Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 106 of 209 (554702)
04-09-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
04-09-2010 9:33 AM


Hey Hyro.
The problem is that there is also a false sense of pharamceuticals too which often have side effects worse than the actual condition you want to treat. How many drugs are being pulled off the shelves and how many lawsuits are in effect because the product is dangerous? A lot.
Your feeling like taking medications is a crap shoot is really not far off the mark. Many feel as if [insert drug here] will be the magic bullet to improve their [insert malady here], and are surprised when I tell them I can't say exactly how they'll respond to the medication until they've tried it. Some realize this, and, like yourself, refuse to take the chance. Many times, excessive side effects lead to switching medications to one which is more agreeable to a certain body type, and sometimes this can take months, involving multiple switches. The goal of therapy, of course, is to treat the condition as well as possible without resorting to treating side effects with additional medications.
Despite all this, I do think your use of the word "often" in the above statement is an exaggeration of sorts. I can tell you that, although I agree this does occur in practice, I would consign these situations to "rarely" vs. "often", at least in my experience. No sane person would continue a med if side effects were worse than the original ailment, and most eventually find the treatment appropriate to them (at least if they're being followed adequately by their physician).
As soon as she was off those meds, she had made marked improvements. How ironic?! She took the meds to sedate her anxiousness and it made the condition ten times worse!
Unfortunately, I've seen this happen, as well. It seems to happen most often in cases involving mental health vs a condition like, say, blood pressure. I think the problem results from the fact that psychiatric meds often are used to indirectly mimic or alter the levels of brain chemicals responsible for mental stability. Since everyone has a different body chemistry (and also due to the fact that most psychiatric medications' mechanism of action is unknown), it leads to the view that physicians are "shooting from the hip" in most cases, and that treatment of these conditions is inexact, at best. This is not all that inaccurate of a representation, but it's the reality nonetheless.
If it seems at all that I waffle more than someone in my profession should in regard to prescription medications, I would counter that adopting a position of realism is superior to baldly advocating that rx meds are the end-all and be-all of treatment. This also (and especially) includes all OTC medications (and herbals, lest I'm accused of flailing off-topic ). My job is to present all the possible outcomes of a particular therapy, good and bad, which can result from a specific medication (or combination of medications). There are always going to exist those cases in which total discontinuation of therapy (as with your wife) will improve outcomes substantially. But by and large, I think most people will benefit from most medications (if with a little tinkering), and also that the positives of Rx medication treatment will invariably outweigh the negatives.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-09-2010 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 107 of 209 (554712)
04-09-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Granny Magda
04-09-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Cool. If you're interested, these sites provide good information about vaccine controversies;
Respectful Insolence by Orac; insolence | ScienceBlogs
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre; Bad Science
This page on the MMR vaccine panic is particularly interesting; The media’s MMR hoax – Bad Science
Or you can sample the other side of the "debate" here; Age of Autism
ERV has a nice write-up on the resurgence of mumps orchitis in post-pubescent adults who were not vaccinated in the 1990's due to the autism scare. It has a nice little evolutionary tie in given the fact that mumps orchitis (swollen balls) can result in infertility. Perhaps the anti-vaccine crowd will become extinct.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Granny Magda, posted 04-09-2010 1:08 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 108 of 209 (554788)
04-10-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
04-09-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Interestingly, Dr. Mercola has included a lengthy interview with Dr. Wakefield in his recent newsletter. Wakefield's main concern is about giving the three vaccinations together. He has studied the effects of multiple vaccinations in monkeys and he has some concerns about other vaccinations such as the new one for chicken pox. I believe his work has been misrepresented; you are welcome to listen to the interview or read the transcript and make up your own mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-09-2010 1:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 8:21 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 209 (554793)
04-10-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Kitsune
04-10-2010 7:41 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Hi Kitsune,
Interestingly, Dr. Mercola has included a lengthy interview with Dr. Wakefield in his recent newsletter.
