Chemical lies? [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

mashman

18th January 2011, 12:12

I was watchin telly last night, well, kinda... and that Menevit and Elevit ad came on... blah blah take before having a baby etc... it reduces neural tube defects by 92%... Now that's a pretty bold claim and one that I would have thought was utterly unproveable. Yes, unproveable. That in itself is a pretty bold statement
considering it flies in the face of research produced and validated by the Medical profession. Where the fuck do I get off questioning wether it works or not. Obviously you'll want to tune out around about now. Bye.

For those who bother to read the rest: Think about it for 1 second. How do they know? How can they claim a 92% reduction? I mean, we have 3 kids, all healthy, never any problems and yet 2 years ago we miscarried. My wife is very careful about what she eats etc... so there really was no real reason for it... never again, I went and got snipped.

So how do you prove that it prevents 92% of neural tube defects? In my eyes you can't, unless you're sample group is everyone. Did they test 2 people?, 4?, 4000? how many is reflective of the population?

Now i'm not saying that it doesn't work, but taking that 92% on blind faith is utterly rediculous. I'm as guilty as the next person... but why would I question what the experts are saying? Easy in this case, I don't believe that they can actually prove it!

This isn't an isolated incident and we are constantly being experimented on under the guise of preventation (deny it and you're really fuckin ignorant, drugs take 10 years to get on to the shelves and are tested on who? and for what environment? :facepalm:... What are the effects from year 11 onwards)... Look at some of the scare mongering these days and some of the "connections" that researchers are coming up with. One of the more recent ones being household chemicals linked to Breast Cancer!!! WTF! It does kinda makes sense though... you prepare your food on a nice clean germ free surface... but that surface is now covered in chemicals. How did we ever survive without these products? It must be a miracle, because we definately have and even the most sterile environments, hospitals, have infections that spread from time to time, SHIT HAPPENS, people get ill and die. Who's to say that the problems with our food aren't actually caused by the amount of chemicals that animals eat? Their enviroments are treated for longer production amongst other things... Why did they take Lead out of fuel? Why did they try to remove Mercury from fillings? the list is practically endless... It's the blind leading the blind and hoping for the best... if the best is the desired outcome :shit:

Obviously there must be some benefits from some drugs. Herceptin for example. It shows real promise, has some pretty serious side effects (so does chemo), but shows promise... and yet not everyone's going to get it because it's too expensive :blink: and your government won't pay for it (voluntary euthanasia?). A conspiracy theorist might try to link the household chemicals causing Breast Cancer, to those who provide Herceptin, but that's another subject, well tangent. I may well be way off target wit that conspiracy, but I don't doubt for a minute that that practice exists in one form or another (hey, if you've got the virus and the cure and no morals)... after all, vaccines and medications are generally derived from the "cause" :yes:

Anyhoo, a cause for concern. Are all mothers tested for Hepatitis B? I'm guessing no. Why not? Because of this and its Mother's status unknown (http://www.adhb.govt.nz/newborn/Guidelines/Infection/Immunisation/VaccinationSchedule.htm) (the test probably costs too much). If mothers aren't tested (probably saves money), then your new born child will receive the Hepatits B vaccination. And according to this blog page (http://blog.imva.info/medicine/fight-devils) (take it how you want), it's fuckin dangerous and unnecessary.

So how much are you willing to take things on faith these days. Mine was shattered decades ago... yet I still have to live in YOUR fucked up world!

You spray chemicals everywhere and pump your bodies full of "wellness" products. Does that have repercussions? I think we're seeing this slowly but surely. Your world and humanity is being fucked over on your behalf... Please vote National or Labour at the next election, fuck you very much.

Rant off...

Hitcher

18th January 2011, 12:21

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumer. It's a practice of which I disapprove. How many punters are going to do the research necessary before they go and harangue their GPs to get what it is they think they need, after having been made aware of all of the so-called benefits of drugs with scant regard having been given to the snide effects?

Hair loss, erection loss, tobacco loss, weight-loss and other drugs, all designed to appeal largely to vanity, rather than to reality or a carefully considered diet and exercise regime.

I once told Mrs H that I needed a course of Propecia because the fine print said it would make me important. She advised me to get better reading glasses or a spell checker.

oneofsix

18th January 2011, 12:24

I once told Mrs H that I needed a course of Propecia because the fine print said it would make me important. She advised me to get better reading glasses or a spell checker.

you are lucky she didn't just say "yes" :msn-wink:

avgas

18th January 2011, 13:01

My wifes on levit thingamagig.
I reckon cos she finks she can saves the babys from me stupid.
But me stupids are genetics, and will gets them.

onearmedbandit

18th January 2011, 13:11

yet I still have to live in YOUR fucked up world!

