My position does not include the expanded statements you make regarding “mystical elements” which I guess are part of TCM.
How exactly do you propose to extricate the "mystical elements" from the more effective aspects of TCM? Mysticism is part and parcel of TCM, with many herbs being prescribed for their effect on qi, jing or other non-existent factors. Mysticism is there at diagnosis, in prescription and in the explanations of effects. You can't just pretend it isn't there.
I contend that while scientific inquiry 1000s of years ago among the Chinese did not mirror our current process that in no way means that it did not meet the basic definition of scientific inquiry: “Full inquiry involves asking a simple question, completing an investigation, answering the question, and presenting the results to others.”
Perhaps you would like to substantiate that claim with some evidence of ancient Chinese science. Of course, you will find no such evidence.
Taqless writes:
Granny writes:
There is no doubt that early TCM practitioners were seeking to move away from random tribal superstitions, and towards a standardised system of medical knowledge.
This is speculative and OT.
No, that was based on a thing called "research". Whilst I wouldn't suggest that anyone rely 100% on Wikipedia, it does make it remarkably easy to look up stuff like this;
quote:most historical accounts of the system will acknowledge it was invented by a culture of people that were already tired of listening to shamans trying to blame illnesses on evil spirits —Wiki
All very laudable. Unfortunately, they did not go far enough, mostly for the reason that Percy has already pointed out.
So that I’m clear on this, are you suggesting that our current system of scientific inquiry is “tradition” as well? If not, then please explain.
I am quite happy to describe evidence-based medicine as a tradition. It's just that some traditions are simply more effective than others.
This is a topic all of it's own
Quit dodging. I have demonstrated that TCM contains much that is untrue. The question for you to answer is how are we to the useful information from the nonsense? If TCM is willing to deal in such rubbish, why should we take any of its claims at face value?
I agree, the Chinese “are not idiots”. However, inerrancy is not the point . as I think you yourself have pointed out .
Error is very much the point. I assume that you will not contest my claim that TCM contains much that is in error, so how are we to detect these errors without testing?
{maybe}... regulating those who dispense herbs might help the general public?
That is what I have been saying all along.
Taqless writes:
Granny writes:
So is it still your contention that anecdotal evidence is the equal of clinical trials?
I think that to ask this question the assumptions are: 1) The Chinese did not use ANY form of scientific inquiry, and 2) The Chinese did not have an organized manner to document their findings and either assumption is problematic.
1) I never claimed any such thing, indeed, I specifically mentioned that TCM represents a move toward scientific enquiry. I contend that there was not enough science and that their methodology was insufficient, as explained above, by our host. 2) This is not an assumption, but rather a fact. If you disagree, please provide evidence of the ancient Chinese equivalent of the FDA or the UK's National Institute of Clinical Excellence. (Hint - You won't find any such evidence, because it doesn't exist) It is actually worth taking a look at studies into TCM. I think we can agree that todays TCM practitioners (as opposed to their less empirical Classical Chinese Medicine forebears) are much better placed to conduct useful trials. They have knowledge of blood pressure, the placebo effect, double-blinding, all the modern improvements mention above. So let's see how reliable modern TCM trials might be. This from Ben Goldacre again;
quote:one study looked at the entire cannon of research on traditional Chinese medicine, and found 1100 papers: not one single trial published in China, in the entire history of research into traditional treatments, had ever found a test treatment to be ineffective. Not a single one.
The link is to PubMed and appears in the original article. Do those results sound impartial and scientific to you? Because they sound more like a North Korean election result to me. If we cannot even trust the modern research into this topic, it does not look good for ancient research, carried out without proper knowledge and equipment.
Therefore, weakening the position that regulation and clinical trials somehow resolves these aspects of drugs. That was all.
For god's sake, I never claimed that clinical trials would eliminate side effects! That would be a stupid claim. If you must put words in my mouth, please try to make them less stupid. Regulation allows us to make informed decisions about side effects and all the other factors that you describe.
So, whether or not a drug has been proven seems to be what we are addressing, and this might be slightly OT according to what Percy originally intended. Regardless, my better defined position would be that herbs established and used for 1000s of years in Chinese Medicine do not require regulation as long as they are used in the manner documented.
