular stock discussion group. But I tend
to think Pharma would marginalize the people, and the influence of
these little alt. health newsgroups/sewing circles.

OTOH, they DO have some very deep pockets. So if we posed any real
threat or exposure to their wares and profits, I could easily imagine
them trying to stir up some mud here to obfuscate the issues.
Otherwise, I think it's mostly cranks and self-described "rationalists"
whose hobby is to bait and "debunk" the abovementioned health fanatics
and spammers.


**** You gotta luv those drug companies. :-) One has a commercial on
now with a sincere young researcher telling about how much her
corporation cares and works hard to cure this or that. All I can think
is "Honey, they just spent more money broadcasting this one 30 sec. ad
slot than they probably budget for you and your whole dept. for a
year!"

Kinda like the tobacco companies that spent $1 mil. on a flood relief
charity and then spent another $10 mil. to tell everyone about it!

"I honestly don't know the first thing about reflexology, so I'm not in
a position to comment on it. However, I'd like to point out that one
fundamental difference I've noticed in alties and conventional thinkers
is that many conventional thinkers MUST have an explanation of HOW
something works, while many alties only need to know THAT something
works in a repeatable fashion. For example, Applied Kinesiology has
been tested using sensitive equipment designed to measure the
resistance force of a given muscle. In those tests, it was shown that
the muscle in question was weaker under repeatable conditions and
stronger when those conditions were removed. I don't recall which test
was used, but a common example would be placing hydrogenated oil on the
tongue and then testing muscles in the arm.

It's practically impossible with today's technology to explain *why*
that happens, but it *does* happen. The test can be repeated by
anyone. I personally don't need to know why it happens to accept that
it does. I believe many alties share the same attitude."

I would be happy to see the study, please provide a reference. You
understand however that having a study is not in itself confirmation of
the whole of a system of foundational truth claims. I will await
reading the original study before commenting more.

"> Give it your best then, but expect to be questioned on the sames
grounds
> any assertion deserves. If "alternative" methods do not mesure up
then
> it should be known without resort to conspiracy theories about the
> messengers. The answer to critical reactions to "alternative" claims
is
> not to attack the messenger but to provide scientific answers for
> possible confirmation of your assertions. In that manner there should
> be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the
> evidence brought to bear.

One of the basic problems is the specific intention of many here to
degrade
or argue any mention of a non-prescription answer to medical problems.
Those same persons go totally bananas if any suggestion other than
vaccination is suggested as a preventative or limiting effect answer to
diseases.

They are ONLY here (misc.health.alternative) for that purpose and NEVER
for
any realistic responses. Most have very bad histories in the medical
world
they defend so adamantly."

I see, why wasn't I informed of the level of such quality evidence
before?

"The pharmbloggers make no counter assertions. Occasionally someone with
a Doctor's degree or training will come up with a counter assertion. It
is VERY seldom a pharmblogger. (I call them Pharmer trolls). They have
little or no scientific knowledge, just rote repetition of pharm
propaganda. (Before you go ballistic, Doctors are typically not
scientists and are very good at rote learning)

There is a difference between an interested person and someone who has a
monetary interest or seemingly just has to defend what they have done in
the past or justify continued poor practices."

All doctors are not scientists by training or practice. No one
mentioned doctors, only the value of accepted scientific proceedures for
evaluating claims of "alternative" methods. Can the last part apply
equally to "alterbloggers" as to practice and motive and experience?

"Have you even looked at the available medical literature on this
natural medicine modality? There are clinically relevant studies
demonstrating a reduced need for medication in patients so treated. It
will take more than a few hours to get through the research that is
available, much of it quite positive. [ref.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/medlinesearch.htm.] BTW, even if
these benefits are largely related to stress reduction, isn't that
better than popping pills?"

I skimmed the page, noted claims of palliative effects on pain etc. were
common. This is not what is meant by confirming foundational truth
claims in science. "Reflexology" claims that physical contact with the
soles of the feet can affect the health status of human organs.