Oi, you owe me rent!

george formby

18th January 2011, 13:21

You think about what you see on the box too Mashman?

I feel a lot better now. Not pharmaceutical related but the same advertising idea. A mate came in the shop with his wife's water biscuits yesterday, the low fat ones he had been told to get. 99.7% fat free no less. The ingredients? Flour, water, sugar, salt & baking powder. Dupe.

I'm appalled at the crap sold to us on the pretext it will keep us safer & healthier. The current fad with antiseptic hand lotions I find particularly scary.
Don't bother washing your hands, rub them with our muck which kills "99% of germs tested" (how many?) but once the alcohol has evaporated their is even more crap to breed in.

Not too long now before we are shelling out squillions for pills which will allow us to be long lived, obese, immobile, crap eaters. Ooh happy day, a cure for stupidity just around the corner.

I guess the slogan should be "Buy into our promise but don't read the small print"

oneofsix

18th January 2011, 13:28

Scuba_Steve

18th January 2011, 13:33

Saw a test on those handsanitisers, vs soap, vs just water vs anti-bacterial handcleaners. the Alcohol things came off worse than plan water, especially around chicken, and plain water wasn't that far off the rest with old fashioned soap being just as good.

Damm Giggity & at-least with the likes of good old soap your immune system gets a chance to grow, that would be my biggest concern with products like detol hand sanitizer will kids just end up "boy in bubbles" through 'over-protection'

oneofsix

18th January 2011, 13:46

Damm Giggity & at-least with the likes of good old soap your immune system gets a chance to grow, that would be my biggest concern with products like detol hand sanitizer will kids just end up "boy in bubbles" through 'over-protection'

The food lies worry me the most. I know where I am with soap, the old fashion self cleaning cake of soap. With food it is so hard to tell what's what and even the 'experts' don't know whats good and what is bad, example eggs were good then demonised for high cholesterol for decades and how good protein cause they discovered the body knows the cholesterol in eggs and does absorb it. Will it be the same for nature sugar vs artificial? :devil2:

george formby

18th January 2011, 13:53

Damm Giggity & at-least with the likes of good old soap your immune system gets a chance to grow, that would be my biggest concern with products like detol hand sanitizer will kids just end up "boy in bubbles" through 'over-protection'

The fear mongering by producers of household cleaners, soaps, sanitizers etc is causing people to become anal about cleanliness. Unfortunately it doe's not make them keep things clean but rather buy the magic bullet to put on their dirty cloth & smear on the bench top.
Perhaps it will work the other way, we are definitely not getting more hygienic & by adding all these chemicals to the mix some people may be born with bullet proof immune systems while the rest suffer allergies to everything.

Personally, I quite like a nice bit of fresh muck & filth.

george formby

18th January 2011, 13:55

The food lies worry me the most. I know where I am with soap, the old fashion self cleaning cake of soap. With food it is so hard to tell what's what and even the 'experts' don't know whats good and what is bad, example eggs were good then demonised for high cholesterol for decades and how good protein cause they discovered the body knows the cholesterol in eggs and does absorb it. Will it be the same for nature sugar vs artificial? :devil2:

If your not sure just wait a few months & you will read something different.

Meanwhile wash your meat, fruit & veg in round up & get as much aspartame into you as possible. Might as well get in line for the big payouts.

mashman

18th January 2011, 13:58

Oi, you owe me rent!

heh, the place is a mess... until you tidy the place up i'm witholding it :)

mashman

18th January 2011, 14:04

The food lies worry me the most. I know where I am with soap, the old fashion self cleaning cake of soap. With food it is so hard to tell what's what and even the 'experts' don't know whats good and what is bad, example eggs were good then demonised for high cholesterol for decades and how good protein cause they discovered the body knows the cholesterol in eggs and does absorb it. Will it be the same for nature sugar vs artificial? :devil2:

Aye, tis the food that worries me too... and example... cover cows in drench? what does that do to the cow. Tainted milk? Beef?, what about the legacy of growth hormone... who knows what the byproduct is then shat out and fertilizes the ground that they then eat from again... all to make the cows more productive :facepalm: land treatments to get more out of the grass that poson the waterways etc... it's a minefield. All in the name of better productivity :weird:

oneofsix

18th January 2011, 14:09

Aye, tis the food that worries me too... and example... cover cows in drench? what does that do to the cow. Tainted milk? Beef?, what about the legacy of growth hormone... who knows what the byproduct is then shat out and fertilizes the ground that they then eat from again... all to make the cows more productive :facepalm: land treatments to get more out of the grass that poson the waterways etc... it's a minefield. All in the name of better productivity :weird:

milks a good one. A natural product, well except for concerns above. I heard they break it down and then rebuild it into the product for the market, skim (sorry low fat) added calcium etc. Why not just pasturise and sell like they did in the glass bottle home delivery days? Why does it have to be 'processed'?

