 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2006WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly as "Pharma-bloggers" (see footnote). For obvious reasons, pharma-bloggers on usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog, but there is a common thread between industry blogging in a web blog and industry participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense that the poster is not professionally affiliated. Most of these people are likely to be associated with a PR project whose "blogging" efforts are underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns in their posting. Please familiarize yourself with these tactics so you can identify them. See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm What to look for while participating in usenet newsgroups: 1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. They actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare. 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting scientific documentation. 3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to have the last word. 4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation. 5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use a "pile on" tactic to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who disagree with them. You will experience this if you express a belief in natural medicine or holistic healing. You will also see this tactic used more often than any other. 6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet refute numerous quality studies published in major medical journals showing the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback, accupuncture, accupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the science supporting a variety of natural medicine methods at http://www.newstarget.com. 7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters belies their true motives and reveals their ties to industry. 8. Pharma Bloggers on usenet rely on junk science references to support their attacks on natural healing methods. They decline to provide meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicines are either marginally effective, unproven, or dangerous, it is not suprising that purely anecdotal or observational studies (usually sponsored by the drug makers) are the only "science" available to them. 9. Pharma Bloggers on usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use as "experimental trial" medications, as has been the case for more than thirty years. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in the use of these expensive and toxic chemicals. 10. Pharma Bloggers on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies that show the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (ie., at least 100,000 deaths annually), as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of such drugs and other unsafe medical treatments. Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward others, and if that response is an attempt to attack natural medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a PR grunt whose mission is preventing a critical mass of consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of public health. Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on a daily basis than almost anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The pharma-bloggers have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply frightened away, which is the objective of these PR-sponsored media grunts. * Comment on objections about use of the word "blogging" in this newsgroup >From Wikipedia: "An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog can function as an internet forum. Internet forums typically allow any user to post (into the discussion). Blogs typically limit posting to the blogger or to the blogger and approved others. The distinction between blogs and forums is sometimes gray. Sites such as Slashdot, Indymedia and Daily Kos combine elements of the two...many bloggers differentiate themselves from the mainstream media, while others are members of that media working through a different channel. Some institutions see blogging as a means of "getting around the filter" and pushing messages directly to the public. Some critics worry that bloggers respect neither intellectual property nor the role of the mass media in presenting society with credible news." Also from Wikipedia: "A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order. The term blog is a shortened form of weblog or web log. Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing blog is called "blogging". Individual articles on a blog are called "blog posts," "posts" or "entries". A person who posts these entries is called a "blogger". A blog comprises hypertext, images, and links (to other web pages and to video, audio and other files). Blogs use a conversational style of documentation. Often blogs focus on a particular "area of interest", such as Washington, D.C.'s political goings-on. Some blogs discuss personal experiences." Although the advent of blogging was preceded by newsgroups, there are many similiarities in the nature of interaction between posters in these venues (mainly distinguished by their software platforms.) Also note that I didn't refer to the newsgroup itself as a weblog, I referred to individual posters as "blogging" here on behalf of industry. While my focus is on nutrition and science, the pharma bloggers rely on semantic and personal attacks in their effort to distract from the real issues. Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend maintstream medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a preference for natural medicine; and 3) cite a variety of junk medical science funded by industry for the purpose of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous, medical products and devices. PeterB As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to respond. The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion. Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example. Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article results to be one to include. That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to mind. On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be suspect on the same grounds? To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices? For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the alleged abuses? > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to > respond. Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting, Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives. > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion. If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups. If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I would ask how you intend to do this. > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example. > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article > results to be one to include. You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results have been fascinating. > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > mind. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be > suspect on the same grounds? Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate. The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers. The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals. > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices? The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here. > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the > alleged abuses? Language is very dual. Readers must decide when it is being used unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think and offer to support it. If you disagree with me, I will ask you why. If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your motives will be identified. It's really just that simple. PeterB > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups. Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your sandbagging. > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I > would ask how you intend to do this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results > have been fascinating. Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen? Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb? > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Language is very dual. Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in order to make your case. > Readers must decide when it is being used > unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think > and offer to support it. Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested reading list? Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia? > If you disagree with me, I will ask you why. What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can a person get? > If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your > motives will be identified. It's really just that simple. What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb, are just that simple. > PeterB >You, Peterb, are just that simple. Which could also be written as "You, Peterb, are just that, simple".  SignaturePeter 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 > >You, Peterb, are just that simple. > > Which could also be written as "You, Peterb, are just that, simple". I've always associated simplicity with honesty, Bowdick. Which is why I have never associated you with Bugs Bunny. Plus, I can't see Buggs getting spanked in court. You didn't kiss the judge did you? > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your > sandbagging. Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging, especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example. > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I > > would ask how you intend to do this. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen? You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle. If my shorthand is over your head, just think how lost you would be with a detailed discussion. > Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb? In your case, masturbating. > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > PeterB > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my > discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle. Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but... Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without it" He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't "chemically accurate" (the original thread is here: http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_frm/thread/b383 f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=gst&q=vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#c b9ab3742efefe85 He then took a lot more time to finally come up with an "alternate usage" from Merriam Webster that he thought, because his English is almost as awful as his chemistry, would make sense of his nonsense. Here it is: "to alter for more effective utilization" Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C turning hydrogen into oxygen (for the better utilisation of hydrogen, by his preferred definition) because he said that hydrogen was converted *to oxygen*; possibly he missed most of his high school education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases against which the rest of us are vaccinated. > If my shorthand is > over your head Ah. "shorthand". This is the word Petey uses when the rest of us would just say "colossal and stupid error". Oh, BTW, before Petey brings it up, I once quoted the actual number of cases of measles (? 4 million) rather than the number of recorded cases (?400,000) prior to vaccination being introduced in the USA. I immediately admitted the mistake, but it'll be a miracle if Petey doesn't bring it up again. He doesn't seem to understand that it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't that's the problem > just think how lost you would be with a detailed > discussion. > > > Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb? > > In your case, masturbating. PeteyB's usual magnificent standard of debate. > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > > PeterB In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: : http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_frm/thread/b383 f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=gst&q=vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#c b9ab3742efefe85 Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com? Thank you. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" > In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you. Oh dear. I would if I wasn't too fuddy-duddy to know how. I'd better go do some research:) Cathy > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" > In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you. Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn It worked when I used it; let me know if it doesn't for you. Cheers, Cathy > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: : Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn That link works fine. Thanks. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" >> In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Cathy Still harping on the same thing over and over, huh, Rosalind? >> ----- >> Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il >> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel >> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University >> ----- >> "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" In misc.health.alternative Jan Drew <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote: :> Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn : Still harping on the same thing over and over, huh, Rosalind? Well, you have to admit that it was pretty funny when "Mr. Scientist" (aka "Vernon") told us that CO2 was not oxidized carbon. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the > above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com? Keep in mind that tinyurl conversions are transitory. I'll grant that there's little chance that future generations will want to study this thread, and if they did the full URL might be gone from the archives too. Would posting both help? | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but... Oh, Rosalind, don't ever feel you have to apologize for trying to operate productively here in the newsgroups on behalf of your sponsors. Maybe some day it will actually work out for you. > Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is > by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim > was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for > conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without > it" Rosalind, you truly do need a life. You never disproved Klennar's views, and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly. My central point was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true. > He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming > that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him > up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't > "chemically accurate"... It wasn't intended to be a discussion of chemistry at all, for that matter. I said so at the time. > (the original thread is here: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "to alter for more effective utilization" Which simply proved I was discussing the utilization of these nutrients in human health, not their specific chemistry. Rosalind knows this, but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she move on. Poor thing. > Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this > definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases > against which the rest of us are vaccinated. As we see, the oppty to promote vaccine is one of Rosalind's favorite (read: profitable) past-times. How telling. > > If my shorthand is > > over your head [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't > that's the problem Rosalind, who claims to edit scientific publications, finds time to obsess over me and my posts periodically. We go way back. > > just think how lost you would be with a detailed > > discussion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PeteyB's usual magnificent standard of debate. It's alright when your pharmbuddies use it, right Rosalind? > > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > > > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > > > > PeterB > > > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > > Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but... <snip crap pertaining to nothing> > > Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is > > by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rosalind, you truly do need a life. You never disproved Klennar's > views Well, actually, you never provided any reason for his view, simply saying that he had concluded that vitamin C was essential for respiration based on his “clinical observations.” Heh. > and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument > that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin > C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly. Actually, Petey, you little tinker, you did actually say “respiration cannot occur without vitamin C.” Chortle. Oh, and “ Cellular respiration uses the redox function of vitamin C, combined with hydrogen, to generate oxygen.” Oh, and “If ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen from hydrogen, how does respiration occur at the cellular level?” > My central point > was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true. Scurvy is a bugger, isn’t it? However that wasn’t your central point, which in that discussion was clearly that vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen. . > > He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming > > that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Which simply proved I was discussing the utilization of these nutrients > in human health, not their specific chemistry. Gosh, what a shame you didn’t simply say so, and admit to your error, instead of carrying on making a fool of yourself for weeks. Added to which, of course, is the entertainment you’ve provided us all by insisting that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “convert”. > Rosalind knows this, > but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she > move on. Poor thing. Petey’s projecting his sales job onto someone called Rosalind, bless’im. > > Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this > > definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As we see, the oppty to promote vaccine is one of Rosalind's favorite > (read: profitable) past-times. How telling. I see you really hadn’t noticed how ridiculous was your defence that “convert doesn’t mean convert when I use it”. Petey, your endless assertions that people who disagree with you must be paid is very funny, since it’s clear to everyone that all you need to disagree with Petey is an education to high school level in science or English. > > > If my shorthand is > > > over your head [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rosalind, who claims to edit scientific publications What utter nonsense. If you are referring to Rosalind Dalefield, she is in fact a PhD, a veterinary toxicologist working in the US. I, on the other hand, have a mere BSc in chemistry, and I certainly do edit scientific manuscripts. In Australia. Please do tell why you insist on confusing the two of us? I realise you’ve never answered this question before, but I live in hope. > finds time to > obsess over me and my posts periodically Now there’s certainly an element of truth there. I find Petey’s posts enormously entertaining. His habit of posting references that contradict his position, or that he hasn’t read is another thing that keeps me reading his posts for fun. > We go way back. Ew. > S > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's alright when your pharmbuddies use it, right Rosalind? If that sentence made sense, or was in fact addressed to me, I’d probably still ignore it. Poor little Petey. > > > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > > > > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > > > > > > PeterB > > > > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > > > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > saying that he had concluded that vitamin C was essential for > respiration based on his “clinical observations.” Heh. It's enough for me to know that vitamin C is essential for life. > > and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument > > that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin > > C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly. > > Actually, Petey, you little tinker, you did actually say “respiration > cannot occur without vitamin C.” Chortle. Unless you have found out a way to survive without it, respiration will cease without it. It's a true statement. > Oh, and “ Cellular respiration uses the redox function of vitamin C, > combined with hydrogen, to generate oxygen.” Again, based on what I remembered of Klennar's and Stone's writing. Either way, it doesn't change the importance of vitamin C in human health. Higher intake of vit. C has also been associated with longer life. [ref. http://www.environmentalnutrition.com/pub/24_4/justin] > Oh, and “If ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen from hydrogen, how > does respiration occur at the cellular level?” The premise for the question was the possibility that Klennar and stone were right. I don't know if ascorbic acid drives cellular respiration directly, or not. > > My central point > > was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true. > > Scurvy is a bugger, isn’t it? However that wasn’t your central > point, which in that discussion was clearly that vitamin C turns > hydrogen into oxygen. No, my central point was that vitamin C is crucial to cardiovascular health, but you were too busy engaging in personal attacks to notice. [ref. (1) Am J Epidemiol 1996 Sep 1;144(5):501-11, Carotenoids, vitamins C and E, and mortality in an elderly population. Sahyoun NR, Jacques PF, Russell RM. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA. (2) N Engl J Med 1996 May 2;334(18):1156-62, Dietary antioxidant vitamins and death from coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Kushi LH, Folsom AR, Prineas RJ, Mink PJ, Wu Y, Bostick RM. Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis 55454-1015, USA. (3) Am J Epidemiol 1995 Dec 15;142(12):1269-78, Dietary vitamin C and beta-carotene and risk of death in middle-aged men. The Western Electric Study. Pandey DK, Shekelle R, Selwyn BJ, Tangney C, Stamler J. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston 77030, USA. (4) Stroke 2000 Oct;31(10):2287-94, Serum vitamin C concentration was inversely associated with subsequent 20-year incidence of stroke in a Japanese rural community. The Shibata study. Yokoyama T, Date C, Kokubo Y, Yoshiike N, Matsumura Y, Tanaka H. Department of Epidemiology, Medical Research Institute, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.] > > > He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming > > > that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > insisting that you don’t understand the meaning of the word > “convert”. Which part of "I am not describing the actual chemistry of vitamin C..." did you not understand? I do see why you stick with the first word useage in any dictionary, of course. As is typical of PR grunts working on behalf of industry, playing "gotcha" is the limit of your intellect. Thanks for proving it for the millionth time. > > Rosalind knows this, > > but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she > > move on. Poor thing. > > Petey’s projecting his sales job onto someone called Rosalind, > bless’im. Sure, Rosalind, whatever you say. > > > Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this > > > definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I see you really hadn’t noticed how ridiculous was your defence that > “convert doesn’t mean convert when I use it”. It's meaning is derived from the context of its usage and the author's intent. What's important is that vitamin C is crucial in human health. You have been consistently off topic when addressing my posts, further demonstrating how the "Warning" post describes your purpose and your tactics on mha. I won't allow you to make this about me, Rosalind. > Petey, your endless assertions that people who disagree with you must > be paid is very funny, since it’s clear to everyone that all you need > to disagree with Petey is an education to high school level in science > or English. First, Rosalind, learn to avoid making 1000% errors in quoting measles data, then perhaps someone will pay attention to you. Perhaps those scientific journals you claim to edit (wink wink) are taking their toll. Get some rest. > > > > If my shorthand is > > > > over your head [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Please do tell why you insist on confusing the two of us? I realise > you’ve never answered this question before, but I live in hope. You are in the thread that describes your behaviour in the newsgroups, Rosalind. I understand why you must ask, but in this case, you're actually somewhat ON topic. Good girl. > > finds time to > > obsess over me and my posts periodically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contradict his position, or that he hasn’t read is another thing that > keeps me reading his posts for fun. Rosalind, who virtually never posts references in support of her own positions, must re-frame every argument made by advocates of natural healing in order to claim that such references make *her* case on behalf of the drug makers. If that's not a pathetic display of industry hubris, I don't know what is. > > We go way back. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If that sentence made sense, or was in fact addressed to me, I’d > probably still ignore it. Poor little Petey. Funny how you manage to "ignore" things by responding to them over and over again. > > > > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > > > > > > > mind. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > PeterB [note how this post introduces the concept of "editing"] In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : It's enough for me to know that vitamin C is essential for life. So are vitamin A and copper. Why don't you take 5 grams/day of them? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." PeteyB wrote: <vitamin C is good for you> Well, duh. Perhaps if you'd stuck to that in the original discussion instead making such a dick of yourself by trying to be, er, clever, and instead demonstrating that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about beyond the statement "vitamin C is good for you". Maybe your corporate bosses might have given you a payrise. Poor Petey. Selling door-to-door might be easier on your self-esteem. Noted that yet again, Petey's only defence seems to be that anyone who disagrees with him must be paid to do so. And apparently called Rosalind. Strange boy. > PeteyB wrote: > <vitamin C is good for you> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your corporate bosses might have given you a payrise. Poor Petey. > Selling door-to-door might be easier on your self-esteem. Once again, Rosalind has nothing to offer but a rant disguised as a monologue. > Noted that yet again, Petey's only defence seems to be that anyone who > disagrees with him must be paid to do so. And apparently called > Rosalind. Yes, we've noted you launching this same denial for the millionth time. Is it sticking? > Strange boy. I'm not the one whose online personality changes to fit the environment, am I Roz? <absolutely nothing pertaining to his hideous blunders in chemistry and English, his desperate lies and further blunders as he tries to cover up his ignorance, but a little bit more of the paranoid mish-mash he uses when he's been spanked> I guess your sponsors didn't give you that payrise, huh, Petey? > <absolutely nothing pertaining to his hideous blunders in chemistry and > English, his desperate lies and further blunders as he tries to cover > up his ignorance, but a little bit more of the paranoid mish-mash he > uses when he's been spanked> Say hello to your sponsors for me, will you Roz? > I guess your sponsors didn't give you that payrise, huh, Petey? Did you say something meaningful. Notice it wasn't a question. Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse at hand. Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general shotgun listing of alleged industry created abuses on usanet groups remains yet unconfirmed and unidentified with reference to actual practices. Amorphous discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit readers nothing. Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not serve, examples real or invented will allow us to tease out details that might permit supporting or excluding the claims of "pharmablogger" / "alterblogger" activity. >> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn >> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >PeterB > Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse at hand. The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of industry have been listed in the original post already. If you cannot identify those tactics during actual exchanges, why concern yourself with it? As it is, I am already resisting efforts to draw me into *more* discussion about the politics of public relations and use of the media to impact market share. > Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general shotgun listing > of alleged industry created abuses on usanet groups remains yet > unconfirmed and unidentified with reference to actual practices. > Amorphous discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit > readers nothing. So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves. > Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not serve, > examples real or invented will allow us to tease out details that might > permit supporting or excluding the claims of "pharmablogger" / > "alterblogger" activity. Sounds like you have an interesting project on your hands. You can easily find a few hundred such examples by doing a search on the word "pharmablogger." Good luck. > >> As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > >> anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > >PeterB > Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse at hand. > Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general shotgun listing > of alleged industry created abuses on usanet groups remains yet > unconfirmed and unidentified with reference to actual practices. > Amorphous discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit > readers nothing. Do not hold your breath... > Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not serve, > examples real or invented will allow us to tease out details that might [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> PeterB When asked to present an example to illustrate the subject line we get: "Do not hold your breath..." So it is all hand waving and foot stomping and smoke and mirrors is it? As you say elsewhere, content matters, and we now have our answer; "alterbloggers" are more adept at rhetorical tap dancing then facts. > When asked to present an example to illustrate the subject line we get: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As you say elsewhere, content matters, and we now have our answer; > "alterbloggers" are more adept at rhetorical tap dancing then facts. I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and greater reliance on natural medicine. If that makes me an "alterblogger," so be it. The best way to identify a pharmablogger is to recognize the nature of "pharmablogging," ie., a repudiation of ethics and the absence of evidence by those professing to believe in "evidence based medicine." I hope you know I saw you coming a mile away... PeterB "I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and greater reliance on natural medicine. If that makes me an "alterblogger," so be it. The best way to identify a pharmablogger is to recognize the nature of "pharmablogging," ie., a repudiation of ethics and the absence of evidence by those professing to believe in "evidence based medicine." I hope you know I saw you coming a mile away..." I too want better oversight of medical drugs, and "alternative" drugs. I don't care if a method is "natural" or not, only that it can be shown to work as claimed external to those selling it. So, to cast a light on and critically question the behavior of the "alternative" industry is unethical? What of the ethics of asserting without proof the charge of the subject line? When evidence in support of "reflexology" is presented, as requested, then we can speak of evidence based medicine and scientific validity. So you saw me coming, darn it, I need to get the stealth function on my black helicopter working again. > "I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and greater > reliance on natural medicine. If that makes me an "alterblogger," so be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't care if a method is "natural" or not, only that it can be shown > to work as claimed external to those selling it. "Oversight"? By the government? We have that now. > So, to cast a light on and critically question the behavior of the > "alternative" industry is unethical? What of the ethics of asserting > without proof the charge of the subject line? When evidence in support > of "reflexology" is presented, as requested, then we can speak of > evidence based medicine and scientific validity. So, the entire credibility of alternative medicine lays in Reflexology? If only the same were applied to Viox and ANY statin. At the worst, reflexology is psychosomatic and does no physical, uncorrectable damage other that possibly forestalling an effective treatment. Government oversight and approval ONLY leads to unqualified confidence in a drug "identified" as dangerous and thus controlled. > So you saw me coming, darn it, I need to get the stealth function on my > black helicopter working again. In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : The best way to identify a pharmablogger is to recognize the : nature of "pharmablogging," ie., a repudiation of ethics and the : absence of evidence by those professing to believe in "evidence based : medicine." Do you not consider the results of double-blind studies "evidence"? If not, how do you explain the rejection by the FDA of drugs that fail to show significant effect in such studies? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and greater : reliance on natural medicine. Why do you not blog for credible regulation of "natural" medicine, aka "food supplements"? Given the known detrimental effects of some so-called "natural" medicines, and the known problem of interactions with other drugs, why are you not demanding that "natural" medicines be required to show the same relative benefit to risk of "pharmaceutical" drugs? Why are you not demanding that makers of food supplements be required to put drug interaction information on the labels of their products? Why are you not demanding that the FDA rescind its decision not to regulate "food supplements"? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > When asked to present an example to illustrate the subject line we get: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As you say elsewhere, content matters, and we now have our answer; > "alterbloggers" are more adept at rhetorical tap dancing then facts. When Petey is at a loss for anything remotely rational, he redefines reality, makes up words, and uses alternative logic. In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting, : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives. Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading the content of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of your posts and concluding from that content (or more frequently, complete > lack of substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are? I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about you and your motives? PeterB >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. > If those topics are lacking in substance, Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would call it "cleanse by-product". what does that say about you > and your motives? > > PeterB > >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what does that say about you > > and your motives? What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my motives? Nothing at all. >>>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my motives? > Nothing at all. Thanks for proving my point. You are so predictable. Go bark! ""A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about you?" Ah, a self confessed "alterblogger" is it? > ""A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to > advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ah, a self confessed "alterblogger" is it? 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. PeterB "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." 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. > "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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the > evidence brought to bear. I believe PeterB would agree with me when I say that such an expectation goes with the territory. Any "altie" should expect to be challenged on their beliefs. Having an alternative mindset *should* automatically mean that that person has an open mind. How else would they have become alternative minded in the first place. Of course, 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. In the case of the raw milk debate I'm currently in on MHA, I had to go back to articles in the Lancet from the 1920's and 30's to find data to support my position. There are no current studies of raw milk that I've been able to find. Who would pay for them? Long story short, your above statement is viewed pretty much as a given. It'll be nice to debate someone who doesn't have to resort to personal attacks. Unfortunately that's often what it comes to around here. I look forward to debating you. Max. > > "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 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Max. 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. PeterB 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. 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. I'm still waiting for your yes-or-no answers to my three questions. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> 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 > >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > 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 In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: :> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which : unfortunately my schedule will not permit. "I will not do your homework for you." Now where I have heard that before? : Medically relevant citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely : unavailable in digital format. . . All of the papers I cited are available in digital format. In fact, I found other papers on the subject, but since I only had access to their abstracts, I did not want to cite the full paper as if I had seen it. If you can't figure out how to get from the citation I posted to the article, that's not my problem. I should also point out that your objection is blatantly hypocritical. When you posted a reference to a book, and I explained to you that the book was unavailable in the library at Bar-Ilan University, so that I would prefer a specific page citation before going to the trouble of getting the book on interlibrary loan, you refused point-blank to provide the page citation. I eventually found the page, no thanks to you, given that you had misspelled the names of the authors. Given that track record on your part, you have absolutely no right to expect that I will give you anything more than I did, namely, the full citations. And that's leaving out the part where your excuse suddenly changed from your claim that you had no need to read the references, since you already knew what they would say, to you don't have time to find them. :> And you also forgot the part where I quoted :> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : use of vaccine. Put simply, there is no evidence that vaccine is : responsible for even the majority of such declines." You have yet to provide a *specific page* of the reference on which that quote can be found. Unlike me, who posted the number of page in the book in which the citation to the study you claim to be quoting was found. That is, on page 43 of _Public Health at the Crossroads_, the entire reference to McKinlay and McKinlay was one sentence, namely, For example, 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 [sic] could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases.[72] In the book that *you* cited as citing McKinlay and McKinlay, the above sentence is *immediately* *followed* by the following one: On the other hand, targeted public health interventions *including vaccination* [emphasis mine], personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of major importance. : 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. The authors of the chapter in _Public Health at the Crossroads_ in which the reference to McKinlay and McKinlay appears follow that reference by an explicit statement that vaccination was of "major importance" in lowering the mortality rate in the U.S. during the 20th century. That is (I would think fairly obviously) the exact opposite of what you write above. :> 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. You have claimed that I have some kind of personal interest (professional or monetary) in the pharmaceutical industry. A list of recent publications of mine is publically accessible via the Bar-Ilan University Chemistry Department web page. I asked you the following: (1) Have you read any of the references listed? (1a) Have you even read the list of references? (2) Do any of the references have anything whatsoever to do with pharmaceutical chemistry? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "I will not do your homework for you." Now where I have heard that before? Your reading list is not my "homework." Besides, the validity of any reference not conveniently accessible to *all* readers is highly suspect. > : Medically relevant citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely > : unavailable in digital format. . . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you can't figure out how to get from the citation I posted to the > article, that's not my problem. Nor mine. I am already familiar with the slight allergic risks posed by dietary supplements, and their potential for toxicity in extremely high doses, and have discussed these issues at length more than a few times. If you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the Usenet archives, that is not *my* problem. > I should also point out that your objection is blatantly hypocritical. > When you posted a reference to a book, and I explained to you that the > book was unavailable in the library at Bar-Ilan University, so that I would > prefer a specific page citation before going to the trouble of getting the > book on interlibrary loan, you refused point-blank to provide the page > citation. Are you still crying about that? I normally would have provided the page number, but as I later explained, the book was not in my possession at the time. I later provided the page number, immediately after which you claimed to have found the reference on your own (highly doubtful.) Either way, this exchange speaks volumes about your obsession with me, and your denials relating to industry ring incredibly hollow. > I eventually found the page, no thanks to you, given that you > had misspelled the names of the authors. Given that track record on your > part, you have absolutely no right to expect that I will give you anything > more than I did, namely, the full citations. What you give, or don't give, is irrelevant to me. Your efforts to distort the evidence