Yes, the quacks like to stick together. Who else will lend them an undeserved veneer of respectability? Mercola is a disgusting little hypocrite, who blasts "Big Pharma" for it's money machine, yet cynically exploits people in order to make huge profits from his own snake-oil.
quote:
In 2005, the FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site [7]. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products:
* Living Fuel Rx, claimed to offer an "exceptional countermeasure" against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.
* Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease and has beneficial effects against Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and many infectious agents
* Chlorella, claimed to fight cancer and normalize blood pressure.
In 2006, the FDA send Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site [8]. This time the claims to which the FDA objected involve four products:
* Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
* Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases.
* Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
* Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be "a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease."
The warning letters explained that the use of such claims in the marketing of these products violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases.
Source; Dr. Joseph Mercola Ordered to Stop Illegal Claims | Quackwatch
But then, at least he has never, to my knowledge, performed unethical experiments on minors at a child's birthday party. Wakefield has.
Wakefield's main concern is about giving the three vaccinations together.
Then he should provide valid evidence of a link to autism. He has not. Instead, less insane researchers have found evidence that the triple jab is perfectly safe.
quote:
Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):963-9.
MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.
Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne E, Heavey L, Rodrigues LC, Smith PG, Hall AJ.
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. autism@lshtm.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concern that measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination might cause autism has led to a fall in vaccine coverage. We investigated whether MMR vaccination is associated with an increased risk of autism or other pervasive developmental disorders. METHODS: We did a matched case-control study using the UK General Practice Research Database. Cases were people born in 1973 or later who had first recorded diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder while registered with a contributing general practice between 1987 and 2001. Controls were matched on age, sex, and general practice. FINDINGS: 1294 cases and 4469 controls were included. 1010 cases (78.1%) had MMR vaccination recorded before diagnosis, compared with 3671 controls (82.1%) before the age at which their matched case was diagnosed. After adjustment for age at joining the database, the odds ratio for association between MMR and pervasive developmental disorder was 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1.09). Findings were similar when restricted to children with a diagnosis of autism, to those vaccinated with MMR before the third birthday, or to the period before media coverage of the hypothesis linking MMR with autism. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders.
He has studied the effects of multiple vaccinations in monkeys
Wakefield's latest monkey experiment has been called off. What paper are you citing? It is unacceptable for you to spread scare stories without providing references. Citations or it never happened.
When the triple jab was actually released amongst the general population, everything was fine. There has been no corresponding rise in autism, even after all this time, plenty of time for the alleged effects to become apparent. The jab does not cause autism. At the very least, there is no evidence to suggest that it does. Bringing up stories like this in the absence of any valid evidence is simply scaremongering and it costs lives.
he has some concerns about other vaccinations such as the new one for chicken pox.
Has Wakefield done any studies on chickenpox? Any at all? Citations or it never happened.
I believe his work has been misrepresented;
His work has not been misrepresented. He started a national health panic on the basis of a small case series report on a mere 12 people. That is shameful. The data was too weak to draw any firm conclusions from, yet he went ahead and spread panic through the press at the cost of children's lives. Real children. Real deaths. No evidence.
Also, it is worth pointing out that Wakefield wasn't struck off the medical register for his opinions or for the piss-poor nature of his studies. He was struck off for performing extremely painful and unethical tests upon children. The only misrepresentation is when Mercola describes him as an expert.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 7:41 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 8:55 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 110 of 209 (554797)
04-10-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 8:21 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Well that's the sort of post I'd expect from someone who cites Quackwatch as the defender of common sense and science against woo and wingnuts. I'm not honestly interested in debating this point-by-point with you, especially since I feel sure you never watched the interview with Wakefield nor read the transcript and will not do so. (I have also already debated about vaccines here in the past and am not looking for another time-consuming knock-down drag-out fight right now.) Did the study you cited above use controls who were never vaccinated with MMR? No. Did you read what Dr. Wakefield said in his own defense about the study on monkeys? No. And you are making assumptions about the chicken pox virus without looking into any of the facts either, though I bet you're not past quote mining something from Quackwatch. All I was interested in doing here was providing a link to the other side of the story. It will be interesting to see how many more people here want to join in the general condemnation of Dr. Wakefield while ignoring what he has to say about it. Surely the beginning of a sensible debate, or the formation of an opinion, is an awareness of both sides of the issue.