mashman

18th January 2011, 14:16

milks a good one. A natural product, well except for concerns above. I heard they break it down and then rebuild it into the product for the market, skim (sorry low fat) added calcium etc. Why not just pasturise and sell like they did in the glass bottle home delivery days? Why does it have to be 'processed'?

a mate of mine's mum is a nutritionist and she's says by the time they've boiled it up, pasteurised it or whatever they end up doing to it for the marketplace, ther's next to no beneficial "goodness" left... I'll ask him if she has any doco...

heh, a conspiracy theorist might say that they're processing out the chemicals :shifty: but it would only be a theory...

oldrider

18th January 2011, 14:27

To question is not condemnation of a practice but failure to question may well be condemnation of a child!

The last people on earth that I would take at face value are vaccination and pharmaceutical conglomerates of the world!

Include those (the real ones) who control the finances of the world (they care not who make the laws types) with the above group!

Politicians are but puppets of these organisations and most of us don't trust "them" and yet they (the politicians) are but servants of the shady groups above!

God help us if we don't ask questions of their seemingly less than honest practices and intentions for "our" collective well being! :scratch:

slowpoke

18th January 2011, 14:50

mashman

18th January 2011, 15:01

Duuuuuude, in the time it's taken to write your rant you could have read the scientific paper and answered your own question.

:lol: if I coulda found it I would have read it... although in this case you'd have to be insane to just swallow it just for the elevit :shifty:... how can you redo the experiment? It's a pregnancy... you'd need to time travel to prove it.

ellipsis

18th January 2011, 16:42

...there seems to be a serious lack of 'believers' knocking the shit out of us 'conspiracy theorists' on here at the moment...odd...

Mully

18th January 2011, 17:31

Milts

18th January 2011, 17:46

I'm trying to break the OP's "rant" down into key points (arguments), and I'm having trouble.

So you're claiming that a company is selling a product using misrepresentative statistics or selecting partial information to advertise to the consumer? Wow, big news. Huge conspiracy right there.
I wonder what the average horsepower of a new motorcycle is compared to that in the brochure. I wonder how many advertisements for vehicles which will do 350 km/h point out that at those speeds you'll run out of gas in twenty minutes?

Yes, claims made by marketers are usually out of proportion, misinformation, or partial information. I for one would never use alcohol hand sanitiser because it's been clinically proven to be relatively pointless (as OP pointed out). THIS IS NOTHING NEW. You can find examples of this in nearly everything. The advertisers will tell you one fact (it kills germs) while ignoring the wealth of professional research and evidence (alluded to by Mully) that it's generally harmful to use in a domestic setting.

However, there is usually some relation between the marketing line and reality. A bike advertised as 180 horsepower will probably put out more power than one advertised as having 170 horsepower. Antibacterial sprays will kill a lot of bacteria on a dry surface. Whether this is desirable or not isn't mentioned, but it doesn't make it any less true.

As to "Think about it for 1 second. How do they know? How can they claim a 92% reduction?" This has to be either one of the most uninformed statements or one of the most retarded statements I've read this week. Of course a drug company is going to emphasise some aspects of their drug while skimming over others, and use whichever test data suits them, but if a drug has been around for a while, and has been through a number of randomised controlled trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial), you have a pretty fucking good idea whether it works or not. Some examples include the fact that viagra will cause an errection in men, loritadine will reduce alergic reactions in a large percentage of the population, and morphine will reduce subjective pain in a patient.

Now how the fuck else are you going to measure the response if not by numbers (percentages)? "A few" more patients felt less pain on morphine? "A roomfull" of patients felt less pain on morphine? Or "98% of tested" patients felt less pain on morphine?

What you have to watch out for is that a marketing company will give you the aspects of the stats which suit them and ignore the rest. A RCT will examine several effects of a drug and not others. Of course the ads don't mention this, but it doesn't neccessarily make the success of a drug any less real.

I don't know if you're aware, but Menevit at least has been tested for years. Several aspects of it's effects have been measured, and (you think your 92% was high) it improves successful pregnancy rates by 240% (38.4% successful pregnancy rate vs 16% - 16*2.4=38). Of course, the ad won't tell you that this was in a sample of men who had existing fertility problems, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are a man with fertility problems then you are more than twice as likely to concieve if you use menevit. (Source) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17550489)
If you really want to know how they can prove it has an impact, this is how:

METHODS: Sixty couples with severe male factor infertility were enrolled in a prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Male participants were randomly assigned to take either one capsule per day of the Menevit antioxidant or an identical in appearance placebo for three months prior to their partner's IVF cycle. The primary outcome was cleavage stage embryo quality and the secondary outcomes were oocyte fertilisation rate, pregnancy rates and treatment side-effects. Approval by the local Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained prior to the commencement of this study.