Compare this to the claim that infections can be caused by the
introduction of germs into the body,ie. the germ theory of disease. To
support the latter various evidence could be brought to bear about the
nature of the infectious process, the entry of germs into the body, the
identification of the actual germs and so forth. For example an
experiment could bedone where in a double blind study cold viruses were
introduced into the noses of one group and not another and see if
infection results. Step by step each of the parts of the whole of the
truth claims for the germ theory of disease could be confirmed or
excluded.

What "reflexology" is required to do is to provide similar results which
can be confirmed by others. This doesn't mean that someone had their
foot massaged and a headache lessened, it means identifying the
physiology of the body such that a spot on the foot can affect the
function of the liver and such function can be measured by changes in
the biochemistry of the liver, for example. These kinds of changes
should be demonstrated even in a healthy person and should be repeatable
in different places with different people getting similar results. Of
course double blinding etc. as might be used to confirm the germ theory
of disease would also be used.

The scientific validity of the foundational truth claims require
confirmation before which any results can be considered due to
"reflexology".

Forgive me for posting this again. The subject was misleading because
the topic has changed and I wanted a wider group response from those who
might now be tuning out the original subject.

"Have you even looked at the available medical literature on this
natural medicine modality? There are clinically relevant studies
demonstrating a reduced need for medication in patients so treated. It
will take more than a few hours to get through the research that is
available, much of it quite positive. [ref.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/medlinesearch.htm.] BTW, even if

these benefits are largely related to stress reduction, isn't that
better than popping pills?"

I skimmed the page, noted claims of palliative effects on pain etc. were
common. This is not what is meant by confirming foundational truth
claims in science. "Reflexology" claims that physical contact with the
soles of the feet can affect the health status of human organs.

Compare this to the claim that infections can be caused by the
introduction of germs into the body,ie. the germ theory of disease. To
support the latter various evidence could be brought to bear about the
nature of the infectious process, the entry of germs into the body, the
identification of the actual germs and so forth. For example an
experiment could bedone where in a double blind study cold viruses were
introduced into the noses of one group and not another and see if
infection results. Step by step each of the parts of the whole of the
truth claims for the germ theory of disease could be confirmed or
excluded.

What "reflexology" is required to do is to provide similar results which
can be confirmed by others. This doesn't mean that someone had their
foot massaged and a headache lessened, it means identifying the
physiology of the body such that a spot on the foot can affect the
function of the liver and such function can be measured by changes in
the biochemistry of the liver, for example. These kinds of changes
should be demonstrated even in a healthy person and should be repeatable
in different places with different people getting similar results. Of
course double blinding etc. as might be used to confirm the germ theory
of disease would also be used.

The scientific validity of the foundational truth claims require
confirmation before which any results can be considered due to
"reflexology".

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Good points, as usual. I would just add that those defending standard
> : healthcare should likewise be held to task for providing evidence they
> : never seem to find the time to reference, while claiming we never do.
>
> You forgot the part where when I gave you a list of references showing
> negative effects of food supplements, you refused to read any of the
> references on the list.

You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online
resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which
unfortunately my schedule will not permit. Medically relevant
citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely unavailable in
digital format, so you should take time to uncover more accessible
public records, or scan the ones you have and post them. I question
the validity of anything you are unwilling to provide here for *all*
readers. My own research shows dietary supplements to be orders of
magnitude safer than pharmaceutical drugs using a variety of published
(and easily accessible) sources. That virtually all the available
literature on this relates to use of synthetic vitamins explains why
food-based supplements should be preferred to synthetic ones.

> And you also forgot the part where I quoted
> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what
> you claimed that it did.

You were challenged to explain how my paraphrase differed from the
authors' synopsis, and you never responded. Here is the challenge
again:

The statement in the book reads exactly as I said: "...it has been
estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in
the United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases." The
distortion is your claim that it does not mean what it says.

For the record, here is the paragraph in which I cited the study:
"Researchers found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in infectious
disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was concomitant with
use of vaccine. Put simply, there is no evidence that vaccine is
responsible for even the majority of such declines."

Do explain what "radically different" conclusion (your words) you
believe the authors came to. Read the actual excerpt and then read my
paraphrase, and tell us where they differ.

> I'm still waiting for your yes-or-no answers to my three questions.

You'll have to repost them if you want them considered. Searching
through your puerile mountain of inanities is not a productive use of
my time.