By the way, I use some of Dr. Mercola's supplements. I take krill oil and I've used his probiotic supplement. I guess that either makes me insane or a dupe. And coconut oil is healthy stuff so whatever the "illegal" claims about it are, I can't see anything wrong with promoting it as a health food, which is what it is. But thanks for chiming in and showing us what was clear already about your personal opinion of the alternative health industry. I guess this was a juicier post for you than the one I posted on topic about herbs, which seems to have been lost in the shuffle.
Edited by Kitsune, : typos
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 8:21 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:44 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 209 (554800)
04-10-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-02-2008 3:45 PM


Unfair definition
Percy writes:
Novella defines a drug as any "any chemical or combination of chemicals that has biological activity within the body above and beyond their purely nutritional value." By this definition an herb is a drug, and it is my position that the only measures that matter regarding drugs like herbs and pharmaceuticals are demonstrated safety and effectiveness.
Hi Percy. This definition is not an objective or fair one. It is skewed to the advantage of drug cartels so as to support government regulation of herbs as is currently being proposed, further empowering the drug cartels and severely affecting the producers of herbal products. These companys have been a significant factor in keeping my wife and I doctor free and not a drain on the overloaded health system for over 40 years.
Echinacea or astragalus , for example, either as as leaves or as compressed pills, are no more a drug than celery.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 3:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2010 9:33 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 114 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 209 (554804)
04-10-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Unfair definition
Echinacea or astragalus , for example, either as as leaves or as compressed pills, are no more a drug than celery.
So what are you saying here, Buz? That they do no more for your health than celery does? Or that they contain only all-natural ingredients but none of those nasty chemicals!!1!?
Atropine or scopolamine that I can make in my lab is identically as potent and dangerous as that you can get from Jimsonweed. The ONLY difference is that the Jimsonweed synthesizes it in plant cells, and I would do it in expensive flasks or in discarded Mason jars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 3:32 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 113 of 209 (554808)
04-10-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kitsune
04-10-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Kitsune,
Well that's the sort of post I'd expect from someone who cites Quackwatch as the defender of common sense and science against woo and wingnuts.
Do you deny the veracity of Quackwatch's claims? If so provide evidence. As it happens though, their claims are completely true.
From the FDA site; the 2006 letter;
quote:
Dear Dr. Mercola:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection at your facility at the above address on April 24, 2006. During that inspection, the investigator collected various product labels including, but not limited to, the following products: Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, Momentum Health Products™ Vitamin K2 ™, and Momentum Health Products™ Cardio Essentials™ Nattokinase NSK-SD. In addition, we reviewed labeling on your website at http://www.mercola.com. A review of this labeling found that the products listed above are promoted for conditions that cause these products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C.321 (g)(1)(13)]. These claims on your labeling, including your website, establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act. You can find the Act and FDA's regulations through links on FDA's Internet home page, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Source; Page Not Found | FDA
and the 2005 letter;
quote:
Dear Dr. Mercola:
This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your web site at the Internet address http://www.mercola.com and has determined that the products Living Fuel Rx, Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, and Chlorella are promoted for conditions that cause these products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)]. The therapeutic claims on your web site establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseases. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act...
Your products are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions and therefore, these products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 321(p)]. New drugs may not be legally marketed in the U.S. without prior approval from FDA as described in section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 355(a)]. FDA approves new drugs on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drugs are safe and effective.
Source; Page Not Found | FDA
Attack the source all you like, but the charges of improper sales of medicines that Quackwatch cite were genuinely made by the FDA. Mercola is guilty of lying to his "patients" about the effectiveness of his products, whilst raking in the cash. Meanwhile he accuses mainstream practitioners of greed. He is a quack, a hypocrite and an unreliable source.