RESULTS: The antioxidant group recorded a statistically significant improvement in viable pregnancy rate (38.5% of transferred embryos resulting in a viable fetus at 13 weeks gestation) compared to the control group (16% viable pregnancy). No significant changes in oocyte fertilisation rate or embryo quality were detected between the antioxidant and the placebo groups. Side-effects on the Menevit antioxidant were rare (8%) and mild in nature.

Quit hatin' on people who study for ten years and carry out obscenely elaborate experiments before having their words twisted by marketing staff.

slowpoke

18th January 2011, 18:12

:lol: if I coulda found it I would have read it... although in this case you'd have to be insane to just swallow it just for the elevit :shifty:... how can you redo the experiment? It's a pregnancy... you'd need to time travel to prove it.

Who "swallows" anything they see on TV? Please don't tell me you watch it and expect serious, informed, unbiased reporting? Good god, excuse the pun, even the gospel on sunday mornings isn't actually "gospel".

But it's pretty simple stuff: take 10,000 (for example) women and give them nothing, sit back and monitor whatever you are interested in. Take another 10,000 women with similar lifestyle/habits give them Elevit or Stoli or whatever, sit back and monitor the same criteria. You simply compare the two and note the difference, if any. It's not that hard is it?

NZ and Australia have combined resources (lots of good info here http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/) and standards when it comes to importing food, health claims associated with food etc. With advertisng and labelling in Aust/NZ: if you can't prove it, you can't say it.

Edit: Milts was sooooo much better, soooo much faster, and sooo much more effective and in typical scientific fashion typed, printed, bound and published a nicely prepared thesis while I hunted and pecked a coupla lousy sentences.

Milts

18th January 2011, 18:49

...there seems to be a serious lack of 'believers' knocking the shit out of us 'conspiracy theorists' on here at the moment...odd...

Maybe they were working during the afternoon and had to wait until evening to engage in pointless discussions with uninformed individuals about topics which should be so clear cut as to be undebatable.

scissorhands

18th January 2011, 20:36

Maybe they were working during the afternoon and had to wait until evening to engage in pointless discussions with uninformed individuals about topics which should be so clear cut as to be undebatable.

If your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I grew up around many groups and cliques and many are good white folks who work hard, watch the news and believe what they are told and obey. They are house nigger inner circle party members and enjoy privilege, wealth and position relative to

Fringe dwelling malcontented anarchist's, renegades and hippies.

One thing I have noticed about the good white folks who are compliant and obey the overlords, is that the far right rogering they receive tends to make them more group conscious, and any wavering of belief from the collective consciousness of society tends to be like a wind over a house of cards. So, rather than the whole thing come tumbling down, any challenge to the status quo is poo pooed without thought out of fear of disintegration of the collective self.

Holistically and acceptingly, without these consumers I would not have cheap second hand goods to buy and use, or enjoy the fruits of their hard labour....

But overall, following the leader and marching to the same drum creates a mono culture and like mono culture farming techniques, the lack of natural balance creates illness within the eco system that requires science and allopathic medicine to step up and maintain profitable function for commercial interests.

But yeah, I really hate those medical stories on the TV news just before sports. They are an advertisement!! on the news!!

Smifffy

18th January 2011, 20:57

I once told Mrs H that I needed a course of Propecia because the fine print said it would make me important. She advised me to get better reading glasses or a spell checker.

I wager that improved reading glasses would be more illuminating than a spell checker.

I may even enter a side bet that a spell checker would return a result of no spelling error found.

ellipsis

18th January 2011, 20:59

Maybe they were working during the afternoon and had to wait until evening to engage in pointless discussions with uninformed individuals about topics which should be so clear cut as to be undebatable.

...maybe some of us are clever enough to not have to cart ourselves off to somebody elses place of work...if its so pointless, whats yer point... who wants to debate with overly informed zealots...

mashman

18th January 2011, 21:11

blah...

Quit hatin' on people who study for ten years and carry out obscenely elaborate experiments before having their words twisted by marketing staff.

Perhaps you didn't read this bit: "Now i'm not saying that it doesn't work, but taking that 92% on blind faith is utterly rediculous. I'm as guilty as the next person"

The elevit + menevit were just an example. I've seen the ad 10's of times and never really thought about it, as some probably wouldn't (obviously you all have :))... and as I said before, i'm not saying it doesn't work, but measuring sperm "potency" v's measuring birth defects, for fucksake please, apples and oranges?