The topic is " Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals". You have yet to demonstrate how either of those concerns is addressed by reference to Chinese tradition.
The effects of unregulated medicine have been made starkly clear this week as a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner escapes direct prosecution for administering poison.
quote:Calls for 'cancer' pills regulation
An Old Bailey judge has called for new regulation on traditional Chinese medicines as a "doctor" who sold cancer-causing pills walked free from court.
Ying "Susan" Wu sold the tiny brown "Xie Gan Wan" tablets to Patricia Booth for more than five years from a shop in Chelmsford, Essex.
Mrs Booth, 58, began taking the pills three times a day to treat a skin condition but they ended up destroying her kidneys and giving her cancer.
But Judge Jeremy Roberts ruled that, as the sale of traditional Chinese medicines was totally unregulated, there was no evidence that Wu knew of the potential harm.
Yes, that's Mrs Woo. It would be funny if it didn't involve a woman being given cancer by a negligent quack.
quote:The judge threw out a charge of "administering a noxious substance" against the 48-year-old, of Holland-on-Sea, Essex, and she pleaded guilty to five lesser counts and was given a two-year conditional discharge.
Giving his ruling he said: "It is an unfortunate fact that there is no system in this country to regulate Chinese herbal medicine retailers like Ms Wu by requiring them to be registered with an appropriate professional body or trade association.
"Somebody like Ms Wu is entitled to set up shop as a herbal medicine retailer and to operate entirely unsupervised.There may be a gap in our law here which the Government might wish to address."
I like a judge with a gift for understatement.
quote:The court heard that Mrs Booth took the medicine, which she bought from the Chinese Herbal Medical Centre in Chelmsford, from February 1997 to November 2002. She said she believed it was a "safe and natural alternative" to the antibiotics she had previously been taking for her skin condition - and which she feared could damage her long-term health.
Months after she stopped taking the Chinese pills, she was taken seriously ill and had to undergo an urgent blood transfusion. An analysis of the pills showed they contained a banned substance, aristolochic acid. Her health deteriorated to such an extent that her kidneys were "destroyed" and she had to have them removed, she contracted urinary tract cancer, and she later suffered a heart attack.
Note that the poison pills contained a substance known to be harmful. If someone had bothered to test this product before putting it to market, this need not have happened.
quote:The Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, which represents more than 450 practitioners, said the case highlighted "the urgent need for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine in the UK".
If the RCHM are serious about regulation, then I applaud them. However, I am rather suspicious that their enthusiasm has a lot to do with their fear that upcoming Euro legislation might put them out of business altogether.
However, one herb that has shown to be effective is St. John's Wort. It has a side effect profile similar to placebo. To put it another way, its about as harmful to you as drinking water.
I don't know what they're putting in the water round your way, but...
quote:
If you are pregnant or lactating or taking any other anti-depressants like Prozac, check with your physician before taking St. John's wort. It is not effective for severe depression, and no one should stop taking any prescribed medications for depression without proper medical care.
High blood pressure, headaches, stiff neck, nausea, and vomiting. In the fair-skinned, it can exacerbate sunburn and cause blistering after sun exposure.
Avoid the following substances when using St.-John's-wort: Amino acids tryptophan and tyrosine; amphetamines; asthma inhalants; beer, coffee, wine; chocolate, fava beans, salami, smoked or pickled foods, and yogurt; cold or hay fever medicines; diet pills; narcotics; nasal decongestants. They all contain chemicals that react adversely to hypericin, causing high blood pressure and nausea.
Avoid exposure to the sun during treatment, it can cause heightened sun sensitivity when taken in large amounts. Anyone who is hypersensitive to sunlight or is taking other photosensitizing drugs should be cautious.
Interferes with the absorption of iron and other minerals
St. John's wort should not be taken with any other antidepressants
St. John's wort should be taken with meals
Hypericum preparations must not be taken at the same time as other antidepressants.
If co-medication with coumarin-type anticoagulants is unavoidable, it must only be undertaken provided the physician closely monitors clotting parameters.
Co-medication with ciclosporin and indinavir, and for the time being, other protease inhibitors used in anti-HIV treatment, is absolutely contraindicated. - Incidence and clinical relevance of the interactions and side effects of Hypericum preparations. -- Schulz V. -- Phytomedicine. 2001 Mar;8(2):152-60.
