22 replies to this topic

[SemiBizz]

Angry? hahaha. You're the one that's all worked up over this. You've already run off most of the folks on the board that obviously disagree with you, in fact flamed them. I just think somebody has to stand up to you. I could care less what you think too.

[Chilidawgz]

Whether I share your view or not is not what concerns me MM. I am fearful of losing my right to purchase what I desire based on my reading. Under the nations current big biz/controlling government I am feaful that the right to choose will be lobbied and then legislated away from me. You know the pharmas hate the money they are missing out on if the supplement industry was regulated....bastages.

Edited by Chilidawgz, 17 January 2007 - 03:44 PM.

[maineman]

Angry? hahaha. You're the one that's all worked up over this. You've already run off most of the folks on the board that obviously disagree with you, in fact flamed them. I just think somebody has to stand up to you. I could care less what you think too.

No, not true. Not worked up.
I posted an article about some interesting research into the safety of over the counter herbals and vitamins from the New York Times.
One of you responded that the author was a buffoon.
One of you responded that doctors are drug pushers.
One of you said doctors were just "pro-AMA' lackeys.
One of you misquoted a study about "medical errors" that had nothing to do with the article I posted.

Run off? No. Challenged? Yes. Is that wrong?
You are free to put whatever you want into your body. Go ahead. However I am not free to TELL you what to put into your body, if you come to me in a professional setting. I can only do that if I have done 100% due diligence. I am licensed and under an ethical and moral oath to provide scientific truth and proof. Why is that threatening to you, or the others you say that I've "run off"?

Look, if I choose to have some chicken soup when I get a runny nose, that's my business. But I cannot
"prescribe" that for you and charge you a fee, if you come to the office, get it?

Don't you think its a good idea to have someone looking into the content of herbs and vitamins, etc? Have you READ these studies about what's in them? Wouldn't you like to know if they are SAFE? Wouldn't you like to know if they have side effects? What is so threatening about that?

mm

[stocks]

I prefer Dr Rosenthal to the NY Times. Dr. Norman Rosenthal is best known as the psychiatrist and scientist who first described seasonal affective disorder (SAD) or winter depression, and pioneered the use of light in its treatment during his long and distinguished career as a National Institute of Mental Health researcher. For this work he was awarded the prestigious Anna Monika Award, an international prize for research in depression. He has conducted extensive research into disorders of mood, sleep and biological rhythms, which resulted in over 200 scholarly publications. Besides his scholarly writings, Dr. Rosenthal has also written several books for the general public, including Winter Blues: Seasonal Affective Disorder: What it is and how to overcome it (Guilford, 1998); How to Beat Jet Lag: A Practical Guide for Air Travelers (Holt, 1993; co-author); and St. John's Wort: The Herbal Way to Feeling Good (HarperCollins, 1998). His latest book is The Emotional Revolution: How the New Science of Feelings can Transform Your Life (Kensington, 2002). Dr. Rosenthal's skill at communicating complex scientific material in a way that is both readily understandable and engaging has made him a popular TV and radio guest. He has appeared on many national shows including Good Morning America, CBS Sunday, CBS Morning News, CNN, Fresh Air, All Things Considered, ESPN and The Today Show, to name just a few. Dr. Rosenthal is the medical director of Capital Clinical Research Associates (CCRA) and maintains an active private practice in Suburban Maryland. He has been listed among The Best Doctors in America and in the Guide to America's Top Psychiatrists.

[teki]

MaineMan, thanks for keeping these discussions up. You are very consistent in your main points: - as a licensed professional, you need a scientific study to justify any treatment - you couldn't care less if that treatment comes from big pharma, or little vitamin shoppe. As far as the other voices here, I think we could all get more out of these discussions if you paint with a smaller brush. If you think there are too many abuses of antibiotics, let's talk about why. Is it patients demanding them, is it doctors pushing them? If you think there is benefit to omeg-3 supplements, show a reference to a study. If you think there is benefit, but there is no study, explain why you think there is no study. Is it because there is not enough funding, is it because information is being supressed. I am a big fan of having many choices in care, whatever works, and doesn't hurt you, etc. And enjoy learning from all of you.