Anyhoo, my rant is more about what we take on blind faith and throw into ourselves and our environment to aid our existence... a correlation that doesn't always happen, especially when there's $$$ involved... but how does the layman find this out? We can't all study for 10 years to find out what 1 drug does. It's a huge abuse of trust. And it is abused. The science may well be spot on and the debate over the greater good always comes down to the omlettes and broken eggs argument, which to a point i'm happy with... but it's abused and how can the layman decipher which is which? I'm just utterly fed up with seeing people having the wool pulled over their eyes, then summarilly stapled to their forehead and chin for good measure, being told to suck it up and then asked where their thank you is... just so some cunt can collect some $$$.

This is not science for the benefit of mankind, and trying to excuse it as anything other than that is ignorance (yes i realise the irony, but i'm not claiming i can save people... just the world :killingme)... as is being told, oh so you believe everything you read or see on TV, oh you didn't know, these guys are real scientists who have studied for years, it's the fault of the marketing department, it's the few unscrupulous ones that give us all a bad name blah blah blah... i have an excellent selection of rugs you can brush that shit under if you're running out.

Yes marketing and advertising are gonna cherry pick, but come on, that's just about the generation of sales and revenue, why would people expect to be told the truth :blink:. You're supposed to be offering something that has been prepared with the best of intentions, created by experts, something that "helps" you with your problem... it ain't the marketing departments fault that it fucks people up or kills people and has been killing people for years... and when the bottom falls out and new research finds that it's causing more damage than good!!! eh, hang on, wait, what, new research says what??? so the science is flawed? ahhh but it was so young and we needed to validate the $$$ it took to create the drug in the first place... worry not, omlettes and eggs, bit of spin, hide the dishonesty, blame the marketing department... i've still got them rugs.

My point... I believe that people deserve more than excuses, stats that can be dismissed at the touch of a keyboard, and trust in those who claim to be experts. Is that so much to ask for?

Tell you what, let's blame it all on smoking and we'll call it quits...

Milts

18th January 2011, 21:48

who wants to debate with overly informed zealots...

Me. I'd probably learn more than if I were debating with an uninformed zealot.

ellipsis

18th January 2011, 21:53

Me. I'd probably learn more than if I were debating with an uninformed zealot.

...touche'...

Milts

18th January 2011, 22:01

Perhaps you didn't read this bit: "Now i'm not saying that it doesn't work, but taking that 92% on blind faith is utterly rediculous. I'm as guilty as the next person"

The elevit + menevit were just an example. I've seen the ad 10's of times and never really thought about it, as some probably wouldn't (obviously you all have :))... and as I said before, i'm not saying it doesn't work, but measuring sperm "potency" v's measuring birth defects, for fucksake please, apples and oranges?

If you read the research into the drugs you'll notice they measure them as two seperate outcomes of the same drug.

Anyhoo, my rant is more about what we take on blind faith and throw into ourselves and our environment to aid our existence... a correlation that doesn't always happen, especially when there's $$$ involved... but how does the layman find this out? We can't all study for 10 years to find out what 1 drug does. It's a huge abuse of trust. And it is abused. The science may well be spot on and the debate over the greater good always comes down to the omlettes and broken eggs argument, which to a point i'm happy with... but it's abused and how can the layman decipher which is which? I'm just utterly fed up with seeing people having the wool pulled over their eyes, then summarilly stapled to their forehead and chin for good measure, being told to suck it up and then asked where their thank you is... just so some cunt can collect some $$$.

My experience with the new zealand public is that they take very little advertising on blind faith, because they are too cynical. They do however love their 'conventional wisdom' be it wisdom or no.

Trust is abused in every single professional relationship (real estate agent, car salesman, IT contractor, telephone provider, you name it). This is not a medical issue this is a societal issue. Not all medicine comes down to the omlette argument (although you're right, a lot does) - I'd say it often comes down to the 'no better alternative' argument. Most cynics/conspiracy theorists who become very very sick/injured either end up converts, hypocrites or dead. While the 'just so some cunt can collect some $$$' is again a product of the society not the industry. Don't forget that money also goes towards employing a significant proportion of the population (as well as funding the odd genuine life saving drug).

This is not science for the benefit of mankind, and trying to excuse it as anything other than that is ignorance (yes i realise the irony, but i'm not claiming i can save people... just the world :killingme)... as is being told, oh so you believe everything you read or see on TV, oh you didn't know, these guys are real scientists who have studied for years, it's the fault of the marketing department, it's the few unscrupulous ones that give us all a bad name blah blah blah... i have an excellent selection of rugs you can brush that shit under if you're running out.

