|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > September 2005 > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies (Updated)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies (Updated)
|
|
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:34 pm |
| WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
Monopolies
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 engaging an effort to
shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while
denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to
these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*). Pharma Bloggers on
usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the
case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. Most of these people are
likely to have an association with a PR campaign whose "blogging"
efforts are underwritten by the media and marketing groups of industry.
They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of
behaviour in posting.
Here are a few points to remember 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.
2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the
effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management
"healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine.
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 multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay
fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to
isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You
will see this tactic used more often than any other.
6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to
"quack-busting" websites designed to denigrate natural medicine
approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer
protection," the extreme bias of these promoters of mainstream medicine
belies their true motives.
7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet laud the virtues of various mainstream
medical treatments, citing "evidence based medicine" and the FDA
approval process. They ignore studies showing the iatrogenic affects
of such treatment, as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved
drugs, and hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of
pharmaceutical drugs and other toxic exposures. They also ignore
numerous studies showing the benefits of naturopathic healing,
including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, and
other methods.
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 denigrate natural
medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger."
Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on
a daily basis than virtually 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. That's a
primary goal of these industry media jockeys, and they are very good at
it.
(*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote
and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine
approaches; 2) attack others who express a preference for natural
medicine, or who question the value of mainstream 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
| |
|
|
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:YnFXe.11829$zN6.6366@fe10.lga...
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Thank you Peter for an excellent example of what I like to call a
> "pre-emptive ad hominem" attack. It is, of course, utterly fallacious, and
> merely a figment of your imagination, at best. At worst, it reflects
> severe underlying parnoid pathology.
>
> Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
> are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be "outed"
> for expressing their views.
>
> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head. I
> find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.
What a total hypocrite you are, Mark Probert.
You have remained silent EVERY TIME any of your *gang* members have reared
their ugly heads, and no the silliness does NOT count.
You have NOT the first sign of any integrity to speak up, regardless of how
DESPICABLE it gets here. in FACT you are one of the most DESPICABLE.
| |
|
|
| Happy Dog 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
Nothing. Just cut and pasted hi own hype.
Most telling when the best you can muster is simply reposting the same claim
in response to critiques of it.
Anonymous troll.
mo
news:1127151690.171940.92870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> Monopolies
>
> 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 engaging an effort to
> shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while
> denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to
> these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*). Pharma Bloggers on
> usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the
> case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. Most of these people are
> likely to have an association with a PR campaign whose "blogging"
> efforts are underwritten by the media and marketing groups of industry.
> They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of
> behaviour in posting.
>
> Here are a few points to remember 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.
>
> 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the
> effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management
> "healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine.
>
> 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 multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay
> fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to
> isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You
> will see this tactic used more often than any other.
>
> 6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to
> "quack-busting" websites designed to denigrate natural medicine
> approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer
> protection," the extreme bias of these promoters of mainstream medicine
> belies their true motives.
>
> 7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet laud the virtues of various mainstream
> medical treatments, citing "evidence based medicine" and the FDA
> approval process. They ignore studies showing the iatrogenic affects
> of such treatment, as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved
> drugs, and hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of
> pharmaceutical drugs and other toxic exposures. They also ignore
> numerous studies showing the benefits of naturopathic healing,
> including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, and
> other methods.
>
> 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 denigrate natural
> medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger."
> Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on
> a daily basis than virtually 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. That's a
> primary goal of these industry media jockeys, and they are very good at
> it.
>
>
> (*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote
> and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine
> approaches; 2) attack others who express a preference for natural
> medicine, or who question the value of mainstream 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
>
| |
|
| In article <YnFXe.11829$zN6.6366@fe10.lga>,
Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> Thank you Peter for an excellent example of what I like to call a
> "pre-emptive ad hominem" attack. It is, of course, utterly fallacious,
> and merely a figment of your imagination, at best. At worst, it reflects
> severe underlying parnoid pathology.
>
> Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
> are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
> "outed" for expressing their views.
>
> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head. I
> find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.
It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
know what a weblog is? What a maroon.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
|
|
"Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac_usa-0B08A8.19450519092005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
....>
> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
> Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
> know what a weblog is? What a maroon.
>
There have been attempts to tell him what the difference is. His response
was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
and a "PharmaBlogger". Sound familiar?
> --
> Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
> | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
> | of observation."
> | http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Thank you Peter for an excellent example of what I like to call a
> "pre-emptive ad hominem" attack. It is, of course, utterly fallacious,
> and merely a figment of your imagination, at best. At worst, it reflects
> severe underlying parnoid pathology.
I don't post this material for you or the other pharma bloggers. The
fact you have spent so much time rebutting me is telling, however. And
readers will decide for themselves based on what they see or don't see.
> Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
> are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
> "outed" for expressing their views.
I've had several disagreements with others here, discussing such things
as the paleo diet, iron requirements, cancer etiology, etc. I never
suggested those people were Pharma Bloggers, yet clearly they saw
things differently than me. Their arguments have invariably been more
well reasoned than yours, in fact. If I wanted to discourage
legitimate debate about these health issues, I wouldn't engage in
debating them, at length, myself. And I refer to you as a Pharma
Blogger only because you demonstrate several of the patterns in the
list.
> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head.
That discussion isn't relevant to m.h.a. and I'm not here to discuss
it. I realize it's YOUR purpose to do whatever it takes to distract
from medical tesimony at odds with the script. The irony is that
silence on the part of our resident Pharma Bloggers on THAT issue helps
identify YOUR agenda.
> I find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.
You're back to the comedy routine, I see...
PB
| |
| David Wright 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
| In article <cNqdnf1-mIjpyrLeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, HCN <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:orac_usa-0B08A8.19450519092005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>...>
>
>There have been attempts to tell him what the difference is. His response
>was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
>and a "PharmaBlogger". Sound familiar?
It's all part of his general delusional system regarding his massive
importance. First, he gets to define words however he wants, and
everyone is supposed to fall in line and agree with him. Second, his
little pissant posts are so wonderful and so dangerous to the Big Evil
Pharmaceutical companies that they have a dozen (or so; I've lost
count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
responses to his missives.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Orac wrote:
>
> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
> Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
> know what a weblog is? What a maroon.
Orac. What's a maroon? Is it like what the characters on the show
"Lost" are?
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are
self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have
commented on.