[endisnear]

Endisnear,



Just a couple of comments.

First, it appears you did not read the article, or the statistics correctly. If you are at all interested, try reading the article carefully. Looks like you missed the point.



Second, why is it that some of "you" "health nuts" are always so angry, defensive and accusatory? Shees, I was sharing an article written in the New York Times and here you are going off like a disgruntled postal worker with an Uzi....



mm

i have as much respect for the NYTimes as I do this roll of TP in my bathroom. That goes for all mainstream media which only reports fractions of the truth. Propaganda. Period.

in case you haven't figured it out, big pharma, big media, defense, big healthcare are all connected at the top. They all serve on each others boards. Big pharma w/media help is trying to lump all health supplements into the "dangerous" category and they have the AMA, medica journals, and their brainwashed medical minions to propagate the propaganda to confuse the sheep more than they are. Job well done as far as I can see.

Don't worry, I get it. The details don't matter as much as the big picture.

[maineman]

"in case you haven't figured it out, big pharma, big media, defense, big healthcare are all connected at the top. They all serve on each others boards. Big pharma w/media help is trying to lump all health supplements into the "dangerous" category and they have the AMA, medica journals, and their brainwashed medical minions to propagate the propaganda to confuse the sheep more than they are. Job well done as far as I can see. " -Endisnear

Hey, End,

Would you please provide some proof to this absurd, paranoid mud sling of yours? I'm all ears.



mm

[EntropyModel]

MaineMan, thanks for keeping these discussions up. You are very consistent in your main points:

- as a licensed professional, you need a scientific study to justify any treatment

- you couldn't care less if that treatment comes from big pharma, or little vitamin shoppe.

As far as the other voices here, I think we could all get more out of these discussions if you paint with a smaller brush.

If you think there are too many abuses of antibiotics, let's talk about why. Is it patients demanding them, is it doctors pushing them?

If you think there is benefit to omeg-3 supplements, show a reference to a study.

If you think there is benefit, but there is no study, explain why you think there is no study. Is it because there is not enough funding, is it because information is being supressed.

I am a big fan of having many choices in care, whatever works, and doesn't hurt you, etc. And enjoy learning from all of you.

I think its very important to understand that most 'scientific studies' are not good science. Most studies are produced with very poor methods, essentially anyone can produce a study and publish it, it doesn't make it 'good science' or a 'fact'. This is one of the biggest fallacies that exists, the media love to quote studies as if that somehow these are facts, they are NOT. Oh, and of course the internet is just filled with studies to sell products, but none are peer reviewed.

In real science, a study must be reviewed by a peer review board. They will carefully examine the methods used, and looks for hundreds of flaws that can invalidiate the results, and in most studies they find these flaws ! the most common flaw is selection bias.

If the study design is good, then the results must be reproduced by independent third parties. This is the process that showed cold fusion wasn't real for example.

In the case of nutritional supplements ( or exercise claims I would add), only a small percentage of the studies you read about are actually peer reviewed. Then very rarely are studies results reproduced by indepedent third parties i.e. cold fusion would have likely stood as valid if it had been a nutrutional study.

I was just discussing these issues with a statistician friend of mine over the weekend, he completely agrees with my assessment, and we estimate 90+% of 'studies' are totally flawed - sadly many of these are quoted in the mainstream media.

Of the 10% that used valid scientific method, very few have reproducible results in the area's of nutrition and health i.e. you will find conflicting peer reviewed results. That is due to the almost impossible complexity of studying nutritional effect on humans due to genetic and environmental variables.

Here is an interesting article which examines the huge failure rate of peer reviewed medical studies i.e. the best case creme of studies.

http://www.boston.co...edical_studies/

-"almost one-third of the top papers that appeared in top journals over a 13-year period from 1990 to 2003, had been either contradicted or found to have potentially exaggerated results. All the articles had undergone vigorous peer review, leading to questions about whether problems should have been caught by reviewers."