Yes marketing and advertising are gonna cherry pick, but come on, that's just about the generation of sales and revenue, why would people expect to be told the truth :blink:. You're supposed to be offering something that has been prepared with the best of intentions, created by experts, something that "helps" you with your problem... it ain't the marketing departments fault that it fucks people up or kills people and has been killing people for years... and when the bottom falls out and new research finds that it's causing more damage than good!!! eh, hang on, wait, what, new research says what??? so the science is flawed? ahhh but it was so young and we needed to validate the $$$ it took to create the drug in the first place... worry not, omlettes and eggs, bit of spin, hide the dishonesty, blame the marketing department... i've still got them rugs.

My point... I believe that people deserve more than excuses, stats that can be dismissed at the touch of a keyboard, and trust in those who claim to be experts. Is that so much to ask for?

The vast majority of this shit does work well, the areas in which it does not work (adverse reactions etc) are well documented and people who go through the proper channels rather than buying off the net are well informed of these risks. Most of this has been prepared with the best of intentions and the best testing possible. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in any industry, which are examples of unscrupulous individuals or organisations. However the total deaths due to things which were supposed to help but didn't (where the patient hadn't been informed of the risks they CHOSE to accept) are absolutely minimal. And harshly punished. And repayed with the betterment or saving of the lives of the other members of society.

Also, still trying to discern your core argument here beyond 'fuck the professionals I hate them and everything they do

scissorhands

18th January 2011, 22:06

Me. I'd probably learn more than if I were debating with an uninformed zealot.

My apologies, people need to get ready for work tomorrow, and sleep like babies

The whole 'helps more than harms argument' is lost on me. Big Pharma is evil, you are evil.

My parents and others close to me, experienced a loss of quality of life due to their relationship with their GP, and his 'take this pill for that' approach to health.

Synthetic drug therapy has little place in my life.

I will continue to see a Chinese herbalist prescribing natural plant medicine in raw disgusting tasting form, but thank you for your informed opinion which I heartily disagree with, and strongly advise those with an interest in their own health to question, and not be dictated too by arrogance and superiority from those in positions of authority

mashman

18th January 2011, 22:33

If you read the research into the drugs you'll notice they measure them as two seperate outcomes of the same drug.

Fair enough. I can understand the ability to measure the men, spurt into a beaker, oooo you have more and stronger swimmers... But from what i've read, just because there's a high risk of "defect" doesn't mean that the child will be impaired in any way when born... that's my point in regards to elevit and the 92% claim. 90% (ass hat stat) of that may have been a natural occurence :).

My experience with the new zealand public is that they take very little advertising on blind faith, because they are too cynical. They do however love their 'conventional wisdom' be it wisdom or no.

I agree to an extent (cynicism not being the overriding factor, more it's not on your mind until it is), but that goes for everyone in the world, NZ'ers aren't that special :drool:

Trust is abused in every single professional relationship (real estate agent, car salesman, IT contractor, telephone provider, you name it) and societal stuff...

None of the above provide you with something that'll kill or maim you and not all medicine will kill or main you either... but medicine certainly has the edge in both of those departments.

:rofl:@ money and it's ways... i'm familiar with it... and you could do exactly the same things without money. Probably be a damned site more effective than with it... no budget constraints :) I dread to think what we may have achieved had money not been an issue, and it ALWAYS is...

The vast majority of this shit does work well, the areas in which it does not work (adverse reactions etc) are well documented and people who go through the proper channels rather than buying off the net are well informed of these risks. Most of this has been prepared with the best of intentions and the best testing possible. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in any industry, which are examples of unscrupulous individuals or organisations. However the total deaths due to things which were supposed to help but didn't (where the patient hadn't been informed of the risks they CHOSE to accept) are absolutely minimal. And harshly punished. And repayed with the betterment or saving of the lives of the other members of society.

I agree and that was pretty much what I was getting at. Having said that, I think we're far too short sighted in terms of diagnosis and treatment en masse. I'm not saying en masse treatment doesn't work, but it does kill and we're constantly seeing new research that links "stuff" to health issues... "stuff" once being thought to have been the latest and greatest, set in stone (so why create the next latest and greatest?) My ideal, heh, people should be baselined once a year from the age of 16 onwards. If they become ill, compare the current results to the last set of results... much clearer idea of how to treat an individuals personal physiology. This would also aid with clinical trials etc... $$$ prohibitive. Get rid of the money and you can do it :)

Also, still trying to discern your core argument here beyond 'fuck the professionals I hate them and everything they do

:facepalm: not at all. Nothing happens without them. Shame in some cases their work is abused and let down by "the system"

No argument really, just fed up with the shoulder slopers getting away with shitty practices and to hell with the consequences, even if it means someone elses life, or lives

rwh

18th January 2011, 22:59

My ideal, heh, people should be baselined once a year from the age of 16 onwards. If they become ill, compare the current results to the last set of results... much clearer idea of how to treat an individuals personal physiology. This would also aid with clinical trials etc... $$$ prohibitive. Get rid of the money and you can do it :)

Yeah, you'd especially need to get rid of the health insurance. With that much info available (and they'd insist on it), if it's useful, then nobody who needed insurance could afford it.