Which also happens to be true about natural and alternative approaches
to health. Whoever wishes may just go out and find out for themselves
which approaches to health are valid...
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> I know, You post it for yourself, so that you can feel impotent.
If what I write is the truth, the message is what's important.
> The
>
> Do not flatter yourself by thinking that refuting your bullshit takes
> any mental effort on anyones part.
You could never flatter me, Mark, because I don't respect you.
>
>
> Yes, Petey, a list as defined by you. When you first infested this
> newgroup, I attempted to discuss some issues with you, and it quickly
> became obvious that you were here to preach.
You and your fellow pharma bloggers have defined your own behaviour,
I'm just exposing your motivations. As for your attempt to discuss
issues with me, I haven't seen you engage in an honest discussion with
anyone.
> When called on your
> tactics, you created this mythical character of a 'pharmablogger' to
> conveniently dismiss those who challenge you.
Actually, I challeneged you to expose me in any way you can; when you
pretend to do that, it becomes more clear why you are here.
>
>
> I recall that that was the excuse used in another time and another place.
It's no excuse, it's "OT" for this newsgroup.
>
> I realize it's YOUR purpose to do whatever it takes to distract
>
> What script? Oh, that's right, another figment of YOUR imagination.
Is that why you keep rebutting my claims?
> The irony is that
>
> My agenda is the truth.
The truth about profits.
PeterB
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
You believe in free markets, don't you Mark?
Let's just unite in encouraging everyone to get out there and find out
for themselves which alternative approaches work and which ones don't.
Surely this is something we can agree on.
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
<snip childish waste of bandwidth>
> LadyLollipop wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:nyUXe.53$FK6.1@fe08.lga...
> Rich wrote:
> Congrats. You ae now BIG TIME!
>
> Cue Jan to defend her handler, Ilena.
Actually, I think it is about time Rich corrected her, as I was ready to do
it myself.
She has the correct spelling in other places.
I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
>
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would just like him to explain the concept of multiple monopolies.
FDA, AMA, NIH, regional medical boards, other health agencies, and of
course Big Pharma, are all involved reciprocally in a monopolistic
approach to health care through a variety of venues, ie., political,
regulatory, media, and publishing. I was referring to this elaborate
collection of players and their individual efforts to eliminate
competition from natural medicine approaches.
PB
| |
|
|
"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:siMXe.236$8B6.102@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <cNqdnf1-mIjpyrLeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, HCN <hcn@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> It's all part of his general delusional system regarding his massive
> importance. First, he gets to define words however he wants, and
> everyone is supposed to fall in line and agree with him. Second, his
> little pissant posts are so wonderful and so dangerous to the Big Evil
> Pharmaceutical companies that they have a dozen (or so; I've lost
> count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
> responses to his missives.
>
Reminds me of my kids when they were younger... and even when I was a kid.
Kids sometimes hear a word and give it a meaning all their own. My kids
used to try to tell that was how THEY were going to use the word "So
there!". I explained to them that people will not understand them if they
give words meaning other than what is standard.
Many decades ago my sister got into trouble for this. While in 6th grade
she had heard the term "prick" used. So she started to call everyone a
"prick". She made the mistake of calling our youngest sister that at the
dinner table. It was then that my parents pulled her aside and told her to
never use words she did not know the definition of.
At least my kids and my sister learned proper use of their vocabulary. But
it seems PeterB is not willing to learn, anything.
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
> -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
| |
| cathyb 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
PeterB wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> FDA, AMA, NIH, regional medical boards, other health agencies, and of
> course Big Pharma, are all involved reciprocally in a monopolistic
> approach to health care through a variety of venues, ie., political,
> regulatory, media, and publishing. I was referring to this elaborate
> collection of players and their individual efforts to eliminate
> competition from natural medicine approaches.
>
> PB
Not quite understood the term monopoly then? Bless.
Cathy
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Nope. Wrong. You did not explain the concept of "multiple monopolies".
If it makes you happy, I should have said "multiple monopolistic
influences," to describe the various venues contributing to our health
care monopoly. Feel better now?
PeterB
| |
| cathyb 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> If it makes you happy, I should have said "multiple monopolistic
> influences," to describe the various venues contributing to our health
> care monopoly. Feel better now?
"multiple monopolistic"?
LOL
>
> PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> How are they doing it, Peter? Can you list specific actions of the "drug
> monopolies" where they are doing what you claim?
Primarily through political lobbying, legislative bills approaching the
senate, CODEX Alimentarius, publication bias, false advertising,
concealment of side effects, persecution of physicians by state boards
afraid of naturopathic medicine, "quack-buster" cons like Stephen
Barrett, and FDA's return of Vioxx to the market despite thousands of
fatalities -- all these are the influence of industry.
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> As is their right to do, or, do you have a problem with this?
Industry is not a voting entity; they don't deserve special ($) access
to lawmakers.
>
>
> A bogey man...
No system that reclassifies nutrients as drugs is a bogey man, except
for those who don't care. This is how multi-national pharmaceutical
companies are hoping to route DSHEA in the USA, since all WTO-member
nations will be required to conform to CODEX, or face stiff penalties.
Fortunately, the courts have complicated this process by requiring a
higher threshold of scientific evidence for assessing vitamin "risks,"
since that is a premise for seeking greater regulatory control over
nutrients.
>
> Which is endemic within alternative medicine.
By publication bias, I am referring to use of ghost-writing in medical
journals, in which doctors are paid to "sign off" on research they have
not performed or personally evaluated. That is a scandal almost
entirely endemic to Big Pharma. As for false advertising, there are
problems with that in the dietary supplements industry, as well,
however the difference is that Vioxx and other problem drugs have
killed thousands, while 99% of dietary supplements are merely extracts
of nutrients alrady present in food.
>
>
> Which is endemic within alternative medicine.
What is your evidence for that? By contrast, actual adverse effects
attributed to just ONE class of pharmaceuticals (analgesics) is greater
than the adverse effects collected at Poison Control in DC for ALL
dietary supplements combined.
>
>
> State boards act on complaints. Many of the complaints are made by
> patients who were either abused or used as cash cows.
State boards also act on complaints of those who work in tandem with
the AMA to frustrate progress in natural medicine approaches. Dr.
Julian Whitaker has fascinating documentation on this.
>
>
> Afraid? Methinks you embellish too much.
ie., fear of competition.
>
> Just because he is effective does not mean he is a con. Hulda should
> have been a con(vict). Trudeau is a con, and was a con(vict).