PeterB

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164139660.989886.106990@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Good points, as usual. I would just add that those defending standard
>> : healthcare should likewise be held to task for providing evidence they
>> : never seem to find the time to reference, while claiming we never do.
>>
>> You forgot the part where when I gave you a list of references showing
>> negative effects of food supplements, you refused to read any of the
>> references on the list.
>
> You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online
> resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which
> unfortunately my schedule will not permit. Medically relevant
> citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely unavailable in
> digital format, so you should take time to uncover more accessible
> public records, or scan the ones you have and post them. I question
> the validity of anything you are unwilling to provide here for *all*
> readers. My own research shows dietary supplements to be orders of
> magnitude safer than pharmaceutical drugs using a variety of published
> (and easily accessible) sources. That virtually all the available
> literature on this relates to use of synthetic vitamins explains why
> food-based supplements should be preferred to synthetic ones.
>
>> And you also forgot the part where I quoted
>> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what
>> you claimed that it did.
>

Oh, come now. dicky schultz made a statement. "negative effects of food
supplements"
You know perfectly well that one of the negative effects of food supplements
is getting fat. The more food supplements, the fatter.

he he he he he he

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> "I honestly don't know the first thing about reflexology, so I'm not in
> a position to comment on it. However, I'd like to point out that one
> fundamental difference I've noticed in alties and conventional thinkers
> is that many conventional thinkers MUST have an explanation of HOW
> something works, while many alties only need to know THAT something
> works in a repeatable fashion. For example, Applied Kinesiology has
> been tested using sensitive equipment designed to measure the
> resistance force of a given muscle. In those tests, it was shown that
> the muscle in question was weaker under repeatable conditions and
> stronger when those conditions were removed. I don't recall which test
> was used, but a common example would be placing hydrogenated oil on the
> tongue and then testing muscles in the arm.
>
> It's practically impossible with today's technology to explain *why*
> that happens, but it *does* happen. The test can be repeated by
> anyone. I personally don't need to know why it happens to accept that
> it does. I believe many alties share the same attitude."
>
> I would be happy to see the study, please provide a reference. You
> understand however that having a study is not in itself confirmation of
> the whole of a system of foundational truth claims. I will await
> reading the original study before commenting more.

I mentioned AK as a simple example to demonstrate of the concept that
many "alties" accept some things based on evidence that something
works, not necessarily HOW it works. The study I read was in hard copy
form. I have no idea if it is online, as it was some number of years
ago and I do not recall which publication it was in.

A major problem with AK is that skills and experiences vary greatly
from one practitioner to the next. It has often been said that
because 2 different AK practitioners come to different conclusions on
the same patient that it must not be effective. To that I say that by
the same logic, medical doctors must not be effective in what they do
because my daughter visited 3 different doctors about high fever and
received 3 different diagnoses. Obviously medical doctors ARE
effective much of the time, so the logic is flawed.

I really have no inclination to discuss the efficacy of AK on this
board. I have used it and so have personally witnessed how powerful it
can be, which is all I need to know for myself to accept that it works,
at least for me. I have no intention of convincing you or anyone else
that you should use AK. It's not time well spent for me. I was merely
making an example.

Max.

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634d32$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
> "I honestly don't know the first thing about reflexology, so I'm not in
> a position to comment on it. However, I'd like to point out that one
> fundamental difference I've noticed in alties and conventional thinkers
> is that many conventional thinkers MUST have an explanation of HOW
> something works, while many alties only need to know THAT something
> works in a repeatable fashion. For example, Applied Kinesiology has
> been tested using sensitive equipment designed to measure the
> resistance force of a given muscle. In those tests, it was shown that
> the muscle in question was weaker under repeatable conditions and
> stronger when those conditions were removed. I don't recall which test
> was used, but a common example would be placing hydrogenated oil on the
> tongue and then testing muscles in the arm.
>
> It's practically impossible with today's technology to explain *why*
> that happens, but it *does* happen. The test can be repeated by
> anyone. I personally don't need to know why it happens to accept that
> it does. I believe many alties share the same attitude."
>
> I would be happy to see the study, please provide a reference. You
> understand however that having a study is not in itself confirmation of
> the whole of a system of foundational truth claims. I will await
> reading the original study before commenting more.