proving the toxicity of drugs and their ability to induce a disease response is most telling. > And that's leaving out the part where your excuse suddenly changed from > your claim that you had no need to read the references, since you already > knew what they would say, to you don't have time to find them. Both are true. If you had posted something relevant *out of the research* and used the citations as support, it would help to make your case. Instead, you post citations as if they alone validate your views, and that is absurd. Waiting for me to evaluate the research is just as ridiculous. That is why I say I will not do your homework for you. > :> And you also forgot the part where I quoted > :> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You have yet to provide a *specific page* of the reference on which that > quote can be found. You are quoting me, fool. I was paraphrasing (not so loosely) what the authors' remarked. Are we to believe you are this stupid? > Unlike me, who posted the number of page in the book > in which the citation to the study you claim to be quoting was found. The book you claimed you couldn't find? Brilliant. > That is, on page 43 of _Public Health at the Crossroads_, the entire > reference to McKinlay and McKinlay was one sentence, namely, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could be ascribed to medical measures introduced > for the major infectious diseases.[72] Thus, my comment that 3.5% of concomitant use of vaccine during those years was the total mortality impact for which such intervention might have been responsible. In fact, we have no way of knowing that vaccine was responsible for even 1% of that decline. It would be quite remarkable if the entire 3.5% decline could be attributed soley to vaccine. > In the book that *you* cited as citing McKinlay and McKinlay, the above > sentence is *immediately* *followed* by the following one: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care > services, were of major importance. There is no contradiction. The earlier statement was a clear reference to mortality, whereas this statement makes no such reference. This portion of the paragraph simply says that such inititiatives were of "major importance." In terms of healthcare, many medical researchers still believe that vaccine is a necessary tool for prevention, however the research cited by these authors shows that vaccine was not responsible for most of the decline in infectious disease mortality. The point is that you cannot have a dramatic reduction in infectious disease mortality without a dramatic reduction in the severity of the disease response. There is no way around it. > : Do explain what "radically different" conclusion (your words) you > : believe the authors came to. Read the actual excerpt and then read my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the mortality rate in the U.S. during the 20th century. That is (I > would think fairly obviously) the exact opposite of what you write above. The words "of "major importance in lowering the mortality rate..." are clearly *not* stated by these authors, and you know it. Otherwise the paragraph would contain a gross contradiction. You are, once again, deliberately distorting what the research says. > :> I'm still waiting for your yes-or-no answers to my three questions. > : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (2) Do any of the references have anything whatsoever to do with > pharmaceutical chemistry? What is it you need to prove, and to whom? I never said your work at the university explained why you are here. You yourslef haven't bothered to explain it. I'm sure when you do it will be appropriately self promoting. PeterB The statement reading: "Thus, my comment that 3.5% of concomitant use of vaccine during those years was the total mortality impact for which such intervention might have been responsible..." should have read: "Thus, my comment that 3.5%, at most, of the total decline in infectious disease mortality over 7 decades can be associated (but not definitively linked) to concomitant use of vaccine." In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: :> : You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online :> : resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : reference not conveniently accessible to *all* readers is highly : suspect. That is, of course, insane. All of the references that I provided are conveniently accessible to anyone who cares to make the effort to obtain them. In addition to being insane, your remark is blatantly hypocritical. What online resource makes the articles and books that you cite "conveniently accessible to *all* readers"? : Nor mine. I am already familiar with the slight allergic risks posed : by dietary supplements, and their potential for toxicity in extremely : high doses, and have discussed these issues at length more than a few : times. If you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the Usenet : archives, that is not *my* problem. That is a hoot, considering that you have demonstrated a total inability to use said archives, or even to understand how usenet articles are archived. : Are you still crying about that? I normally would have provided the : page number, but as I later explained, the book was not in my : possession at the time. That is a lie. : I later provided the page number, immediately : after which you claimed to have found the reference on your own (highly : doubtful.) That is another lie (the part about your providing the page number). You specifically refused to provide the page number, claiming that it was not your job to do my homework for me. When I found the page -- despite your misspelling of the names of the authors of the study -- I found it through the search function at amazon.com, and I posted it, along with the direct quote from the book. You then continued to claim that the quotation from the book was not in direct contradiction of your description of it, no matter how many times I reposted it. : Either way, this exchange speaks volumes about your obsession with me, and : your denials relating to industry ring incredibly hollow. Why does it speak "volumes" about my obsession with you, and not the other way around? You still have not answered the three simple yes or no questions that I posed to you . : What you give, or don't give, is irrelevant to me. Your efforts to : distort the evidence proving the toxicity of drugs and their ability to : induce a disease response is most telling. Your claim that a side effect is identical to a disease is most telling. Considering that, unlike you, I provided a direct quote from the conclusions of the study in question, it seems that if my intention were to distort those conclusions, I was going about it in a remarkably poor way. :> Unlike me, who posted the number of page in the book :> in which the citation to the study you claim to be quoting was found. : : The book you claimed you couldn't find? Brilliant. I didn't claim that I could not find the book. I claimed (correctly) that the book was not in the Bar-Ilan University library, and that if I wanted to obtain a copy, I would have to get it through inter-library loan. [further evidence of PeterB's total inability to read English for comprehension deleted] ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ "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. 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. 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. 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. If a "supplement" has a positive effect it is for the same basic biochemestry that all drugs work. 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. 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. > "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 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > "reflexology" in sinus treatment when its foundational truth claims have > not been confirmed. 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. Max. "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 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 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. > "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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. > "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 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > "reflexology" in sinus treatment when its foundational truth claims have > not been confirmed. 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. "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. > "Subjects such as miss-applied reflexology die VERY quickly unless a > pharm troll basically changes the subject, so the example is moot. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > traditional medicine as the "alternative" must stand or fall on its own > merits of evidence. I responded to YOUR logic. > "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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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/Therapies/Reflexology%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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 "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". >> "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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > challenged on their beliefs. Having an alternative mindset *should* > automatically mean that that person has an open mind. We just have to be careful not to be considered as Alt ONLY. Then the "open mind" is their mind. >How else would > they have become alternative minded in the first place. Of course, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Max. 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. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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. SignaturePeter 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 > >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > 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 >> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >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. SignaturePeter 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 > >> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Cook did not supply them with limes. He just brought the freshest meats he could and also fed them fresh fish. They still suffered from scurvy but none died. You should get YOUR facts right. TC >> >> >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >he could and also fed them fresh fish. They still suffered from scurvy >but none died. So you are saying that we don't need Vitamin C as long as we can get fresh meat and fish? And just where did Cook get this fresh meat? From Maori butchers? From Tiwi abattoirs? "Captain James Cook promoted the practice of feeding his crew sauerkraut and lime juice to fight scurvy, based on the studies done by Dr. James Lind in 1747, and insisted his crew wash themselves and their possessions, and exercise on the open deck regularly. It was not until 1795 that lime juice rations were provided for all sailors in the Royal Navy, and to this day, British sailors are known as 'Limeys'". http://www.plantexplorers.com/explorers/biographies/captain/captain-james-cook.htm Sad, isn't it? Your ignorance, I mean. And lookee - there's another date. 1795. Let's take 60 from that and we get later than 1747. Oops! No we don't. >You should get YOUR facts right. And what sort of trees did Arthur Phillip collect from Rio de Janeiro on his way to Sydney in 1787? Why, it was lime trees!! Imagine that! I wonder why he wanted lime trees for the new colony when nobody in his position was planning to use them for another 20 years. >TC SignaturePeter 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 > >In misc.health.alternative Max C. <maxc246@gmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 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] In misc.health.alternative Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote: : 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, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Vitamin C. James Lind. 1747. Although, you have to admit, that the Powers That Be were not particularly impressed with his conclusions -- at least based on the amount of time it took them to add citrus juice to the diet of sailors. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > "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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it should be known without resort to conspiracy theories about the > messengers. There is nothing conspiratorial about being a messenger, as we are all messengers for what we believe (or pretend to believe) when posting. I don't use the word "conspiracy" to describe the deceptive practices of the drug makers in marketing, either. Or to describe the corrupt financial relationship between FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, though some may think it fits. I prefer the word "corrupt" because it describes what is already in plain view, even if the public has some catching up to do. > 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. Do a review of the history of my posts and those of Roman Bystrianyk. As a percentage of our entries, no one provides more citations on mha than we do in support of natural healing methods. Posters not inclined to search out or reference the science are often well informed and excellent critical thinkers. By contrast, those critical of natural medicine -- even while failing to recognize it's use in ER practice -- also are unable to provide scientific evidence in support of their own contrarian views. The reason for this has become obvious: such evidence does not exist. > In that manner there should > be no difference between us, "us" is not the important thing but the > evidence brought to bear. You cannot decouple the motivations of human beings from the integrity of intent, as intent is what drives language. And just as there are variations in quality of evidence, there are qualitative differences in the merits of one argument over another. Above all, there is no substitute for the "big picture." PeterB "There is nothing conspiratorial about being a messenger, as we are all messengers for what we believe (or pretend to believe) when posting. I don't use the word "conspiracy" to describe the deceptive practices of the drug makers in marketing, either. Or to describe the corrupt financial relationship between FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, though some may think it fits. I prefer the word "corrupt" because it describes what is already in plain view, even if the public has some catching up to do." Excuse me, the original ofthis thread was nothing if not a diatrite about how "pharmabloggers" were organized to attack "alternative" methods! Then you go on to kill a perfectly fine strawman, now what do we do with all this straw? > "There is nothing conspiratorial about being a messenger, as we are all > messengers for what we believe (or pretend to believe) when posting. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > about how "pharmabloggers" were organized to attack "alternative" > methods! Which they do exactly as described by PeterB > Then you go on to kill a perfectly fine strawman, now what do we do with > all this straw? "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". > "Which they do exactly as described by PeterB" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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). "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. > Yes, you repeat previous assertions. Show me an example of a post > clearly from a "pharmablogger", handwaving toward the fuzzy "them" does [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. "Max C. offered: "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!"." I skimmed the quite long thread. I can agree he is a bit of a cranky personality, but no more so then other trolls who have ego points to make. One finds such in all newsgroups. However I fail to see how it confirms a structured industry activity to discredit "alternative" methods as is the subject of this thread. I see someone being critical, perhaps not as informed as he thought himself, choosing a subject line aimed to inflame, and too snide for his own good but otherwise unremarkable for his behavior. I did find intresting the discussion about the percieved analysis done by "them" to best handle posters and use them to their own nefarious ends. That discussion was a reflection of this one and as flawed. All in all I find myself thinking posters of all shades consider far too much that the real world really cares what is posted and could care less to mount a structured or even informal attack. When a tv ad reahes millions why bother for a score of posters, assuming posters are 10 percent of readers, even 240 group participants are quite irrelevant. > "Max C. offered: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > millions why bother for a score of posters, assuming posters are 10 > percent of readers, even 240 group participants are quite irrelevant. You could be right. In fact, I HOPE you're right. However, doing a little history here on a few key names will reveal much more than the one link I gave you. I'm not really inclined to give any more specific links as I don't care to start a mud slinging match based on nothing more than "I know you are but what am I." I try to choose my battles carefully. Max. In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : Do a review of the history of my posts and those of Roman Bystrianyk. : As a percentage of our entries, no one provides more citations on mha : than