I'm not honestly interested in debating this point-by-point with you,
Then you shouldn't bring it up, especially not on a debate site such as this. This is serious business. Children's lives are at stake. This is no exaggeration. Children have needlessly died of measles thanks to the kind of misinformation you are promulgating.
quote:
First measles death for 14 years
The MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1988
A 13-year-old boy has become the first person in the UK in 14 years to die from measles. The victim was from a travelling family living in the north-west of England, the Health Protection Agency said.
A string of outbreaks mainly in England and Wales's travelling communities has led to 100 cases so far in 2006, compared with 76 in the whole of 2005. The boy, who was suffering from an underlying lung condition, had not had the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
Source; BBC NEWS | UK | England | First measles death for 14 years
quote:
Rise in measles 'very worrying'
Parents are urged to ensure their children get the MMR jab. Measles cases in England and Wales rose by 36% in 2008, figures show. Confirmed cases increased from 990 in 2007 to 1,348 last year - the highest figure since the monitoring scheme was introduced in 1995.
Health Protection Agency experts said most of the cases had been in children not fully vaccinated with combined MMR and so could have been prevented.
Source; BBC NEWS | UK | England | First measles death for 14 years
You should be able and willing to back up your arguments or you should stay silent.
especially since I feel sure you never watched the interview with Wakefield nor read the transcript and will not do so.
No, I'm not going to sit through an hour-long interview between two proven liars. If you think that they make important points, cite them. Otherwise, you are simply attempting to argue by link, something that is strictly forbidden at EvC, and rightly so.
Did the study you cited above use controls who were never vaccinated with MMR? No.
No, of course not. you are being methodologically naive. The study was not meant to be a controlled study, nor should it have been. That in no way invalidates its findings. When you are studying a large population, it's not usually possible to provide a control.
If the MMR jab caused autism it would be visible in the population. It isn't.
Did you read what Dr. Wakefield said in his own defense about the study on monkeys? No.
What studies? What monkeys? Citations or it never happened. It is poor form of you to chide me for failing to read studies that you do not cite.
And you are making assumptions about the chicken pox virus without looking into any of the facts either, though I bet you're not past quote mining something from Quackwatch.
Nice insult there. I have made no assumptions about Wakefield and chickenpox. I asked a question. you have not even attempted to answer that question. Has Wakefield conducted studies on chickenpox or not? Citations or it never happened.
All I was interested in doing here was providing a link to the other side of the story. It will be interesting to see how many more people here want to join in the general condemnation of Dr. Wakefield while ignoring what he has to say about it.
Now you are making assumptions. I have read a great deal on this subject from Wakefield and his critics. He has no case. If I am wrong, present your case. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, you should cease spreading misinformation.
By the way, I use some of Dr. Mercola's supplements. I take krill oil and I've used his probiotic supplement. I guess that either makes me insane or a dupe.
I have no idea. I don't know anything about krill oil. Just because Mercola is a lying hypocrite, doesn't mean that all his products are automatically worthless. It does mean though, that his claims should be treated with a generous helping of salt.
And coconut oil is healthy stuff so whatever the "illegal" claims about it are, I can't see anything wrong with promoting it as a health food, which is what it is.
Again, you are being naive. To call coconut oil "healthy" is too simplistic. It's not healthy for someone who is overweight, since it is high in fat. Healthy/Unhealthy is not a binary judgement. What is healthy for some may be harmful to others.
Besides, Mercola was not simply presenting coconut oil as a health food, he was making medicinal claims for it. Look again at these quotes from the FDA letter;
quote:
Banishes Infection, And Heads Off Heart Disease
Reducing your risk of heart disease . . .
Reducing your risk of cancer and degenerative diseases . . .
Preventing infections due to harmful bacteria, viruses, yeasts and other microorganisms . . .