Of course you have absolutely no idea WHY you come down when you jump in the
air or even WHAT gravity is.
There are many theories, but most boil down to the observed fact that two
bodies have an attraction relational to their mass.
Of course then we have to define mass which is really E/c2 and doesn't exist
except as an observable and measurable condition.

They don't teach that in Med school. It isn't a memorizeable process.

Another thing they don't teach in Med school is how to respond to a question
by identifying the questioner and then being very specific about what the
question was without the readers or listeners being required to see one set
of simple quote as apposed to any other quotes that may be included.

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634b6d$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
> "Subjects such as miss-applied reflexology die VERY quickly unless a
> pharm troll basically changes the subject, so the example is moot.
>
> Although I have no personal interest in enzyme use, some foods aid or
> "cure" digestive problems. The example of the digestive system
> destroying "enzymes" is as good as the theory that germs and viruses
> cannot survive the acid and digestive system and thus the disease must
> have come from something else (An argument often given regarding food
> poisoning).
>
> "Energy Flows" is a term used to explain what the presenter is incapable
> of verbalizing in "standard" "acceptable" terms. Consumption of sugar
> creates an "energy flow". SO does a shot of Brandy.
>
> So, speaking of digestive problems one must attempt to read the language
> of the presenter without getting any digestive distress."
>
> Huh, was all of that an attempt to suggest that "alternative" methods
> can provide support for the foundational truth claims as to what they
> assert? Perhaps you would like to propose an an example where said
> foundational truth claims have been demonstrated. Perhaps "reflexology"
> since it was brought up as an example.
>
> By definition this confirmation must be offered without reference to
> traditional medicine as the "alternative" must stand or fall on its own
> merits of evidence.

I responded to YOUR logic.

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634979$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
> "Which they do exactly as described by PeterB"
>
> You agree with him there is a conspiracy or that there are
> "pharmabloggers" sent to misdirect people from the "truth"? As he
> cann't/doesn't provide an example, even hypothetical perhaps you can
> show us where this happens and how we can know it is a "pharmablogger"
> or just someone wanting to dispell the unsupported claims of the
> "alterblogger".
>

A mere modicum of cognitive ability (not rote capability) only requires
reading the N.G.
(Hard current proof)

There is both a conspiracy by some and a paid group of people to distract or
disprove any alternate solutions to prescription drugs.

There are also drug companies and groups of doctors that are actively
pursuing solutions that are more (natural) (to use a questionable term).

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634e3d$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
>"> Give it your best then, but expect to be questioned on the sames
> grounds
>> any assertion deserves. If "alternative" methods do not mesure up
> then
>> it should be known without resort to conspiracy theories about the
>> messengers. The answer to critical reactions to "alternative" claims
> is
>> not to attack the messenger but to provide scientific answers for
>> possible confirmation of your assertions. In that manner there should
>> be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the
>> evidence brought to bear.
>
> One of the basic problems is the specific intention of many here to
> degrade
> or argue any mention of a non-prescription answer to medical problems.
> Those same persons go totally bananas if any suggestion other than
> vaccination is suggested as a preventative or limiting effect answer to
> diseases.
>
> They are ONLY here (misc.health.alternative) for that purpose and NEVER
> for
> any realistic responses. Most have very bad histories in the medical
> world
> they defend so adamantly."
>
> I see, why wasn't I informed of the level of such quality evidence
> before?

It only require a cursory review of the N.G.

Vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164139660.989886.106990@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Richard Schultz wrote:
> >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Good points, as usual. I would just add that those defending standard
> >> : healthcare should likewise be held to task for providing evidence they
> >> : never seem to find the time to reference, while claiming we never do.
> >>
> >> You forgot the part where when I gave you a list of references showing
> >> negative effects of food supplements, you refused to read any of the
> >> references on the list.
> >
> > You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online
> > resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which
> > unfortunately my schedule will not permit. Medically relevant
> > citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely unavailable in
> > digital format, so you should take time to uncover more accessible
> > public records, or scan the ones you have and post them. I question
> > the validity of anything you are unwilling to provide here for *all*
> > readers. My own research shows dietary supplements to be orders of
> > magnitude safer than pharmaceutical drugs using a variety of published
> > (and easily accessible) sources. That virtually all the available
> > literature on this relates to use of synthetic vitamins explains why
> > food-based supplements should be preferred to synthetic ones.
> >
> >> And you also forgot the part where I quoted
> >> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what
> >> you claimed that it did.
> >
>
> Oh, come now. dicky schultz made a statement. "negative effects of food
> supplements"
> You know perfectly well that one of the negative effects of food supplements
> is getting fat. The more food supplements, the fatter.
>
> he he he he he he

Oh, is *that* what he was talking about? I should have guessed from
the picture of his head.

har har har

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634f95$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
> "The pharmbloggers make no counter assertions. Occasionally someone with
> a Doctor's degree or training will come up with a counter assertion. It
> is VERY seldom a pharmblogger. (I call them Pharmer trolls). They have
> little or no scientific knowledge, just rote repetition of pharm
> propaganda. (Before you go ballistic, Doctors are typically not
> scientists and are very good at rote learning)
>
> There is a difference between an interested person and someone who has a
> monetary interest or seemingly just has to defend what they have done in
> the past or justify continued poor practices."
>
> All doctors are not scientists by training or practice. No one
> mentioned doctors, only the value of accepted scientific proceedures for
> evaluating claims of "alternative" methods. Can the last part apply
> equally to "alterbloggers" as to practice and motive and experience?

For sure, for sure
There are only a few and easily recognized alties with a monetary interest
or connection. The usually are spammers, sooner or later.

You say that no one has mentioned Doctors. Doctors prescribe. Standard
medication is a prescription by doctors.

schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>: Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
>: deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis.
>
>According to PeterB, the food supplement industry is a $27 billion
>business. Surely they could spare some of that money to fund studies
>showing a benefit analysis.

The very first cross-over clinical trial was a study of the effect of
an alternative medicine. It was not done by the alternative industry,
but was carried out by a medical doctor. It demonstrated that the
alternative medicine was very effective at treating and preventing a
serious illness. That very same alternative medicine is still part of
the alternative pharmacopoeia today and many claims are made for its
effectiveness, but for some reason those claims cannot be tested.

Vitamin C. James Lind. 1747.
--
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

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : If you believe that term has meaning, use it. If you believe it
> : describes what I do, use it. I don't ask you to change for me. I'm
> : just here to point out the differences between us.
>
> The big difference being that I will not knowingly post a falsehood that
> I wish to have others believe to be true.

You are doing so now. After butchering a potentially constructive
discussion on the health risks of aspirin (claiming that a negative
side effect does not constitute a disease response), repudiating the
scientific evidence provided in support of that fact, and, rather than
accepting my explanation that a particular citation was only included
to show the failure of aspirin as a prophylatic for treating heart
disease, you co-opted its mortality outcome in a flagrant effort to
boost your own unsupported counter claims, you wish to promote yourself
as a model citizen? I'm sure you would like to apologize for making
such an ass of yourself and calling me a liar simply because I included
a study on the failure of aspirin to prophylactically treat heart
disease, which was obvious from the study title. Otherwise, just
another garden variety pharmboy trying to entrench himself in the
newsgroups in exchange for kibble. How exciting for you.

PeterB

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
> >: deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis.
> >
> >According to PeterB, the food supplement industry is a $27 billion
> >business. Surely they could spare some of that money to fund studies
> >showing a benefit analysis.
>
> The very first cross-over clinical trial was a study of the effect of
> an alternative medicine. It was not done by the alternative industry,
> but was carried out by a medical doctor. It demonstrated that the
> alternative medicine was very effective at treating and preventing a
> serious illness. That very same alternative medicine is still part of
> the alternative pharmacopoeia today and many claims are made for its
> effectiveness, but for some reason those claims cannot be tested.
>
> Vitamin C. James Lind. 1747.
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243

It took the medical men of the day and the navy men of the day more
than 60 years to put that nugget of scientific fact into actual
practice and acceptance. Typical.