I'm not aware of Barrett being particularly effective for your team.
As for Trudeau, he has a legitimate case before the courts.
>
>
> Patients in pain want a choice. I thought that you supported health
> choice. Or, do you only support choice when the choice is alternative?
When the risks of a drug are clearly known, its benefits may outweigh
the risk, however FDA is responsibile for establishing a criteria that
does not permit sacrificing thousands of lives. In that, they have
failed.
>
> The FDA got a sizeable outcry from people who were looking forward to a
> life of pain.
>
> I am sure that this was a critical factor in their decision.
People also cry out far safer alternatives, and those are available.
Health agencies are remiss when they fail to provide education to the
public about natural medicine -- in this case, natural
anti-inflammatories. The result is an escelation of secondary disease
resulting from prescription and OTC drug use.
PeterB
| |
| Clinton 2005-09-24, 2:35 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Clinton wrote:
>
> Requiring proof of claims when it comes to medical issues.
>
Which "medical issues"? Do excersice machines qualify for their
"medical claims". My exercise system will make you healthier than
regular systems, increase strength, even replace vists to the gym.
Those "claims" could cause "harm" in the unwary. Even cause people
to quit their gym.
Should Yoga gurus advocting their tapes as reducing hypertension
have to prove their medical claims?
What about comparable non-medical issues? After all if a product does
no harm what is the difference between a megavitamen complex that
really doesn't stop aging or a self-help book that really doesn't cure
depression. or for that matter a mega-memory-book that really doesn't
improve memory.
And products making non-medical claims could affect my health! I could
lose my job and livelyhood becaue i bought a mega-memory course
thinking it would help me remember names on my job and then lose my
health insurance. Do you think buying a stock market easytrader program
can't hurt my health if I lose all my money? Should commercials be
allowed to peddle high sugar foods to kids? Pretty soon the government
would be virtual censors for any product or book which may contain
claims that may not be proven or may contain claims which could
indierctly affect health/finances/employment and so on if all natural
health products/books are subjected to regulation.
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> multiple and monopoly are inherently contradictory, thus you posted a
> nullity, i.e. a zero.
You can have many monopolistic influences contributing to a single
monopoly. Basic grammar would have helped you out here: "monopolistic"
is an adverb, "monopoly" is a noun.
> to describe the various venues contributing to our health
>
> I always feel great.
And drugs aren't the reason for that, I hope.
PeterB
| |
| cathyb 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> You can have many monopolistic influences contributing to a single
> monopoly. Basic grammar would have helped you out here: "monopolistic"
> is an adverb, "monopoly" is a noun.
Can he not even get basic grammar right? Adjective.
Unfortunately, he even used the adjective incorrectly. In no way can
the US healthcare system be described as a monopoly, and nor can the
myriad influences on it be described as monopolistic.
>
>
> And drugs aren't the reason for that, I hope.
>
> PeterB
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> You left reality.
Clinton hasn't "left reality" here. He has merely observed the
end-point of your line of reasoning.
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127399117.131137.83360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Can he not even get basic grammar right? Adjective.
>
> Unfortunately, he even used the adjective incorrectly. In no way can
> the US healthcare system be described as a monopoly, and nor can the
> myriad influences on it be described as monopolistic.
She has a lot to learn
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...551786/ABSTRACT
http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2000/newhouse.pdf
>
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1127402322.514488.174660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
>
> Clinton hasn't "left reality" here. He has merely observed the
> end-point of your line of reasoning.
Right on, Tim.
>
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Can he not even get basic grammar right? Adjective.
You're right, for once. The point is, it's not a noun and the phrase I
used wasn't contradictory.
>
> Unfortunately, he even used the adjective incorrectly. In no way can
> the US healthcare system be described as a monopoly, and nor can the
> myriad influences on it be described as monopolistic.
I just did, but feel free to disagree. Anyone who thinks the FDA, AMA,
ADA, NIH, Big Pharma, and quack-buster websites are all open to change
in favor of natural medicine approaches is in denial.
PB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Try adjective, but also note that it changes nothing.
Our health care system is largely a system of distribution for the
pharmaceutical companies. The adoption of natural medicine, both in
and outside of clinical care, has been progressing, though slowly.
Resistance to that progress (free from regulation) is what I've
characterized as the monopoly influence. Readers have to decide for
themselves whether they think an effort to unncessarily regulate
natural medicine is under way. In addition, it's clear that Big
Pharma's strategy is to have nutrients completely regulated in order to
capitalize on them through mainstream applications later.
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
HCN wrote:
> "Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-0B08A8.19450519092005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> ...>
>
> There have been attempts to tell him what the difference is. His response
> was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
> and a "PharmaBlogger". Sound familiar?
I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
isn't equivalent to standard blogging. I never refer to the newsgroup
as a "blog." The irony about your assertion that I've called others
stupid is the fact that pharma bloggers often "play stupid" in order to
ensnare well-meaning posters in useless debate. Whatever works, right
HCN?
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> It surely was. You cannot have multiples of something that must be a
> single by definition.
You can have many influences contributing to a single monopoly, and
that is what's happening.
>
>
> They are all open to change in any approach that has a rational basis
> where the claims can be proven.
If it were that easy, there would be no debate.
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> So you say.
>
> The adoption of natural medicine, both in
>
> Sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast.
>
>
> Sorry, but nothing is free of regulation.
What about Vioxx? If you want an oxymoron, talk about how FDA
"protects" the public. But you, as a pharma blogger, pretend to be
worried about vitamins.
> Readers have to decide for
>
> You say it is unnecessary, I claim it is. Charlatans abound.
Hasn't stopped the pharmaceutical companies, has it?
> In addition, it's clear that Big
>
> Most pharmaceutical companies have subsidiaries who manufacture
> supplements.
But those products aren't part of AMA's pipeline, ie., prescription
writing, and that makes a huge difference in terms of profits.
PeterB
| |
|
|
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127417251.367226.119620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> HCN wrote:
>
> I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
> isn't equivalent to standard blogging. I never refer to the newsgroup
> as a "blog." The irony about your assertion that I've called others
> stupid is the fact that pharma bloggers often "play stupid" in order to
> ensnare well-meaning posters in useless debate. Whatever works, right
> HCN?