But thanks for chiming in and showing us what was clear already about your personal opinion of the alternative health industry. I guess this was a juicier post for you than the one I posted on topic about herbs, which seems to have been lost in the shuffle.
Don't take it personally. I am paying attention to this post because you are making unsubstantiated claims which endanger the lives of children. That makes creationism look positively harmless by comparison. You can't expect to make claims like this without being called out. The stakes are too high.
Now shit or get off the pot. Back up your claims or stop making them.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 8:55 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 10:39 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 04-10-2010 11:09 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 114 of 209 (554810)
04-10-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
04-10-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Unfair definition
Hi Buz,
Echinacea or astragalus , for example, either as as leaves or as compressed pills, are no more a drug than celery.
So marijuana is not a drug? Opium is not a drug? Peyote is not a drug?
Have I understood you right? If not, why not?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 9:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 04-10-2010 2:41 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 115 of 209 (554816)
04-10-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 9:44 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Hi Granny,
Sorry, I'm not biting -- I am not getting into a major debate on this topic. Why did I post the link to the interview with Dr. Wakefield? For the reason I originally cited -- I believe that before someone forms a biased view, they should weigh both sides of the argument. Oddly when I discuss topics such as this here, removed from the EvC, I sometimes find some very entrenched one-sided views in people who would never admit it to themselves. I myself do not know the intricate details about Dr. Wakefield's work but I am willing to listen to what he has to say. There are other websites backing this up and giving a different view to the conniving child-torturer you and some aspects of the media want to paint him as. The only way to find the truth (or come close) is to research with an open mind. You probably see me as an apologist for him now because your polarised view is bringing out that aspect in me, and I'm going to try to stop that from continuing.
Do you deny the veracity of Quackwatch's claims?
Stephen Barrett is as biased as they come. He knows how to cherry-pick his data so that it reflects whatever he wants it to reflect, and he's lumped legitimate people in with frauds and shysters in order to tar everybody on his hit-list with the same brush. For example, you've fallen hook line and sinker for his jibe at Dr. Mercola. It is US law that supplements such as vitamins and herbs must not print health claims on their labels; this means that even a jar of vitamin C cannot claim that it promotes a healthy immune system. Honest purveyors of such products have long been frustrated by this; sure it guards against falsehoods, but in the same fell swoop it also means you cannot share legitimate information. Take the coconut oil again. It's really, really healthy stuff. It contains lauric acid and has antifungal and antibacterial properties. Whether Dr. Mercola has fallen foul of the technicalities of the law or not, he's not lying about the benefits of using this product. I am not going to defend every single thing he sells but I would quite happily buy any of a number of his products because I know they are high quality. Barrett, on the other hand, would like him to go out of business so that I get ill and give my money to the pharmaceutical industry instead.
No, I'm not going to sit through an hour-long interview between two proven liars.
And that statement speaks volumes. I'm not asking you to watch it so we can debate it, I don't want to debate vaccinations here. I posted the link so that people who are interested in forming balanced opinions can find out what he has to say. Feel free, if you so desire, to ignore all evidence contrary to what you believe. Just don't laugh at creationists when they do the same.
To call coconut oil "healthy" is too simplistic. It's not healthy for someone who is overweight, since it is high in fat.
It is a fat. The human body needs fat in order to survive. And -- shock, horror -- it needs saturated fat. You perhaps are not aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the alleged benefits of the standard low-fat high-carb diet. I'm honestly not trying to wind you up but I suppose the merest hint of this will send you livid, since you're already wound up about my claims that Drs. Wakefield and Mercola are not necessarily lying bastards.
The Skinny on Fats
Barrett probably hates Mary Enig and Sally Fallon too, I imagine they're on his hit-list somewhere.
Don't take it personally. I am paying attention to this post because you are making unsubstantiated claims which endanger the lives of children.