Richard

mashman

18th January 2011, 23:13

Yeah, you'd especially need to get rid of the health insurance. With that much info available (and they'd insist on it), if it's useful, then nobody who needed insurance could afford it.

Richard

:rofl: aye, most derifinately... I wonder if they kinda do this already? except they get you to sign a declaration to say that you haven't hidden any injury or hidden some form of health issue... are they "allowed" to find out come claim time? or are we covered by doctor patient priviledge? I'm guessing the former... gotta protect the money :killingme

avgas

19th January 2011, 06:59

:lol: if I coulda found it I would have read it... although in this case you'd have to be insane to just swallow it just for the elevit :shifty:... how can you redo the experiment? It's a pregnancy... you'd need to time travel to prove it.
What usually happens is this:
- Find active enzyme 'x' that does stuff
- Inject into test trial of 100 pregnant rats (group a)
- Compare against test group b
- Jumble ratio of decreased stupid rats.
e.g. group b has 50 stupid rats, group a has 3 stupid rats
therefore y % (no its not 47.....its some other crazy figure like 80%) decrease thanks to the use of enzyme x.

Basically take any statistic with a grain of salt - stats don't count for shit these days as the people doing them have no understanding of what it means.
Correlation != Causality
e.g. 52% decrease is wild cat population is not due to 67% increase in Chinese food.

Pixie

19th January 2011, 07:05

My experience with the new zealand public is that they take very little advertising on blind faith, because they are too cynical. They do however love their 'conventional wisdom' be it wisdom or no.

[/SIZE]

Yes,they are ignorant as well,which allows marketers to make such claims as:"Herbal Ignite is not a drug,it is a 100% herbal product"

If it has a physiological effect it is a drug.

oneofsix

19th January 2011, 07:05

What usually happens is this:

Basically take any statistic with a grain of salt - stats don't count for shit these days as the people doing them have no understanding of what it means.
Correlation != Causality
e.g. 52% decrease is wild cat population is not due to 67% increase in Chinese food.

These days. A quote I have heard attributed to one of Queen Victoria's Prime Ministers was "Lies. Damn Lies and Statistics". Sir Benjamin Disraeli reckonised the statistic by themselves were the worst type of lies back them and probably many before him.

MisterD

19th January 2011, 07:24

blah blah take before having a baby etc... it reduces neural tube defects by 92%... Now that's a pretty bold claim and one that I would have thought was utterly unproveable. Yes, unproveable. That in itself is a pretty bold statement considering it flies in the face of research produced and validated by the Medical profession.

Got a linky to that medical research you refer to? Just for interest's sake.

I'd always assumed that the 92% figure was "borrowed" from the research on benefits of folate / folic acid in regards to neural tube defects...Elevit being the market leader of folic acid-containing supplements.

oldrider

19th January 2011, 07:24

Quit hatin' on people who study for ten years and carry out obscenely elaborate experiments before having their words twisted by marketing staff.

It's not a matter of academic bashing Milts, that comment belittles you and your argument!

Most of the informative material available is generated between academics of long studious backgrounds arguing the point with each other!

There are as many opinions as there are learned men, just as there are differing opinions at every level.

Personally, I value, rate and admire most academics very highly, doesn't mean they are infallible or that I would trust them at face value without question!

Unfortunately for some brilliant students, they have been so long studying specific material that they failed to noticed the world going by around them and a result have lost touch with the reason of why they were studying in the first place!

ellipsis

19th January 2011, 09:10

...I also dont agree with the comment that I am a hater of the academics...after all, it is the drug companies that pay the academics and get to manipulate the Stats around their main reason for being...the bottom line... anyone who says that the BIG drug companies are not in fierce competition with each other and that they are not run from around a board room table by hard nosed businessmen is deluding themselves...its all about profit...certainly not curing the worlds ills...my main concern is the manipulative way of their appealing to a world populace that is getting dumber, more consumerist and more wealthy...and appealing to their stupidity, vanity and expectations of the infallible experts...