>
> PeterB
>
Bully for you... using a word that has a specific meaning, and giving it a
different meaning only makes you look like an idiot.
| |
|
| In article <cNqdnf1-mIjpyrLeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com>
wrote:
> "Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-0B08A8.19450519092005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> ...>
>
> There have been attempts to tell him what the difference is. His response
> was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
> and a "PharmaBlogger". Sound familiar?
Very familiar, unfortunately.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
| cathyb 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
PeterB wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
>
> You're right, for once. The point is, it's not a noun and the phrase I
> used wasn't contradictory.
>
>
> I just did,
Sorry. I should have said "In no way can the US healthcare system
correctly or intelligently be described as a monopoly, and nor can the
myriad influences on it be described as monopolistic."
> but feel free to disagree. Anyone who thinks the FDA, AMA,
> ADA, NIH, Big Pharma, and quack-buster websites are all open to change
> in favor of natural medicine approaches is in denial.
All of the organisations mentioned here simply require evidence that a
treatment works before adopting it. And then they adopt it in spades.
The big pharmeceutical companies don't even require evidence when it
comes to nutritional supplements; given the profit motive, they jump on
ony supplement going if it sells well, regardless of its effectiveness.
Just like the alt-medicine industry.
Cathy
>
> PB
| |
|
| In article <siMXe.236$8B6.102@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>,
wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <cNqdnf1-mIjpyrLeRVn-qA@comcast.com>, HCN <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> It's all part of his general delusional system regarding his massive
> importance. First, he gets to define words however he wants, and
> everyone is supposed to fall in line and agree with him. Second, his
> little pissant posts are so wonderful and so dangerous to the Big Evil
> Pharmaceutical companies that they have a dozen (or so; I've lost
> count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
> responses to his missives.
Yeah, I'd like to know where I can get me a piece of that action.
Really, if it's as lucrative as PeterB claims, count me in!
(Note to PeterB: That's sarcasm, son. I normally wouldn't feel the need
to point that out, but you're so delusional about this whole "pharma
blogger" thing that it becomes necessary in your case.)
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
|
| In article <1127417251.367226.119620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> HCN wrote:
>
> I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
> isn't equivalent to standard blogging.
In other words, you try to define that blogging to be whatever you say
it is. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
>I never refer to the newsgroup
> as a "blog." The irony about your assertion that I've called others
> stupid is the fact that pharma bloggers often "play stupid" in order to
> ensnare well-meaning posters in useless debate. Whatever works, right
> HCN?
The irony of your assertion is that you preemptively smear anyone who
criticizes alternative medicine as a "pharma blogger" without providing
a shred of evidence to support your assertion. Oh, wait. That's not
ironic of you. Just pathetic.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
|
| In article <1127193268.694480.183030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
>
>
> Orac. What's a maroon? Is it like what the characters on the show
> "Lost" are?
Don't you mean "lagoon"? ;-)
Oh, wait. You mean marooned.
Obviously you aren't a fan of Bugs Bunny, are you? Otherwise you would
have gotten the allusion immediately.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
| SJ Doc 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
| On 19 Sep 2005 10:41:30 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:
>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain
>Their Monopolies
Jeez, do you mean that the pharma companies (or just PhRMA)
actually *pays* people to do stuff like that? What a great job!
No more screwing around with CMS, no more having claims
delayed and denied. No more latex gloves. No more Betadyne
on my shoes. No more calls at three o'clock in the morning -
gawd, no more week-end call! I could just sit at a computer, sip
adult beverages, and just be my normal, natural, nasty self on the
Internet.
Hey, where do I send sign up?
-----------------------
There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation.
That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet.
The only question is: how do we arm the other eleven?
-- Yuri Orlov (character) *Lord of War* (2005)
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:mlEYe.7508$i%2.6967@fe10.lga...
> LadyLollipop wrote:
>
>
> Obsessive need to belittle me and argue snipped.
>
> Also snipped was a graphic which means that Jan's post will not be
> archived (Thank G-d!!!!!!!!)
So, the corrupt, Mark Probert, wants the corruption of the 70 % of local
health funds lost to corruption to remain a secret.
Sad that.
http://tinyurl.com/9f6j5
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:3kEYe.7490$i%2.4891@fe10.lga...
> PeterB wrote:
>
> So you say.
Anyone who is honest says.
>
> The adoption of natural medicine, both in
>
> Sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast.
>
>
> Sorry, but nothing is free of regulation.
>
> Readers have to decide for
>
> You say it is unnecessary, I claim it is. Charlatans abound.
LIARS abound.
>
> In addition, it's clear that Big
>
> Most pharmaceutical companies have subsidiaries who manufacture
> supplements.
>
>
| |
| Happy Dog 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
| "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> Bully for you... using a word that has a specific meaning, and giving it a
> different meaning only makes you look like an idiot.
This narcissist can't see it any other way. I've offered folding green if
he can produce evidence that people are paid by the pharmacological industry
to post here. His "evidence" is nothing more that his own opinion.
moo
| |
| Happy Dog 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
| "SJ Doc" <SJ_Doc@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message \> On 19 Sep 2005
10:41:30 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:
>
>
> Jeez, do you mean that the pharma companies (or just PhRMA)
> actually *pays* people to do stuff like that? What a great job!
> No more screwing around with CMS, no more having claims
> delayed and denied. No more latex gloves. No more Betadyne
> on my shoes. No more calls at three o'clock in the morning -
> gawd, no more week-end call! I could just sit at a computer, sip
> adult beverages, and just be my normal, natural, nasty self on the
> Internet.
>
> Hey, where do I send sign up?
According to this idiot, you just did. Your post is his "evidence". I
offered a hundred bucks if he can provide real evidence. I think I'll make
it five hundred now. How about it PeterB? Got anything better?
moo
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Happy Dog wrote:
> "SJ Doc" <SJ_Doc@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message \> On 19 Sep 2005
> 10:41:30 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:
>
> According to this idiot, you just did. Your post is his "evidence". I
> offered a hundred bucks if he can provide real evidence. I think I'll make
> it five hundred now. How about it PeterB? Got anything better?
Stay tuned, kibble breath.
Peter
| |
| Happy Dog 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
| "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
>
> Stay tuned, kibble breath.
You keep saying this. But you produce nothing but cut and pate of your own
hype. I'm surprised you haven't copyrighted it. Do you have a framed copy
in your house? Again, got any real evidence (no, your word doesn't count)
that the people you've identified as "pharmabloggers" are paid by big pharma
to post here?
