If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to
natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof) associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35 drugs in the list. Let's see how you do. 1. Accutane 2. Avastin 3. Calcium Channel Blockers 5. Celebrex 6. Cordarone 7. Crestor 8. Depakote 9. Erythromycin 10. Fortovase 11. Gabitril 12. Geodon 13. Halcion 14. Hismanal 15. Invirase 16. Lamictal 17. Lamisil 18. Lovanox 19. Mellaril 20. Phenergan 21. Permax 22. Prempro 23. Premphase 24. Premarin 25. Propulsid 26. Ritodrine 27. Serentil 28. Tasmar 29. Topamax 30. Trovan 31. Viagra 32. Vioxx 33. Viramune 34. Warfarin 35. Zyvox For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic nutrition, see: http://www.ajcn.org http://arborcom.com http://glycoscience.com http://hni.ilsi.org |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
Why those 35 among the thousands? You are not the source of the list of
course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally. However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden goose of marketing, naturally. Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof) associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35 drugs in the list. Let's see how you do. 1. Accutane 2. Avastin 3. Calcium Channel Blockers 5. Celebrex 6. Cordarone 7. Crestor 8. Depakote 9. Erythromycin 10. Fortovase 11. Gabitril 12. Geodon 13. Halcion 14. Hismanal 15. Invirase 16. Lamictal 17. Lamisil 18. Lovanox 19. Mellaril 20. Phenergan 21. Permax 22. Prempro 23. Premphase 24. Premarin 25. Propulsid 26. Ritodrine 27. Serentil 28. Tasmar 29. Topamax 30. Trovan 31. Viagra 32. Vioxx 33. Viramune 34. Warfarin 35. Zyvox For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic nutrition, see: http://www.ajcn.org http://arborcom.com http://glycoscience.com http://hni.ilsi.org |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
wrote: Why those 35 among the thousands? Why not? They happen to be the top revenue-generating drugs and should be easy to find data for. Why not just admit you can't do it? You are not the source of the list of course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally. In other words, you can't produce risk-adjusted outcomes for even one drug in the list. However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden goose of marketing, naturally. Which is why drugs are not "proven safe." What did you think was the point of all this? Those favorable to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as an alternative to natural medicine are asked to provide the evidence that FDA-approved drugs have been adequately tested for efficacy and safety. Please provide a set of risk-adjusted outcomes for the following drugs. You should state the number of deaths per 1000 (or fraction thereof) associated with each drug, and whether any controlled studies exist to show that the drug in question saves more lives than it takes (or, if the drug is not marketed as a "cure" for a life threatening disease, as is typically the case, the justification for its use in management of symptoms relative to such mortality and/or debility risk.) There are 35 drugs in the list. Let's see how you do. 1. Accutane 2. Avastin 3. Calcium Channel Blockers 5. Celebrex 6. Cordarone 7. Crestor 8. Depakote 9. Erythromycin 10. Fortovase 11. Gabitril 12. Geodon 13. Halcion 14. Hismanal 15. Invirase 16. Lamictal 17. Lamisil 18. Lovanox 19. Mellaril 20. Phenergan 21. Permax 22. Prempro 23. Premphase 24. Premarin 25. Propulsid 26. Ritodrine 27. Serentil 28. Tasmar 29. Topamax 30. Trovan 31. Viagra 32. Vioxx 33. Viramune 34. Warfarin 35. Zyvox For evidence on the therapeutic value of applied and therapeutic nutrition, see: http://www.ajcn.org http://arborcom.com http://glycoscience.com http://hni.ilsi.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
wrote in message . edu... Why those 35 among the thousands? Why not? IF, note, IF, you cared one damned iota about the world of medicine, you would be concerned with how those things reach the market. If you were a Doctor who gave a damn, you would want answers because, in all probability, you prescribed some. For you information, there are many traditional M.D.s, cardiologists, internists, pediatricians, oncologists (top level ones) who are VERY concerned about that very question. AND they don't just poo poo any possibility of non prescription answers or ESPECIALLY prevention. THEY are also concerned about the likes of you who make their traditional (AMA) medical practice questioned and more difficult. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
Why those 35 among the thousands? Why not? IF, note, IF, you cared one damned iota about the world of medicine, you would be concerned with how those things reach the market. If you were a Doctor who gave a damn, you would want answers because, in all probability, you prescribed some. For you information, there are many traditional M.D.s, cardiologists, internists, pediatricians, oncologists (top level ones) who are VERY concerned about that very question. AND they don't just poo poo any possibility of non prescription answers or ESPECIALLY prevention. THEY are also concerned about the likes of you who make their traditional (AMA) medical practice questioned and more difficult. Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them. If any "alternative drugs" fail likewise the same fate should await. The problem is that the last point of demonstrated evidence is missing in too many, the great majority, cases. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