In transplant patients, self-medication with St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) has led to a drop in plasma levels of the immunosuppressant drug cyclosporine, causing tissue rejection. - Xenobiotica 2002 -- Jun;32(6):451-78 -- Pharmacokinetic interactions between herbal remedies and medicinal drugs. -- Ioannides C.
Causes intermenstrual bleeding, delirium or mild serotonin syndrome, respectively, when used concomitantly with oral contraceptives (ethinylestradiol/desogestrel), loperamide or selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (sertaline, paroxetine, nefazodone). - Drugs 2001;61(15):2163-75 -- Interactions between herbal medicines and prescribed drugs: a systematic review. -- Izzo AA, Ernst E.
Because the majority of people who take this popular over-the-counter preparation do so without formal psychiatric evaluations, risk of hypericum-induced mania may be significant. Physicians should screen patients for a history of hypomania or mania before recommending use of St. John's wort. - Biol Psychiatry 1999 Dec 15;46(12):1707-8 -- Mania associated with St. John's wort. -- Nierenberg AA, Burt T, Matthews J, Weiss AP.
St John's wort may cause serotonin syndrome in sensitive patients. In addition, St John's wort may be associated with hair loss. For clinical reasons, it is important to recognize and report adverse reactions to herbal remedies and to document that these treatments have side effects commensurate with their potent action on brain neurochemistry. - Can J Psychiatry 2001 Feb;46(1):77-9 -- Adverse reactions to St John's Wort. -- Parker V, Wong AH, Boon HS, Seeman MV.
Results support the notion that hyperforin interferes with the storage of monoamines in synaptic vesicles - Life Sci 2002 Sep 27;71(19):2227-37 -- Inhibition of vesicular uptake of monoamines by hyperforin. -- Roz N, Mazur Y, Hirshfeld A, Rehavi M.
Because of the potential for side-effects and drug interactions it is important for anaesthetists to be aware of use. - Br J Anaesth 2002 Nov;89(5):792-5 -- Preoperative use of herbal medicines: a patient survey. -- Skinner CM, Rangasami J. -- Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
A number of clinically significant interactions have been identified with prescribed medicines including warfarin, phenprocoumon, cyclosporin, HIV protease inhibitors, theophylline, digoxin and oral contraceptives resulting in a decrease in concentration or effect of the medicines. Possible pharmacodynamic interactions with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and serotonin receptor-agonists such as triptans used to treat migraine were identified. These interactions are associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions. - Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002 Oct;54(4):349-56 -- St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum): drug interactions and clinical outcomes. -- Henderson L, Yue QY, Bergquist C, Gerden B, Arlett P.
St. John's Wort contains photosensitizing substances, which, at high dose, or during chronic use, may provoke intense dermatitis or photosensitivity. The potential occurrence of side effects with its use has led the European Agency for drug assessment and the French Medicines Agency to decree that all magistral preparations containing St. John's wort must be labeled: "Warning, risk of drug interactions". - Presse Med 2002 Sep 21;31(30):1416-22 -- Metabolic effects and drug interactions provoked by certain vegetables: grapefruit, St. John's wort and garlic -- Neuman M.
St. John's wort extract has a clear inhibitory effect on the neuronal uptake not only of serotonin, noradrenaline, and dopamine but also of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and L-glutamate. - Pharmacol Res 2003 Feb;47(2):101-9 -- Current St. John's wort research from mode of action to clinical efficacy. -- Muller WE.
St. John's wort has the potential to alter medication pharmacokinetics and the seizure threshold. - 2001 Dec;2(6):524-532 -- Herbal Medicines and Epilepsy: The Potential for Benefit and Adverse Effects. -- Spinella M.
St John's wort enormously decreases the plasma concentrations of omeprazole. - Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Mar;75(3):191-7. -- St John's wort induces both cytochrome P450 3A4-catalyzed sulfoxidation and 2C19-dependent hydroxylation of omeprazole. -- Wang LS, Zhou G, Zhu B, Wu J, Wang JG, Abd El-Aty AM, Li T, Liu J, Yang TL, Wang D, Zhong XY, Zhou HH.