TC

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
> >: deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis.
> >
> >According to PeterB, the food supplement industry is a $27 billion
> >business. Surely they could spare some of that money to fund studies
> >showing a benefit analysis.
>
> The very first cross-over clinical trial was a study of the effect of
> an alternative medicine. It was not done by the alternative industry,
> but was carried out by a medical doctor. It demonstrated that the
> alternative medicine was very effective at treating and preventing a
> serious illness. That very same alternative medicine is still part of
> the alternative pharmacopoeia today and many claims are made for its
> effectiveness, but for some reason those claims cannot be tested.
>
> Vitamin C. James Lind. 1747.

It didn't simply show that vitamin C was "very effective at treating
and preventing a serious illness," it showed that vitamin C was the
cure. As a constituent of food, vitamin C represents what the life
sciences know to be an essential nutrient, whereas a large body of
scientific data has existed for decades. If you want to reinvent the
wheel, feel free to do so. [ref. Enstrom JE et al. Vitamin C intake
and mortality among a sample of the United States population.
Epidemiology: 3(3):194-202. 1992. Also, Stone I. The Healing Factor:
Vitamin C against Disease. Grosset and Dunlap. 1972]

> There is a difference between an interested person and someone who has
a
> monetary interest or seemingly just has to defend what they have done
in
> the past or justify continued poor practices."

"There are only a few and easily recognized alties with a monetary
interest or connection. The usually are spammers, sooner or later."

You made three points about possible motivation, aside from money can
"alterbloggers" be motivated by the other two also, maybe perhaps even
more so or even mostly so?

"You say that no one has mentioned Doctors. Doctors prescribe.
Standard medication is a prescription by doctors."

What relevance are doctors to the question? The purveyors of
"alternative" drugs going under various titles prescribe also.

"A mere modicum of cognitive ability (not rote capability) only requires
reading the N.G. (Hard current proof)

There is both a conspiracy by some and a paid group of people to
distract or disprove any alternate solutions to prescription drugs."

Yes, you repeat previous assertions. Show me an example of a post
clearly from a "pharmablogger", handwaving toward the fuzzy "them" does
not serve.

Being merely critical of "alterblogger" offerings will not serve.

Questioning the scientific basis for "alterblogger" posts will not
serve.

> I would be happy to see the study, please provide a reference. You
> understand however that having a study is not in itself confirmation
of
> the whole of a system of foundational truth claims. I will await
> reading the original study before commenting more.

"I mentioned AK as a simple example to demonstrate of the concept that
many "alties" accept some things based on evidence that something works,
not necessarily HOW it works. The study I read was in hard copy form.
I have no idea if it is online, as it was some number of years ago and I
do not recall which publication it was in.

A major problem with AK is that skills and experiences vary greatly from
one practitioner to the next. It has often been said that because 2
different AK practitioners come to different conclusions on the same
patient that it must not be effective. To that I say that by the same
logic, medical doctors must not be effective in what they do because my
daughter visited 3 different doctors about high fever and received 3
different diagnoses. Obviously medical doctors ARE effective much of
the time, so the logic is flawed.

I really have no inclination to discuss the efficacy of AK on this

Fine, I respect your decision. Which leaves us however where we began,
personal anecdotal experience unconfirmed by any support external to it.
This leaves the method you suggest as having repeatable confirmation
using scientific methods a moot point and still out of reach for it
having its foundational truth claims confirmed. Should you however run
across something on the web which you would offer for same please do
bring it to my attention.

coons...@amestwp.com wrote:
> > I would be happy to see the study, please provide a reference. You
> > understand however that having a study is not in itself confirmation
> of
> > the whole of a system of foundational truth claims. I will await
> > reading the original study before commenting more.
>
> "I mentioned AK as a simple example to demonstrate of the concept that
> many "alties" accept some things based on evidence that something works,
> not necessarily HOW it works. The study I read was in hard copy form.
> I have no idea if it is online, as it was some number of years ago and I
> do not recall which publication it was in.
>
> A major problem with AK is that skills and experiences vary greatly from
> one practitioner to the next. It has often been said that because 2
> different AK practitioners come to different conclusions on the same
> patient that it must not be effective. To that I say that by the same
> logic, medical doctors must not be effective in what they do because my
> daughter visited 3 different doctors about high fever and received 3
> different diagnoses. Obviously medical doctors ARE effective much of
> the time, so the logic is flawed.
>
> I really have no inclination to discuss the efficacy of AK on this
>
> Fine, I respect your decision. Which leaves us however where we began,
> personal anecdotal experience unconfirmed by any support external to it.
> This leaves the method you suggest as having repeatable confirmation
> using scientific methods a moot point and still out of reach for it
> having its foundational truth claims confirmed. Should you however run
> across something on the web which you would offer for same please do
> bring it to my attention.