< chirp >
moo
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
ve[vbcol=seagreen]
hes[vbcol=seagreen]
es[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
rug[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I get very good access to my law makers on a regular basis..
>
> If I stand on my tip toes, and lean way out the window I can yell at my
> county legislator. (This guy is a real rip. He is a patent attorney who
> takes his county legislator salary to run a community service office,
> hold public meeting on various topics (108 in five years at last count,
> and will call you back more persistently than a bill collector who knows
> you won the lottery. The Republicans hate him.)
>
> I see my state senator (when he is not up in Albany) filling up at the
> gas station and we talk while being ripped off. That is a motivator.
>
> I see my state assemblyman (when he is not up in Albany) just about
> every morning while getting coffee.
>
> My congressman is a few towns over, but, having had a relationship with
> members of his immediate family for ten years, he, too, is readily
> accessible.)
>
> You just have got to work at access.
You and I both know that isn't how corporate interests gain influence
in the legislative arena. Even if corporate-backed campaign
contributions, which should be illegal, were the only form of courting
favors (which it isn't), it doesn't equate to hob-nobbing at a coffee
shop with your locals.
>
> That won't fly in the USA. You do not understand the politics.
You don't understand the law. Under WTO's trade law framework, a
failure to comply with adopted codes of manufacture and marketing will
result in severe penalties for member states. Especially with passage
of CAFTA, the USA has no legal exemption from that process; our
legislature will be forced to acquiesce under threat of trade law
sanction.
> Let's put
> it this way, DSHEA was run through a committee in the Senate by the
> chair of that committee, Orrin Hatch, who owns interests in supplement
> manufacturers in his state, Utah, which depends on supplement
> manufactures for lots of nice goodies. Hatch has clout, and Utah has a
> lot of $$ going to the Republicans.
It won't matter under the new rules.
> This is how multi-national pharmaceutical
>
> See above. Ain't gonna happen.
If it doesn't happen, it won't be for the reasons you cited.
>
> That is not ghost writing.
It is when medical professionals not involved in the research or
interpretations of data are paid to write the reports. It's a sleezy
marketing scheme designed to bypass proper checks and balances. It's
an abuse of the public trust.
> That is a scandal almost
>
> If it is true, it would be only the pharmaceutical industry, as the
> alternative industry takes a scientific finding in RealMedicine and
> concocts something to sell immediately, thus skipping the testing and
> R&D costs.
It bothers you that supplement makers base their products on existing
scientific evidence? Not only that, but the data is provided by a
third party, unlike Big Pharma which gets to PAY "researchers" to sign
off on brief studies that are under the complete control of the drug
makers themselves.
> As for false advertising, there are
>
> You betcha. And, even the ones that are not patently false, are misleadin=
g=2E
It's the nature of advertising. And the falsity of drug advertising
far exceeds that of any other industry.
>
>
> Like ephedrine?
Concentrated ephedrine alkaloids is a product of the pharmaceutical
industry, and these chemicals are in thousands of OTC cold formulas,
unaffected by the ban. By contrast, naturally occuring ephedra herb,
now banned, does not contain concentrated alkaloids, and is far safer
than OTC drugs. Explain this.
>
> Only in the past few years have the problems of interactions between
> herbs/supplements and medications, etc. have come to light.
That's not a side effect, it's an interaction.
> By contrast, actual adverse effects
>
> Of course, you are assuming that there is a system to report that for
> alternatives, etc. I do not think that the systems are in any manner
> comparable. There should be one mandatory system for reporting.
No assumptions here. The ADE reporting system for pharmaceutical drugs
is hugely ineffective, as FDA itself has admitted. WITH over 100,000
people dying each year from reactions to medication, throwing vitamins
into the mix won't improve anything. There is no reason to create more
bureaucratic red tape to protect people from vitamins and minerals, and
poison control is absolutely a better resource for determining toxicity
risks than published ADEs. Just ask your friend, Nana Weedkiller.
>
> Last year there was a "one note whiner" who posted about S722 (and a
> similar House version) a hundred times. He made up things that this
> would require. However, when I examined the text of the bill, it clearly
> was requiring only one thing: mandatory reporting to the FDA by
> supplement/herb companies of any adverse events reported to them. I
> support that. Do you? BTW, you should note that neither of these bills
> were ever voted on, and I do not believe they ever got out of committee.
> Reference the politics of supplements/herbs as I mentioned.
Your sponsors haven't been particularly successful lately, that's for
sure. But the point isn't that more reasonable people don't sometimes
prevail, the point is that your team is trying hard to corrupt the
process in order to get your way.
>
> You may also wish to see what Snopes posted on this:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp
>
> I also checked to see if those bills had been re-introduced this
> session, and could not find them. You should check for yourself. The
> bill #'s would not be the same this year.
The irony is that the system your team relies on to maintain your
monopoly is the same system that surrenders to political pressures, not
just upfront money. Otherwise, the end game would be behind us.
>
> State boards are charged with ensuring that there is a minimum standard
> of care by physicians. It the physician prescribes treatment that is out
> of the ordinary, then the physician is violating a condition of their
> license to practice medicine. If you speed while driving, you are cited.
> Same thing.
It's a lot more complicated than that, and more people are killed by
pharmaceutical drugs in one year than will ever be saved.
>
>
> Methinks you still embellish too much.
Follow the money...
>
> Become aware.
I am very aware of Barrett's stinging defeats, which have proven his
lack of credibility to the public.
>
>
> Trudeau is a convicted felon where his conviction is for a fraudulent
> act. If he goes before the courts he is subject to cross examination:
>
> Atty: Mr. Trudeau, were you ever convicted of a crime which included you
> providing false information.
>
> Mr. Trudeau: Yes.
He acquiesced to the FTC's charge the same way one might plead nolo in
traffic court -- to simplify one's life, not because he agrees with the
FTC's draconian treatment of his public comments.
>
> Atty: Please tell the jury about your documented lie.
>
> As for his case going before the courts, if you read about his book you
> would see that there is noting really in it...for the meat and potatoes,
> you have to become a perpetual subscriber to his service.
I actually find his book too cautious in most respects. Otherwise, he
tells it like it is.
>
>
> Exactly one reason why the FDA allowed it back on the market.
And you think death is an acceptable risk for pain killer; why am I not
suprised?
>
> however FDA is responsibile for establishing a criteria that
>
> I'll agree with that. They should exercise a higher degree of vigilance.
> I wish that congress would stop cutting their budget.