we do in support of natural healing methods. You sound like Ann Coulter. "There can't be any lies in my book -- it's got 35 pages of footnotes [sic]." : Posters not inclined to search out or reference the science are often : well informed and excellent critical thinkers. By contrast, those critical : of natural medicine -- even while failing to recognize it's [sic] use in ER : practice -- also are unable to provide scientific evidence in support : of their own contrarian views. I provided evidence of possible dangers of "natural" medicine. You refused to read the references. You also seem to have left out the part where the question is not really does "natural" medicine "work" (whatever that means), but rather whether the ratio of benefit to risk is greater than that of standard medicine. And that is one place where you consistently refuse to provide any results. Not only that, you have argued that you do not have to provide any such evidence even in principle. : The reason for this has become obvious: such evidence does not exist. A more accurate appraisal would be: PeterB refuses to look at the evidence. : You cannot decouple the motivations of human beings from the integrity : of intent, as intent is what drives language. Then why do you consistently insist that your motivations are irrelevant? And why are you too cowardly to post under your own name? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Apparently, you take me for a complete fool." "Yeah -- more or less." Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit" > "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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. "> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? >"> Give it your best then, but expect to be questioned on the sames > grounds [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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. 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. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 a.s 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 In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: [nothing of any possible interest] ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts shows that my : purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support : dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the : pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. : If those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say about you : and your motives? It is clear from anyone who reads your posts that your purpose is to sell "natural medicine" even (or rather, especially) if it means lying about the content of sources you claim to be citing, hiding your relationship to the "natural medicine"/"food supplement" industry, and projecting upon others your own dishonesty. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to the "natural medicine"/"food supplement" industry, and projecting upon > others your own dishonesty. A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If those topics are lacking in substance as you claim, what does that say about you and your loyalties, pharmboy? PeterB With no substantive answer nor example to demonstrate "pharmablogger" activity on these newsgroups, we must conclude same exists only in the mind of the one asserting it. It was a deft rhetorical move set up in such a way that even to not agree or to question the conclusions meant confirmation of the charges. It looks like in hind sight that it was an attempt to "vaccinate" "alterbloggers" from serious questioning of their assertions. It failed, any assertion should recieve the same kinds of hard look as any other using the commonly accepted scientific proceedures. Handwaving and foot stomping does not serve in its place. It can be shown to work or it doesn't, it can be shown to be safe or not shown, it relies on pseudoscience or it does not, it is accepted as effective marketing or it doesn't. Every assertion from any quarter deserves a hard look using these questions. > With no substantive answer nor example to demonstrate "pharmablogger" > activity on these newsgroups, we must conclude same exists only in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > marketing or it doesn't. Every assertion from any quarter deserves a > hard look using these questions. Spoken like a true pseudo scientist who can't even figure out netiquette, even after multiple posts. 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. "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? > "The pharmbloggers make no counter assertions. Occasionally someone with > a Doctor's degree or training will come up with a counter assertion. It [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. > 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. >> With no substantive answer nor example to demonstrate "pharmablogger" >> activity on these newsgroups, we must conclude same exists only in the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Spoken like a true pseudo scientist who can't even figure out netiquette, >even after multiple posts. Sez Vernon, the "true scientist", who, when challenged to provide evidence for his many wild assertions, just tells us that "it's out there." Very convincing. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to > respond. Yessir! You just conclusively proved you are a pharmablogger. That was Petey's purpose. > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article > results to be one to include. Uh-oh, you are asking for evidence. MORE proof you are a pharmablogger, whatever that is. > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to > mind. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be > suspect on the same grounds? You do not have a chance. Petey believes that BigSupplement is altruistic and pure. All natural, too. > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the > alleged abuses? > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public > Discourse on Matters of Public Health [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum > are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market boards back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than once). There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But the Pharma industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to bother little old us). >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public >> Discourse on Matters of Public Health [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to > bother little old us). You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is). > >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public > >> Discourse on Matters of Public Health [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is). Not so, Markey. But to help you out, I suggest you focus on the verb form of the term instead -- "pharmablogging." Then, whenever you are reading what you write, you will know what it is. PeterB > > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public > > Discourse on Matters of Public Health [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of them more than > once). Consider that no discrete group of economists employed federally or otherwise has ever forecast a single recession, yet they have *always* forecast every inevitable upswing. What is that telling you? > There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health activists, or > MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. Why would such people "troll" the boards? All I see in that regard are spammers who have a product to sell, which only bothers me because it isn't appropriate to the purpose of the newsgroups. Am I a troll because I discuss natural medicine *and* the media efforts of industry? Quite often, I am not the one who brings it up. Whether you believe industry is here in the newsgroups or not (they are), that element of my discussion is not central to the discussion (except in threads like this one devoted to the issue.) My focus is on the idea that people should take responsibility for their own health, that nutraceuticals outperform pharmaceuticals, and that the public is under educated on the risks of prescription drugs. > But the Pharma > industry has some of the very deepest pockets of all (though they might > have better/more profitable things to do with their time/$ than to > bother little old us). Do you see them doing something "better" several hours each day on all the broadcast network channels in direct-to-consumer advertising? Do you think the newsgroups and the Internet represent a poor cost/exposure ratio in terms of audience reach? As "little old us" continue to wake up and use natural medicine as an alternative to drugs, Big Pharma is becoming more desperate, not less. PeterB > 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! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.