So the bottom line is when relying on studies you have to be very careful about the source - and even if the source is a peer reviewed journal, there are many problems in nutritional studies due to the nature of the science, and also statistical problem I won't go into, but basically the statistical methods for 'proof' are known to be flawed in statistics. ( an introducting to statistical problems for the interested reader http://chetday.com/healthhoax.html ]

Mark.

Edited by entropy, 18 January 2007 - 12:31 AM.

[pistol_pete]

Endisnear, Stocks, SemiBiz, Entropy and Chilli. If only a greater majority of the public had the awareness you guys have, we would be much healthier as a whole. Semi, With regard to MM running us off (if you mean types like Calm Cookie and myself), I personally and professionally got tired of his "one trick pony" regurgitations of spoon fed clinical judgement without even a spec of acknowledgment for any medical shortcomings......of which there are many. Regards PP

[maineman]

Endisnear, Stocks, SemiBiz, Entropy and Chilli. If only a greater majority of the public had the awareness you guys have, we would be much healthier as a whole.

Semi,
With regard to MM running us off (if you mean types like Calm Cookie and myself), I personally and professionally got tired of his "one trick pony" regurgitations of spoon fed clinical judgement without even a spec of acknowledgment for any medical shortcomings......of which there are many.

Regards
PP

1. The "awareness" you refer to, is that the "testimonials" regarding so-called alternative care or the scientific study of the efficacy of ANY treatement, standard or alternative?



2. As you know , this statement is simply NOT true. I share information regarding ALL kinds of treatment, effective or ineffective. I've shared MANY of the shortcomings of so-called "standard" medical care, WHERE IT EXISTS, and I've shared the short -comings of so-called "alternative" care WHERE IT HAS BEEN DOCUMNETED.



However, there exists a group of folks who completely choose to ignore any reason or fact having made up their minds in a faith-based way regarding some forms of medical care. When presented with interesting or alternative information, rather than listen or analyze, they holler, howl, turn up their fur, make nasty comments and "run away".



So there is something else going on. Again, I am never angry or insulted and I NEVER insult a patient who chooses to treat a disease or try to "be healthy" by choosing a random vehicle, whether it be herbs, vitamins, homeopathy, accupuncture, yoga, massage, or anything. What I will do is sit with that person, and that person's family and explore what we know, what we don't know, what the risks and what the rewards are and what the other options are. Does that make you mad?



And, it is NO different from what I do with the next patient who I am treating in the Intensive Care Unit with a massive heart attack. First, after saving their life, we discuss each and everyone of the available courses of action for treatment, secondary prevention, etc In the case of the heart attack, there could be open heart surgery, a stent, etc. There could be ways to address cholesterol (pills, diet, some or both), there could discussions regarding exercise (how much, what type, when it would be safe to start), there would be discsussions about overall diet, weight loss, etc. There would be discussions about stress, mental health and the implications of carrying a new "disease" diagnosis in one's head. And so on. Does that make you mad? Oh yes, and we present clinical data on the use, safety, efficacy and risk of anti-oxidants.



So the odd, eruptive paranoid anger answers that some of you give around some of these health discussions tells me that some folks carry a major grudge, that is quite narrow-minded and mean in its scope. It is not me, and it is not my sharing of a broad stroke of health-related issues.



When standard of care proves to me that alkalinizing my patient's saliva has a proven clinical benefit, do you think I'm going to get mean, nasty and angry? No, I'll be sharing that data with my patients with the same smile on my face I have every day.



When standard of care proves to me that MRI based mammogram screening is more reliable than standard mammogram screening, will I get angry? No. I will refer women to the MRI-based mammography unit.



When standard of care shows that beta blockers improve post heart attack survival over calcium channel blockers, ALL of us switched within weeks of the published data, all of our heart attack patients. And we never once "ran off" from the researchers who proved this.



Trust me, I am (as many of us are) VERY intrigued by this odd bigoted doctor-basing knee-jerk feeling among so many of you. Anyway, its not me.



smile everyday. It is good for your heart.



mm