Why those 35 among the thousands? Why not? They happen to be the top revenue-generating drugs and should be easy to find data for. Why not just admit you can't do it? Because the implied strawman logic is a crock. Because I'm not being taken in by the fools errand you have created. All were shown to do exactly as claimed or they were not approved. If they should in the long term reduce mortality by their demonstrated effect thought connected to their target disorder then fine. Thousands of drugs have in the long term done this. Lower mortality is sought but is not required because of the time involved of years to cover the lifetimes of the population as a whole for many disorders. Research is done all the time after the passage of enough years for large enough population to see if for example a blood pressure reducing drug such as one of your examples translates to lower mortality. Others such as vaccines don't require such time periods as do metabolic disorder related drugs. You are not the source of the list of course. No drugs must show mortality reduction for fda approval, they must show they are safe and effective for the claimed outcome which is thought to relate in the long term to mortality. This often takes years to establish. The Calcium Channel Blockers are an example, blood pressure reduction was demonstrated. Your question is a bit deceptive in this regard, as also inclusion of drugs like viagra not related to mortality, except for those who will "just die if they cann't get it up". Use of "natural medicine" is but spin, naturally. In other words, you can't produce risk-adjusted outcomes for even one drug in the list. No, but it is irrelevant as above. However the "alternative drugs" are greatly troubled in these areas having an assumption of "usually safe" which doesn't always pan out in the long term and is removed. Effective and mortality reduction are not required nor usually demonstrated in research, except as the golden goose of marketing, naturally. Which is why drugs are not "proven safe." What did you think was the point of all this? To create a tempest in a teapot and send folk on an empty fools errand in diversion of the more important question of does the damn thing work and is it safe as demonstrated by hard evidence. The answer we well too often know for "alternative drugs" as no and for those meeting fda thresholds yes. .. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
"GMCarter" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, wrote: snip Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them. Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever **** the pharma reps dole out. The prettier the legs and the greater the freebies, the more is "sold" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
On 12 Jan 2007 09:41:26 -0800, "PeterB" wrote:
Which is why drugs are not "proven safe." Did you not relaise that NOTHING can be proven safe? Not even putting your sox on while sitting on your bed. This has apparently caused at least one death and probably countless injuries. jack |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months
vernon wrote: "GMCarter" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2007 20:33:58 GMT, wrote: snip Those 35 because someone cherry picked them from the thousands. The rest of your remarks are mostly irrelevant. Doctors want drugs that are shown to work and be safe and to have been shown same by research. If any of the 35 don't meet these benchmarks then toss them. Some doctors do. Others just sell whatever **** the pharma reps dole out. The prettier the legs and the greater the freebies, the more is "sold" Excellent! Was it the Wall Street Journal or possibly the Washington Post that exposed the fact that a dozen or so cheerleaders from the University of Kentucky's national champion cheerleading squad were given jobs as drug reps? Those perky reps did not have degrees in science, but they sure looked good in a short skirt. There you are sitting and waiting for your five minutes with the doctor and in rolls a cheerleader-drug rep. Who sees the doctor first? And what are the chances that you'll be prescribed the cutiepie's latest through the professional hands of the doctor's prescription pad? Meanwhile, we are learning that hot peppers might be better for you, even if it doesn't pad the cutiepie's bank account. PS. Cholesterol drugs do two things, (1) they lower cholesterol, and (2) they cause heart attacks by blocking CoQ10. Ya wanna bet that Ms.Cutiepie with the degree in Marketing didn't tell the salivating doctor that her 'fave' statin might kill off some of his patients? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FREE holistic and alternative medicine information. Alternative medicine treatment for diabetes!! | [email protected] | General Discussion | 0 | March 8th, 2006 08:12 PM |
Ayurveda Medicine | [email protected] | Weightwatchers | 0 | January 6th, 2006 04:16 AM |
Cholesterol skeptics | Bob in CT | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 28th, 2004 03:06 PM |
BP medicine | bird | Weightwatchers | 4 | February 2nd, 2004 12:06 AM |
New medicine for weight loss | Cox SMTP east | General Discussion | 3 | October 9th, 2003 01:28 AM |