And I am endangering children's lives, how? Barrett would have us all steer clear of healthy nutritional supplements and buy into the sickness industry that is allopathic medicine. IMO that would be endangering children's lives. You are a great mouthpiece for him.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:44 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 04-10-2010 11:01 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 118 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 11:32 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2010 8:41 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 116 of 209 (554819)
04-10-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Kitsune
04-10-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
And I am endangering children's lives, how?
Unsubstantiated claims about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism has resulted in many kids not getting the vaccine. The result? They get those diseases which can turn deadly and have lifelong consequences. There are kids today who are infertile because they contracted mumps. Measles can cause encephalitis and death. People who keep this unfounded paranoia going are responsible for the resurgence of these diseases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 10:39 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 117 of 209 (554821)
04-10-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 9:44 AM


FDA - Labeling
quote:
Attack the source all you like, but the charges of improper sales of medicines that Quackwatch cite were genuinely made by the FDA. Mercola is guilty of lying to his "patients" about the effectiveness of his products, whilst raking in the cash. Meanwhile he accuses mainstream practitioners of greed. He is a quack, a hypocrite and an unreliable source.
The FDA letters aren't saying that the claims on Mercola's site are true or false. They are simply informing him that the claims made on his site about certain items deems them drugs and to be able to continue marketing those items with those claims they must first go through the same channels as drugs or new drugs.
All Mercola has to do is reword his claims, go through the process for drugs, or stop selling the item.
That's why we see this blurp: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 9:44 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 11:37 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 209 (554824)
04-10-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Kitsune
04-10-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
Kitsune,
Sorry, I'm not biting -- I am not getting into a major debate on this topic.
That's funny, you seem to be writing a lot of words for somone who is unwilling to debate. You know the drill here as well as I do. You are expected back your arguments. You claim that Wakefield is being persecuted, so you should back that up.
Why did I post the link to the interview with Dr. Wakefield? For the reason I originally cited -- I believe that before someone forms a biased view, they should weigh both sides of the argument.
I'm not objecting to you posting links, I'm objecting to your defence of Wakefield, even though you admit that you know little about the case.
There are other websites backing this up and giving a different view to the conniving child-torturer you and some aspects of the media want to paint him as.
Bullshit. Wakefield took blood tests from children at a damn birthday party, bribing them with fivers. That is astonishingly unethical. He performed lumbar punctures on autistic kids, on the basis of little more than a dozen anecdotes and a hunch.
quote:
A 2007 hearing with the General Medical Council examined charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the Lancet paper.[55][56] The charges included:
* He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to disclose this in his application to the Ethical Practices Sub-Committee of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.[24]
* He ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications".
* Acting "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in failing to disclose how patients were recruited for the study, and that some were paid to take part.
* Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.
* Conducting the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.
* Purchasing blood samples - for 5 each - from children present at his son's birthday party, as described by Wakefield himself in a videotaped public conference.
He is unethical and he is justly being struck off. There is no persecution here, he deserves what he has got.
You probably see me as an apologist for him now because your polarised view is bringing out that aspect in me, and I'm going to try to stop that from continuing.
There is a very easy way to stop it from continuing; stop spreading misinformation.
Stephen Barrett is as biased as they come. He knows how to cherry-pick his data so that it reflects whatever he wants it to reflect, and he's lumped legitimate people in with frauds and shysters in order to tar everybody on his hit-list with the same brush. For example, you've fallen hook line and sinker for his jibe at Dr. Mercola.
Are you saying that Quackwatch's allegations are untrue? They are not. Mercola was selling herbs under unsubstantiated medicinal claims and doing so illegally.
By the way, I have plenty of other links that expose just what a pathetic liar and ridiculous quack Mercola is, if you're interested. I don't need to rely on Quackwatch, nor is this the first time I have encountered his brand of woo. Mercola is widely criticised. His lies are widely publicised. He is a quack, a hypocrite and a liar. He is a man who claims to be a doctor, yet encourages people not to vaccinate their kids. He claims that baking soda can fight flu and cancer. His website hosts a video from a man who claims that all cancer is caused by fungus. He is an imbecile.