St John's wort is a real drug, with real active ingredients, so naturally, it acts like a real drug, complete with a range of unfortunate side-effects. The real danger here is that SJ'sW (and herbal medicine in general) has such a whiter-than-white reputation that people under-estimate the seriousness of taking it. Few people are aware that there could be harmful interactions with other medications, so few patients tell their doctors that they are taking it - thus exacerbating the problems.
The example of St John's wort only serves to demonstrate the point that has been made throughout this thread; that herbal medicines must be treated just as any other chemical, with full evaluations of both efficacy and risk.
I'm not saying that SJW is harmless, all I'm saying is that the side-effects of SJW is markedly less than more conventional antidepressants.
What you actually said;
rockondon writes:
St. John's Wort. It has a side effect profile similar to placebo. To put it another way, its about as harmful to you as drinking water.
Now I hope you realise that those two statements are contradictory. If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you might try googling before making silly claims, or admitting when you are wrong.
There may indeed be a place for the use of SJW in treating depression, but if it is used outside of professional medical settings, in an unregulated environment, it is going to cause problems. Misinformation like that which you posted above only makes this situation much worse. Doctor and science journalist Ben Goldacre writes;
quote:So: stand by for the kind of nerdy, and usefully boring science story you’ll see in a paper when I am prime minister of the world government. In a recent study, 2,600 patients on warfarin were sent a questionnaire on what alternative therapies they took: 1,360 responded (believe me, that’s a high response rate) and a whole 19.2% of those responders were, it turned out, taking one or more complementary therapies. Ninety-two per cent of them hadn’t thought to mention this to their doctor. Only 28.3% of all respondents had even thought that herbal medicines could interfere with prescription drugs. Because hardly anybody’s telling them. And, the patients who were taking the complementary therapies — the ones you’d hope would be aware of the risks — were even less likely to think they might interfere with prescription drugs (at a statistical significance of P<0.001, which means there’s a one in 1,000 possibility of that finding occurring by chance).
If people are going to use herbal medicines, they need to be aware of the risks. Experience tells us that most will not make themselves aware of the risk, nor will the snake oil salesmen of the alt-med industry tell them of the risks. That is why I support legal controls on herbal medicine.
Well, I don't drink much, so I can probably live with that... Here's one that jumped out at me though;
quote:If co-medication with coumarin-type anticoagulants is unavoidable, it must only be undertaken provided the physician closely monitors clotting parameters.
Coumarin is an anti-coagulant chemical found in several herbs, such as vanilla grass and sweet woodruff. I occasionally pick woodruff from the wild and use it to sweeten apple juice - delicious! The coumarin is harmless in small quantities.
Of course sweet woodruff is also used as a herbal medicine, available to buy online. One site thoughtfully gives this warning;
quote:Caution: In large doses, sweet woodruff can cause internal bleeding. Do not use it if you are pregnant or when taking conventional medication for circulatory problems.
Conventional medicines. Not herbals though. I guess that must be fine then.
Wanna bet that no-one out there is taking both woodruff and St John's Wort?
Some people are reliant on drugs when they don't have to be. I know people addicted to meds and what is supposed to be treating them is actually the cause of their problems.
And some people are dependant on herbs. Over-medicalisation is a genuine concern, but it isn't really the focus of this thread. Nor are vaccines, but I feel that I must address this.
There is also some concern that things like autism (which is dramatically increasing) is due to government mandated vaccinations.
Yes, from wingnuts. There is no proven link.
The claim is that "thimerosal," an additive in vaccines made from the compound, mercury, is the main cause.
And in the UK, the claim was that the MMR vaccine was causing autism, yet there has been no dramatic rise in autism to coincide with the release of the MMR. There has however, been an increase in measles, one of the illnesses the vaccine is intended to fight. That's because parents, worried by scare stories and dishonest journalism, were scared into leaving their children un-vaccinated. This has actually cost lives.
In the US and elsewhere, the concerns about vaccines have targeted other drugs. It's a fashion thing.
A court ruling recently determined that no significant link can be made.
More than one court. This is because no significant link can be made. Of course that doesn't stop the kooks.
The debate is back and forth,
Yes it is, between doctors and scientists on the one hand and wingnuts and kooks on the other. Honestly, the "debate" is about as valid as that between science and creationism.
I honestly can't say whether there is a link or not.