I am normally not so inclined to bow out of a discussion without
posting evidence of my position (any search of my nick should verify
that) but I'm not really interested in discussing AK. I freely admit
that supporting scientific data is spotty on the subject and prefer to
just leave it at that... on this one subject.

Max.

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>>
>> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >: Alternative therapies have a problem in that they typically do not have
>> >: deep pockets funding studies to show benefit analysis.
>> >
>> >According to PeterB, the food supplement industry is a $27 billion
>> >business. Surely they could spare some of that money to fund studies
>> >showing a benefit analysis.
>>
>> The very first cross-over clinical trial was a study of the effect of
>> an alternative medicine. It was not done by the alternative industry,
>> but was carried out by a medical doctor. It demonstrated that the
>> alternative medicine was very effective at treating and preventing a
>> serious illness. That very same alternative medicine is still part of
>> the alternative pharmacopoeia today and many claims are made for its
>> effectiveness, but for some reason those claims cannot be tested.
>>
>> Vitamin C. James Lind. 1747.
>> --
>> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
>
>It took the medical men of the day and the navy men of the day more
>than 60 years to put that nugget of scientific fact into actual
>practice and acceptance. Typical.
>
>TC

1769 minus 1747.

Hmmm. I agree, "more than 60 years".

But let's imagine that Cook didn't supply limes to his sailors on his
first voyage, and look instead at Phillip's voyage to Australia.

1787 minus 1747.

Yep, still "more than 60 years".

It was the MEDICAL men of the day and the NAVY men of the day who
performed the experiment. Lind was a naval surgeon.

But don't let the facts interfere with your fantasies.
--
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

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> Yes, you repeat previous assertions. Show me an example of a post
> clearly from a "pharmablogger", handwaving toward the fuzzy "them" does
> not serve.
>
> Being merely critical of "alterblogger" offerings will not serve.
>
> Questioning the scientific basis for "alterblogger" posts will not
> serve.

Coonskin, might I suggest you use Google Groups to acces these
messages? Your replies are rather difficult to determine who said
what. I appreciate that you include the previous post in your replies,
but without the leading ">" on each line, it's tough to see who said
what.

Regarding your request for actual posts, there are so many here you'd
be hard pressed to avoid them. Perhaps this would be a good start:

http://tinyurl.com/ydczbh

Note the original poster labeled the thread "Nutritional Supplements
KILL!" Then weeks after his original post, one of his last posts was
followed up by PeterB that went like this:

Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Does it? I thought peanuts were the #1 food allergan.
> > But even if it is milk, I don't think that rises
> > to the blanket statement that milk (or peanuts)
> > are a dangerous food item.

PeterB wrote:
> So where is this qualification when proclaiming that "Nutritional
> Supplements Kill?" In your example of iron poisoning, you fail to state
> that the number of actual deaths in recent years has been as little as
> "0," due to good parental oversight.* Compare that to 100 deaths per
> year as a result of food allergies, according to NIAID.

> Litovitz TL, Klein-Schwartz W, Caravati EM, Youniss J, Crouch B, Lee S.
> 1998 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Toxic
> Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17:435-487.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> > It may be true to say
> > that they rank among the most dangerous food items,
> > but if the danger is very small, that is not the
> > same thing as saying they are dangerous.

PeterB wrote:
> So you agree that nutritional supplements cannot be said to be
> "dangerous," since far more people die from food allergies than from
> taking supplements (even though 2/3rds of Americans take them
> regularly.)

> PeterB

It's this kind of dishonesty that the group's regular "alties" work to
expose.

Max.