It is US law that supplements such as vitamins and herbs must not print health claims on their labels; this means that even a jar of vitamin C cannot claim that it promotes a healthy immune system.
No it doesn't. It simply means that herbs sold as drugs must conform to FDA standards. That means that they must actually be proven to do what they claim to do. If that is not in place, it is dishonest to sell such products as drugs. It is intrinsically dishonest to push products under unsubstantiated claims. Mercola was being dishonest and failing to comply with FDA regulations. Besides, this is not the only instance of Mercola talking out of the wrong orifice. he has plenty of form. he is not a reputable source.
Take the coconut oil again. It's really, really healthy stuff. It contains lauric acid and has antifungal and antibacterial properties.
Which completely misses my point. It may be healthy for some, but it is not healthy for someone who is overweight. You are oversimplifying.
As for the alleged benefits of coconut oil, would you care to cite the studies?
I'm not asking you to watch it so we can debate it, I don't want to debate vaccinations here.
Then don't bring it up on a debate site. It is dishonest of you to do so and then refuse to debate.
It is a fat. The human body needs fat in order to survive. And -- shock, horror -- it needs saturated fat.
As I say, you are oversimplifying. There is no such thing as "healthy" or "unhealthy" fat. It depends on who we are talking about. In some people it will be healthy. in some, unhealthy.
Barrett probably hates Mary Enig and Sally Fallon too, I imagine they're on his hit-list somewhere.
You are being extremely childish in throwing around baseless insults, which you do not even try to substantiate. oh, but I forgot; you don't want to debate...
And I am endangering children's lives, how?
I already provided links that show that measles and mumps have boomed since the MMR scare. By acting as an apologist for Wakefield and his pathetic pseudo-science, you are perpetuating the scare. That costs lives, as frightened parents fail to properly immunise their kids.
You are engaging in a blatant Golden Mean fallacy; a balanced opinion must take Wakefield seriously. This is nonsense. The time to take this charlatan seriously came and went. The 2004 study effectively destroyed his claims, yet he refused to recant, instead preferring to further spread dangerously bad health advice. That is inexcusable. Wakefield's claims failed, he has behaved unethically and he will soon be struck off. there is no reason to take this man in the least bit seriously, still less reason to spread his nonsense.
Barrett would have us all steer clear of healthy nutritional supplements
Utter crap. First, you seem to be assuming that nutritional supplements are automatically healthy, an unwarranted assumption. Secondly, you are once again making baseless assertions.
You are behaving like a child. Either back up your arguments with proper evidence or cease posting. It's really much simper than you're making it.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 10:39 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Kitsune, posted 04-10-2010 12:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 119 of 209 (554825)
04-10-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by purpledawn
04-10-2010 11:09 AM


Re: FDA - Labeling
HI PD,
The FDA letters aren't saying that the claims on Mercola's site are true or false. They are simply informing him that the claims made on his site about certain items deems them drugs and to be able to continue marketing those items with those claims they must first go through the same channels as drugs or new drugs.
Yes, I know that. The fact is though, that any product sold with a medicinal claim carries with it an implication that the product has been tested, that it's alleged effects are real and that it has stood up to the appropriate regulations. Customers are going to assume that he has met any appropriate standards. To carry such boasts without compliance with FDA standards is intrinsically dishonest.
Mercola is using this implication to flog his snake-oil. He seems to have have decided that the FDA regulations did not apply to him. I'm sure he still cashed the cheques though.
Besides, there are countless other allegations against Mercola. he is a prolific liar and a danger to public health.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 04-10-2010 11:09 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 04-10-2010 4:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 120 of 209 (554839)
04-10-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Granny Magda
04-10-2010 11:32 AM


Re: Vaccine-Denialism Not the Issue
You claim that Wakefield is being persecuted, so you should back that up.
