A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 12th, 2007, 05:04 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,alt.health,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
PeterB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default 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  
Old January 12th, 2007, 06:11 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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  
Old January 12th, 2007, 06:41 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
PeterB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default 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  
Old January 12th, 2007, 06:44 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
Vernon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default 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  
Old January 12th, 2007, 09:33 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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  
Old January 12th, 2007, 09:59 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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  
Old January 13th, 2007, 01:22 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
GMCarter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default The Challenge to Natural Medicine Skeptics that has Gone Unanswered for Months

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.

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

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

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

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


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

Sorta like Iraq and Bush.

George M. Carter

  #9  
Old January 13th, 2007, 03:33 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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  
Old January 13th, 2007, 07:35 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,alt.support.diet,sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.