Congress cut FDAs budget because your bosses are picking up the tab
anyway. Increasing funding for FDA would be like giving Frankenstein a
hydrogen battery pack, aren't things bad enough already? Instead, we
need to dismantle FDA and ban most pharmaceutical products.
>
>
> Such as what for severe unrelenting pain?
James Coburn popularized use of methylsulfonatemethan (MSM) for his
condition and found it more effective than anything else. See below
for more.
>
> Vioxx, et al, are not anti-inflammatories. Is there a natural Cox-2
> inhibitor? I could not find one.
Herbal COX-2 Inhibitors: A Natural Alternative
By Gene Bruno, B.S., M.H.S., R.H. (AHG) and Art Presser, Pharm. D.,
D=2EH.Ph.
On Sept. 30, 2004, the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. Inc. announced
a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of VIOXX (rofecoxib), its arthritis
and acute pain COX-2 inhibiting medication. The company's decision
was based on data from a new, three-year prospective, randomized,
placebo-controlled clinical trial, which showed that after 18 months of
use, VIOXX increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events,
such as heart attack and stroke. Almost immediately commentary began
about the potential for natural COX-2 inhibitors to fill the VIOXX
void.
Undoubtedly, you've had customers asking about this issue. But do
natural COX-2 inhibitors really offer a viable alternative to VIOXX? It
is our position that they do. To understand why this might be so,
it's important to understand the role of the COX-2 enzyme.
There are two cyclo-oxygenase (COX) enzymes at work in the body, COX-1
and COX-2. The COX-1 enzyme is expressed in most tissues, and is
necessary for a variety of important internal housekeeping functions,
such as protecting the stomach lining, maintaining renovascular
function and platelet aggregation. The COX-2 enzyme is necessary for
inflammation, a normal, healthy attempt by the body to heal itself.
However, when inflammation gets out of control (such as in the case of
arthritis, or other chronic inflammatory disorders) ongoing pain and
discomfort is the result. That's where botanical COX-2 inhibitors can
help. Botanical COX-2 inhibitors block the action of the COX-2 enzyme,
which helps reduce inflammation and pain.
Turmeric, ginger, boswellia, hops and silicon all have demonstrated
anti-inflammatory properties through their role as botanical COX02
inhibitors. Bromelain also has anti-inflammatory activity, but not as
COX-2 inhibitor. A reduction of inflammation also results in a
reduction of pain. White willow bark and meadowsweet are sources of
silicon, which has analgesic (pain-relieving) properties as well as
anti-inflammatory properties.
Tumeric is a bright yellow, ancient spice and a traditional remedy that
has been used as a medicine, condiment and flavoring based on records
dating back to 600 B.C. Its medicinal value is essentially due to its
curcuminoid content. The curcuminoids inhibit 5-lipo-oxygenase (LOX)
and COX, resulting in a well-established anti-inflammatory action.
Treatment with curcuminoids was found to be as effective as cortisone
or phenylbutazone in instances of acute inflammation, and about half as
effective as these drugs for chronic inflammation.
In research on people with rheumatoid arthritis, curcuminoids were
found to be useful for reducing inflammation, pain and stiffness. In a
double blind study, curcuminoids were found to be superior to a placebo
or the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug phenylbutazone for
alleviating post-surgical inflammation.
Bromelain is a proteolytic enzyme found in pineapples that breaks down
protein into smaller peptides and amino acids. Beyond its protein
digesting capacity, research has shown Bromelain has anti-inflammatory
activity. At least four studies using Bromelain have demonstrated its
effectiveness in the treatment of minor injuries (bruises, sprains,
strains, hematomas, lacerations, abrasions) as well as severe injuries
(low back pain, fractures, minor surgery). Research has also shown this
enzyme was effective at decreasing the inflammation and edema resulting
from surgery and injury. Furthermore, there have been positive reports
in clinical trials showing decreased thrombophlebitis (inflammation of
veins) and pain from angina and thrombophlebitis. Research has shown
that Bromelain helped patients with rheumatoid arthritis; 73 percent of
whom had good to excellent results.
One unexpected application for bromelain's anti-inflammatory benefits
has been to relieve symptoms of acute sinusitis. In a double blind
study comparing the use of bromelain with placebo, 87 percent of
patients who took bromelain reported good to excellent results. Other
double blind research has shown that bromelain reduces symptoms of
sinusitis.
Bromelain's does not appear to be COX-2 inhibitor, and all of its
mechanisms of action are still not completely resolved. For example, it
may selectively decrease thromboxane generation and change the ratio of
thromboxane/prostacyclin (PG12) in flavor of prostacyclin. Nonetheless,
it has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective supplement. The
potency of Bromelain is measured in GDUs (gelatin digesting units), and
it appears more is better.
Although it's probably more known for its anti-nausea properties
(i.e./ treatment of motion sickness and morning sickness), ginger is
also an effective anti-inflammatory herb that has historically been
used for arthritis and rheumatism. In a study of patients with
rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and muscular discomfort, the
majority experienced, to varying degrees, relief of pain and swelling.
None of the patients reported adverse effects during the period of
ginger consumption, which ranged from three months to 2.5 years.
Another double blind trial found ginger extract to be more effective
that placebo at relieving pain in people with OA of the hip or knee.
Likewise, in another double blind study, ginger was significantly more
effective than a placebo in pain relief and overall improvement. Ginger
is considered to exert its anti-inflammatory activity by inhibiting
COX-2 and LOX pathways. Commercial ginger products a re generally
standardized to levels of gingerol, which are oleo-resins considered to
be main active principles.
The resin of Boswellia serrata is used traditionally for a variety of
inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and
cervical spondylitis (inflammation of the vertebrae). The main
constituents of the resin are boswellic acids, to which most
preparations are standardized, which have been found to inhibit the
synthesis of leukotrienes (inflammatory compounds produced when oxygen
interacts with polyunsaturated fatty acids). A number of chronic
inflammatory conditions are associated with leukotriene formation.
Unlike pharmaceutical corticosteroids that inhibit leukotriene
synthesis, boswellic acids exhibit no significant side effects or
toxicity. Boswellic acids have been found specifically to inhibit
5-lipoxygenase, the key enzyme of leukotriene biosynthesis.