Then why comment at all? If you're going to start spreading scare stories about vaccines for children, vaccines that undoubtedly save lives, you really ought to have something to back it up. If you don't, then in my opinion, you should refrain from comment.
One thing is for certain, it seems to me. Something in the environment or something we are ingesting is the cause, because there is no reason why there should be an increase as dramatic as it is unless it is something we are regularly in contact with.
Or the rise could be simply due to improved diagnosis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never claimed he was being persecuted. I said I think he has been misrepresented.
Given that these misrepresentations have led to his being professionally destroyed, it amounts to the same thing.
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.
The jury is not out. In the case of medical doctors the jury is the General Medical Council. The GMC finds those charges to be very much substantiated.
If you don't like Mercola, there are lots of other sites where the allegations against Wakefield are disputed. Here is another.
Melanie Phillips!? That's your voice of reason? Melanie-frickin-Phillips? An insane creationist global warming denier is someone who you think I should listen to on matters of medical science? Quick, get me some herbs, I may have split my side laughing. Mostly she recycles Wakefield's own denials, hardly an unbiased source. Melanie Phillips knows jack shit about science and she presents no evidence of any link between MMR and autism in her article.
(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.
I certainly feel that it tarnishes his reputation and effectively discredits him as a source.
Oh, by the way, I got a new office chair recently and since, I've not been trampled by a rhinoceros. So... office chairs protect from rhino attack?
Also, how much are you paying for that coconut oil? $17.45 a pint it says on Mercola's site. Jebus! You know that you can get it from local Indian and Pakistani grocers for about a couple of quid, right?
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
Nice editing job there. Here's the full version;
quote:Few people realize, however, that baking soda also has potent medicinal properties. 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, and even cancer.
Cheap trick that. Mercola's page is full of references to the supposed curative powers of baking soda. He specifically mentions flu, again and again. He goes on to eulogise the use of baking soda as a treatment against cancer of all things! Ask yourself what Mercola is trying to tell us with this "historical" analysis. The page ends with a link to his "Top 12 all-natural cancer prevention strategies", which include an awful lot of the things that he sells... It's all just advertising, mixed in with grotesque pseudo-science. Amusing - he quotes an 86 year old pamphlet from Arm & Hammer! - but ultimately just advertising.
And about the cancer-caused-by-fungus thing . . . this is someone talking about candida.
No it is not. It is Dr. Tullio Simoncini, a hilarious wackaloon, who has written a book entitled Cancer is a Fungus. He means that literally. He is suggesting that cancerous tumours are actually fungal growths, an argument so insane that it boggles the mind. He thinks that they are fungi because they are white. There is a video on Mercola's site, with Simoncini being interviewed. Unfortunately for me, I know a bit about fungi, so I really couldn't watch past this comment from the insipid host;
quote: Ah, see, because yeast and fungi are white. Anybody take a mushroom, crush it up; it's a white mass.
The stupid, it burns. That is a top contender for the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. There are thousands of coloured mushrooms. Even the button mushrooms you buy in Tesco will stain pink/grey when crushed. These guys are unbelievable. Simoncini repeatedly stresses that tumours are white, as if this observation were somehow meaningful. Mercola sees fit to link to this piffle on his site. This is a very good reason not to trust his opinions on matters scientific.
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
Be serious. If you are overweight, eating fat is far less healthy than reducing fat intake. this is not complicated. Coconut fat may be a very in healthy fat in comparison to other fats but if you are seriously obese, no fat can truly be considered healthy, certainly not in the naive sense that you suggested.
Firstly, cases {of measles and mumps} have not "boomed,"
I repeat;
quote: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.
Vaccination could have prevented those cases.
and adverse reactions are far fewer than the number of cases because healthy people's immune systems fight these illnesses off.
Adverse reactions? What, like death? Avoidable death. That is adverse.
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.
And the net effect has been that children have been left unvaccinated. The wider vaccine denying crowd (including Mercola) and the media must take their share of the blame of course, for creating a wider panic about vaccines in general, but that does not excuse Wakefield's cavalier actions based as they are upon flimsy non-evidence.
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?
Because the media is made up of shallow, scientifically illiterate fuckwits? Or perhaps it's not actually true, given the number of stories about hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA.
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?