I never claimed he was being persecuted. I said I think he has been misrepresented. That is because whenever I look into this fiasco, I find that the charges you listed (which have not been substantiated) are refuted in some quarters. Perhaps you are biased enough to brand anyone who disagrees a quack, but the jury is out with me. If you don't like Mercola, there are lots of other sites where the allegations against Wakefield are disputed. Here is another. Again let me stress that I am not taking sides, I just feel that the truth may be more elusive than many people (seem to want to) think.
Are you saying that Quackwatch's allegations are untrue? They are not. Mercola was selling herbs under unsubstantiated medicinal claims and doing so illegally.
(Yawn) Purpledawn wrote a good succinct post about this, above. Though in your eyes this no doubt proves that Dr. Mercola is selling snake oil. Curiously my health has been fine while using his products.
He is a quack, a hypocrite and a liar. He is a man who claims to be a doctor, yet encourages people not to vaccinate their kids.
I found your propaganda links very amusing. Let me make a guess: you read what they told you, complete with the vituperative language, and never bothered to follow the links to the web pages to find out what was actually being said. (I seem to be discerning a pattern here.) Regarding the baking soda one, your propaganda site says that Mercola is telling people to use baking soda to cure swine flu. Here is what his web page says:
Taken internally, it helps maintain the pH balance in your bloodstream. This is likely the basic premise behind its recommended uses against both colds and influenza symptoms
He is not recommending it himself, he is looking at historical claims made about the substance. But I personally don't have a problem with trying to balance my pH in order to aim for more optimal health, do you?
And about the cancer-caused-by-fungus thing . . . this is someone talking about candida. I know people who have had candida overgrowth and who have treated it successfully. Before you guffaw too many more times, maybe you should consider the fact that no one fully understands why cancer forms or grows. Cancer cells form regularly in our bodies but it is normally not a problem because a healthy immune system kills them. I don't see any reason why the effects of candida overgrowth can't contribute to cancer, there are many agents that do.
Which completely misses my point. It may be healthy for some, but it is not healthy for someone who is overweight. You are oversimplifying.
No, coconut oil is not unhealthy for overweight people. I don't know where you're getting this idea that eating fat causes people to be fat, but it suggests that you are in need of education about basic metabolic processes. I gave you a link and again you have not read it. The link cites various studies. If you're not going to read my links then I don't see how we can have a proper debate.
I already provided links that show that measles and mumps have boomed since the MMR scare
A couple of things wrong with this. Firstly, cases have not "boomed," and adverse reactions are far fewer than the number of cases because healthy people's immune systems fight these illnesses off. Secondly, Wakefield advocated that the vaccines be given in separate doses rather than all together; he did not tell people not to vaccinate at all.
It's odd how people rail on against "dangerous" supplements sold by health food stores, and people dying from diseases for which there are vaccines. Strangely, the rates of iatrogenic illnesses and the death toll from FDA-approved prescription drugs never make the headlines. Why is that? Accidental death from prescription drugs, even when they are correctly given, is now the fourth leading cause of death in the US. Source Why aren't people like Steven Barrett going after the manufacturers of drugs like Zyprexa (which causes akathisia and diabetes), which instead of being pulled off the market, get a black box warning that you should be "monitored" if you take them? Why is he not leading a campaign to make people aware that they should be supplementing with CoQ10 if they are taking statins -- or better still, not taking statins at all because they are useless? Think about this. What do you think that says about his agenda?
Barrett would have us all steer clear of healthy nutritional supplements
Utter crap. First, you seem to be assuming that nutritional supplements are automatically healthy, an unwarranted assumption. Secondly, you are once again making baseless assertions.
I meant that precisely: he would have us steer clear of all healthy nutritional supplements. You think this is crap? Go look at Quackwatch and tell me if there is one single line anywhere on that site where he says that any supplement, vitamin or herb is healthy to take. He won't do it because he wants to stamp out the people who make and sell these things. All you have to do is look at his site with some education about the people he's bashing on there in order to realise this.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 11:32 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Granny Magda, posted 04-10-2010 7:21 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024