In a clinical investigation, boswellic acids were given to more than
260 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Definite effects were found in
the reduction of swelling and pain as compared to placebo; morning
stiffness was reduced; patients reported cutting back on their intake
of NSAIDs during the treatment period; and patients' general health
and well-being showed improvement. The boswellic acids were found to be
effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in 50
percent to 60 percent of the patients involved in the investigation.
There are 300 species of Salix we call willow, native to England,
Europe, Asia and North America. According to Dioscorides in his De
Materia Medica (first century A.D.), willow was used therapeutically
for gout and rheumatic joint diseases. Ancient Egyptians used the bark,
as we do today, for pain and inflammation; and Native Americans relied
on willow for its analgesic properties. In 1829, willow's active
chemical, salicin, was discovered. In 1838, pure salicylic acid was
synthesized by an Italian chemist, not from willow but from wintergreen
and other plants. Salicin and salicylic acid were widely used through
the 19th century for fever, gout, pain and inflammation. However, as
usual, when you isolate chemicals from plants or synthesize them, you
almost always increase their toxicity. The high doses of salicylic acid
used routinely led to gastric irritation and vomiting. In 1893, Felix
Hoffman at the Bayer Company in Germany was able to synthesize
acetylsalicylic acid (which had less gastric side effects the salicylic
acid), and aspirin was born.
It is important to realize that salicin from willow, meadowsweet or
other plants can be split off by the body to create salicylic acid,
providing anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving actions with the same
COX-2 inhibition properties as aspirin; although salicin will not
function as an anticoagulant (blood thinner) like aspirin. In one
study, 240 mg of salicin (from white willow bark extract) showed modest
effectiveness in treating pain associated with knee and/or hip
osteoarthritis over a period of weeks. In another study, 120 to 240 mg
of salicin (again from white willow bark extract) showed promise in
reducing low back pain. The higher concentration of 240 mg salicin was
more effective, although it took up to one week for significant relief.
Hops is perhaps best known as a flavoring agent in beer, although it
has also been used to reduce anxiety and insomnia. More recent research
has shown a hops extract high in alpha acids exhibited COX-2 inhibition
over nine hours, equivalent to ibuprofen 400 mg. What was especially
nice was that this extract had very mild COX-1 inhibition, which means
it is less likely than its pharmaceutical counterparts to induce
gastric problems. In another open-label, eight-week trial, the
effectiveness of a combination of alpha acids from hops, rosemary
extract and oleanolic acid were tested in subjects with osteoarthritis,
rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. The results were that
osteoarthritis subjects showed a 50 percent decrease in pain, whereas
there were no statistically significant differences in the rheumatoid
arthritis and fibromyalgia subjects.
The aforementioned natural ingredients have demonstrated COX-2
inhibiting properties (with the exception of bromelain, where the
anti-inflammatory activity works by a different mechanism). Hence,
singly or in combination, and if properly concentrated and dosed, they
may offer a viable alternative to the now defunct VIOXX. Nevertheless,
it is prudent to recommend that customers work with their physicians if
they wish to substitute these or any other natural substances for
pharmaceutical medications.
Gene Bruno, B.S., M.H.S., R.H. (AHG), is the dean of academics and
professor of dietary supplement science with e American Academy of
Nutrition (AAN) college of Nutrition & Integrative Health Sciences. Art
Presser, Pharm.D., D.H.Ph., is a professor of alternative medicine and
president of AAN. AAN is an accredited distance learning institution
offering undergraduate and graduate degrees as well as a diploma
program in nutrition.
Date: August 04, 2005 12:27 PM
Author: VitaNet =AE Staff (support@vitanet.net)
Subject: Herbal COX-2 Inhibitors: A Natural Alternative=20
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Orac wrote:
> In article <1127417251.367226.119620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In other words, you try to define that blogging to be whatever you say
> it is. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
The point is that you spew garbage in favor of allopathic methods
regardless of the facts. Who cares what descriptives are used for it?
And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.
>
>
> The irony of your assertion is that you preemptively smear anyone who
> criticizes alternative medicine as a "pharma blogger" without providing
> a shred of evidence to support your assertion. Oh, wait. That's not
> ironic of you. Just pathetic.
I've had several debates here with those who disagree with my views,
with no thought of them being associated with industry. And besides, I
don't define your behaviour, you do. Your team thinks that you operate
here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
are over...
PeterB
| |
|
|
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127507057.103239.269310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Orac wrote:
>
> The point is that you spew garbage in favor of allopathic methods
> regardless of the facts. Who cares what descriptives are used for it?
> And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.
>
>
> I've had several debates here with those who disagree with my views,
> with no thought of them being associated with industry. And besides, I
> don't define your behaviour, you do. Your team thinks that you operate
> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
> are over...
What a hoot! You think you've outed a conspiracy? Your conjecture is not
believable to even naive anti-science loons like Lollipop and Pizza Girl who
have conspicuously not come to your defense.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
<snip the harasser>.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127507057.103239.269310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip the belittling>
[vbcol=seagreen]
<snip the *rganized medicine* repeated jargon>[vbcol=seagreen]
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
LadyLollipop wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
> <snip the harasser>.
>
> <snip the belittling>
>
>
> <snip the *organized medicine* repeated jargon>
Good approach, Jan, I like your style.
Peter
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> I am sure that Petey is equally pleasant in person.
Why don't we all meet somewhere sometime...we could have a metal
detector at the door and require Happy Dog to wear one of those shock
collars to make sure he stays in line...
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
> be excluded.
....and one for you Mark that picks up when you are mindlessly spouting
the Con Med party-line...and evidencing no interest in what actually
occurs outside the world of white-coated professionals...
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Of course you would say that. However, when Jan posts her bigotry, you
> remain silent. Hmmm...I smell a hypocrite.
I'm not here to critique anyone's personal views or social graces. The
purpose of mha is to talk about approaches in natural medicine. You and
your team have a different agenda, so feel free to focus on
personalities and other distractions.
PeterB
| |
|
|
|
| In article <1127507057.103239.269310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
>
> The point is that you spew garbage in favor of allopathic methods
> regardless of the facts. Who cares what descriptives are used for it?
> And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.
Ah, a very obvious "heads I win tails you lose." If I deny being a
"pharma shill," then you declare that I must in fact be one because
that's what you would expect a "pharma shill" to say. If I remain
silent, then your assertions of pharma bloggery remain unanswered and
again you declare victory.
A nice ploy, but very obvious, old bean.
Oh, and BTW, I've actually found you a real live pharma blogger:
http://pharmablogger.blogspot.com/
Oh, wait. He's not what you've claimed, is he?