Because the complete lack of any scientific rigour that characterises the alt-med fraternity stands out as being a clear and present danger to public health, with little or no oversight. Pharmaceutical companies have oversight. They actually test their products. It may not be perfect, but it functions. Who discovered the ill effects of Zyprexa? Was it a herbalist or homeopath?
I meant that precisely: he would have us steer clear of all healthy nutritional supplements.
Look, either provide a citation or quit slagging the guy. If that's his view, it should be easy for you to back up. For the record, I fail to see why a healthy person should require food supplements in the first place. I've always found that actual food was quite adequate.
Well congratulations. A whole post with hardly a mention of Andrew Wakefield and not a shred of evidence that MMR causes autism. Kudos. Are you ever going to provide evidence that MMR is linked to autism? Or cite those monkey studies? Or show that coconut oil fights cancer? I guess not, because you're not actually debating...
These examples are pretty much strawmen relative to my point.
No they aren't. They are all natural organic herbs which happen to have an active effect on our bodies. That makes them drugs, just as if they were synthetic chemicals. How does it not?
They have been deemed exclusively illegal by government...
Are you saying that it's only a drug if it's illegal? We're not talking about the legal sense of a "controlled drug" here.
...due to the danger they pose to the people.
Are you saying that it's only a drug if it's unsafe? Many synthetic drugs are perfectly safe. Does that mean that they're not really drugs?
The majority of naturals sold in the health stores pose no health risk.
Firstly, you just pulled that claim out of a certain orifice.
Secondly, St. John's Wort poses a health risk. Does that mean that it is a drug, even though it's a herb?
For the most part, the only side effects are positive
Again, you made this up. Citation needed. I would be especially curious to witness a "positive side effect".
whereas the majority of pharms have a list of negative side effects all of the way up to death.
So if a synthetic drug doesn't have any negative side effects and can't kill you, does that mean it's no longer a drug?
Regulation is all about money, power and control.
Nice paranoid fantasy you got there. Regulation isn't even the issue I'm addressing here. For now I just want to know what criteria you use to define the word "drug". You seem to think that the word is somehow derogatory. I disagree. It is a neutral term that describes certain chemical substances. I think that the definition cited by Percy ("any chemical or combination of chemicals that has biological activity within the body above and beyond their purely nutritional value.") is a fair and useful one. What's your definition?
The last letter was 2006. Do you feel his site didn't make the appropriate change?
His site still makes unsubstantiated claims about products like coconut oil. It doesn't really matter if he has been forced to make the appropriate changes. One offence I could overlook, but twice shows that he doesn't really care whether he meets the FDA standards or not. His open hostility towards such standards is all over his site. I find that pretty damning. I can't help but suspect that Mercola is against the FDA because he is the exact type of charlatan that the FDA is there to guard against.
Are his claims worse than those put out by pharmaceutical companies that also make supplements?
That's not relevant. No-one was talking about by claims made by the pharma companies.
I'm not sure what relevance you think the supplements have. I don't approve of food supplements making claims that they can help healthy people who already get plenty of nutrition. I suspect that they are more flim-flam, whether they come from herbalists or pharmaceutical companies, although I have to admit that I am not familiar with any evidence either way.
Why wouldn't he cash the checks?
There is no reason why he shouldn't...except that he criticises "Big Pharma" for being a profiteering racket. You can't both make that claim and sell unproven treatments. That is simple hypocrisy. It's not so much his income that I am criticising, it's his hypocritical bullshit.
I feel it is a big mistake to assume any company is looking out for our best interests. Advertisements are designed to make us think they are. Companies push the envelope. Does that make them all dishonest?
It's still a world of buyer beware.
No, I'm sorry, but it's not. At least it certainly shouoldn't be whne it comes to medicines. The FDA regulations (and similar regulations in most countires) are there for a very good reason. they are there to protect patients from the horrifc effects of unfettered capitalism in health care. The days of literal snake-oil salesmen have been ended by such regulations.
Patients have a right to expect a certain minimum level of scientific oversight from their medicines. Lack of such oversight leads to exploitation and even damage to health (as in the recent Traditional Chinese Medicine poisoning in Britain). Simply saying caveat emptor is insufficient.
Oh, and as for advertising, I agree with this guy...
™ Version 4.2