>
> I've had several debates here with those who disagree with my views,
> with no thought of them being associated with industry.
You're being disingenuous. Your whole "pharma blogger" post tells me
that you define whomever you please as a "pharma shill." If they
disagree too strongly with altie claims, you label them a "pharma
blogger."
>And besides, I
> don't define your behaviour, you do.
As do you, my paranoid and obvious opponent, with your transparent
attempt at pre-emptive ad hominem, also known as "poisoning the well" or
"guilt by association," both logical fallacies.
>Your team thinks that you operate
> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
> are over...
"My team"? Do tell. What "team" am I supposedly on?
Really, you do have an inflated opinion of yourself. Sparring with you
is merely an amusing and occasional diversion that is rapidly becoming
tiresome, given your bone-headedness. Nothing more.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
| |
| Rich.@. 2005-09-24, 2:36 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:17:17 -0400, Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, the name of the "poisoning the well" fallacy comes from the
>medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns
>and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a
>plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
>many Jews.
I wonder if Jan Drew started this myth in a previous life.
Cue Jan to call me a liar because the idea of previous lives is a
product of Satan.
Aloha,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Best defense to logic is ignorance
| |
| Clinton 2005-09-25, 10:34 am |
|
Orac wrote:
>
> Ah, a very obvious "heads I win tails you lose." If I deny being a
> "pharma shill," then you declare that I must in fact be one because
> that's what you would expect a "pharma shill" to say. If I remain
> silent, then your assertions of pharma bloggery remain unanswered and
> again you declare victory.
If I may, interrupt...I think what PeterB is getting at is not
that if anyone denies being a "pharmablogger" they are, but they
act like a pharmablogger. I.E. if you walk like a duck you are
a duck.
Now just for the sake of argument, let's ask this question. Suppose
Agent X shows up, a pharmablogger on mha. Agent X works for the pharma
companies and posts in such a way to support that agenda. How would you
interpret the posts of a few individuals here as being substantial
different from what "Agent X" would post. If you say there is a
difference I would be curios to know "precisely" what you think it
would be. If there is not, but you still say the posters are not
pharmabloggers, which could theoretically be true..., then you at least
have to admit that there is no difference between what they post and
what a pharmablogger would say averaged over a large number of posts.
As for denial arguments, I suppose a good example of that would
be the Mcarthy trials. Namely, an individual was arbitrarly accused of
being a communist. If the individual said nothing then surely they were
a communist, and if they denied it, then of of course, a member of the
communist party would deny being associated with the communist party.
True enough! However if such an individual constantly published
articles about the weakness of democracy and the wiseness of community
property and the fallicies of capitalism, and was even a member of the
communist party (while still denying being a communist), wouldn't that
actually be a fair indication that they may actually be a communist as
opposed to any self-evident conclusions drawn based only on their
denials of being in the communist party?
>
> A nice ploy, but very obvious, old bean.
>
> Oh, and BTW, I've actually found you a real live pharma blogger:
| |
|
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:r9jZe.18131$Xa.17274@fe12.lga...
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> You seem very familiar with the men in the white coats...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8ze2c
LOL! I had forgotten that one. It must be from the early sixties.
Alas, the "white coats" are gone the way of crisp white nurses' dresses and
caps. They're not even called "orderlies" anymore. They're "mental health
assistants," and they dress just like the patients. The only way you can
tell them apart is the name tag and the big wad of keys.
;o) Rich
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:XwbZe.8706$i%2.5903@fe10.lga...
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
> be excluded.
Ahh, Mark is humor challenged.
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
|
"Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac_usa-62161D.13171724092005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <OkTYe.12404$H24.11246@fe11.lga>,
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
<snip off topic garbage>
>
> --
> Orac
| |
|
|
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:8TkZe.362257$x96.185583@attbi_s72...
>
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:XwbZe.8706$i%2.5903@fe10.lga...
>
> Ahh, Mark is humor challenged.
I've known pit bull dogs with more appreciation for a good joke than you,
Jan. But I do get a kick out of your Daffy Duck impersonations. ;o) Rich
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
<snip off topic garbage>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Orac wrote:
| |
|
|
|
|
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> You seem very familiar with the men in the white coats...
>
That's pretty funny Mark. What grade did you say you're in?
| |
| LadyLollipop 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
"Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote
<respin off topic garbage>
> In article <r%kZe.363749$_o.334554@attbi_s71>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --
> Orac
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> My agenda is the truth.
>
Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
deniers.
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> Suspect what you wish. I live right on the water and have a close
> relationship with the environment. To me, there is very significant
> evidence of global warming.
Clearly you are speaking of experiential evidence. Interesting that you
find such evidence sufficient on one sphere yet you rabidly denouce the
same type of evidence in another sphere (alt med).
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
> centers of the brain?
What do you mean?...I'm the one who keeps telling you that you shd be
doing stand-up...
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
> centers of the brain?
What do you mean?...I'm the one who keeps telling you that you shd be
doing stand-up...
| |
| Happy Dog 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
| "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Clearly you are speaking of experiential evidence.
How so?
moo
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Happy Dog wrote:
> "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
>
> How so?
>
> moo
[vbcol=seagreen]
This is the language of experiential reasoning.
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, I base my opinion on several factors and listening to a friend
> who is an atmospheric physicist. He has suggested several readings, etc.
> over the years, and, I love picking his brain, which is very fertile
> ground. While his expertise is in ozone depletion, his field touches on
> global warming, and, I use common sense to listen and evaluate what he
> suggests.
Yes, common sense is indeed invaluable. For all of us, there are areas
in which we function or have opinions on the basis of
experiential/observational evidence; though for some of us this will be
only occasionally and inadvertently expressed.
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> Which I expanded upon.
| |
| Tim Campbell 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> Which I expanded upon.
Expanded indeed. You took language that was distinctly subjective in
nature and objectivized it.
| |
| Happy Dog 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
| "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>
> This is the language of experiential reasoning.
Nope. Read his response. Life on the shore is incidental. Everybody has a
close relationship with the environment.
moo
moo
| |
| PeterB 2005-09-26, 5:22 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Tim Campbell wrote:
>
> Personal observation goes only so far. One needs to apply facts in an
> analytical manner.
You can interpret data and observe whether events conform to theory,
but you can't apply facts in an analytical manner in a vacuum.
PeterB
| | |