Banditbandit

19th January 2011, 11:56

I was watchin telly last night {chopped} Rant off...

very simple answer mate ... turn off the propoganda machine ... you'll never get agro and rant like this again ...

slowpoke

19th January 2011, 14:38

Big Pharma is evil, you are evil.

So you are comfortable with those Chinese fuckers torturing bears trapped for life in tiny cages, with tubes permanently stuck into their often infected guts? Their teeth and claws ripped out so they aren't able to defend themselves Or killing off tigers for their tiger penis wine, or using human foetuses in their soup to increase sexual stamina/nutrition (http://socyberty.com/issues/baby-herbal-soup-the-most-horrifying-cruel-and-disgusting-delicacy-ever/)? Yep, you and they are absolute paragons of virtue aren't you?

My parents and others close to me, experienced a loss of quality of life due to their relationship with their GP, and his 'take this pill for that' approach to health.

Doesn't matter if you are talking to a GP, a plumber, or a builder etc, if you aren't totally comfortable with the advice you are given ask around and do some research. Second opinion, mate, no one is infallible. Blindly following ANY advice is asking for trouble, so don't be suprised if you receive it.

I will continue to see a Chinese herbalist prescribing natural plant medicine in raw disgusting tasting form, but thank you for your informed opinion which I heartily disagree with, and strongly advise those with an interest in their own health to question, and not be dictated too by arrogance and superiority from those in positions of authority

That's just too farkin' funny coming from someone following the advice of a person with questionable knowledge, questionable training, administering products of questionable quality with often unproven effects. Good luck with that.

Fair enough. I can understand the ability to measure the men, spurt into a beaker, oooo you have more and stronger swimmers... But from what i've read, just because there's a high risk of "defect" doesn't mean that the child will be impaired in any way when born... that's my point in regards to elevit and the 92% claim. 90% (ass hat stat) of that may have been a natural occurence :).

Hmmmm, the scientists are arguing from a position of knowledge, having carried out extensive testing, and in many cases coming up with what could be described as proof. You are arguing from a position of ignorance, basing your suppositions on nothing more than your natural cynicism.....and you are saying they are talking bullshit? Just 'cos you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Oh yeah, I've used up 2 seconds and done the "hard" work for you. From the Medical Journal of Australia: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/194_02_170111/bro10844_fm.html

"After the introduction of voluntary fortification of selected foods with folic acid in Australia in 1995, there was a significant rise in the population’s blood folate levels and a reduction in the incidence of neural tube defects between 1996 and 2006"

For someone saying we should question everything you certainly don't look very hard for the answers.

oldrider

19th January 2011, 14:43

very simple answer mate ... turn off the propoganda machine ... you'll never get agro and rant like this again ...

You mean there is a "on/off control switch" on those things! :corn:

mashman

19th January 2011, 16:22

Got a linky to that medical research you refer to? Just for interest's sake.

I'd always assumed that the 92% figure was "borrowed" from the research on benefits of folate / folic acid in regards to neural tube defects...Elevit being the market leader of folic acid-containing supplements.

I don't i'm afraid, already mentioned that in another post... but I'm assuming there was research to come up with the 92% figure... oh the blind faith of it all...

very simple answer mate ... turn off the propoganda machine ... you'll never get agro and rant like this again ...

heh, it's entertaining to see, sometimes... other times it brings out the rant in me :)... I think this was my first proper rant :shifty:

mashman

19th January 2011, 16:50

Hmmmm, the scientists are arguing from a position of knowledge, having carried out extensive testing, and in many cases coming up with what could be described as proof. You are arguing from a position of ignorance, basing your suppositions on nothing more than your natural cynicism.....and you are saying they are talking bullshit? Just 'cos you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Oh yeah, I've used up 2 seconds and done the "hard" work for you. From the Medical Journal of Australia: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/194_02_170111/bro10844_fm.html

"After the introduction of voluntary fortification of selected foods with folic acid in Australia in 1995, there was a significant rise in the population’s blood folate levels and a reduction in the incidence of neural tube defects between 1996 and 2006"

For someone saying we should question everything you certainly don't look very hard for the answers.

:rofl: yeah, that's it, that's exactly what I was saying, i was stating categorically that the science is bullshit and those who espouse it should be burned :facepalm: did you actually read any of the posts? I'm guessing you didn't, because nowhere do I call it bullshit, I even go as far as to say "Now i'm not saying that it doesn't work" in more than 1 place... perhaps the troll needs a new rod :)

Cheers for the link :)... :killingme, you're equating a pill to folic acid baked into bread, sorry, wheat flour... fair enough, i'll stay ignorant if that's the conclusive proof.

Again. Just because someone is showing a high risk, does not automatically mean they will go on to produce an unhealthy baby due to neural tube defect. Based on that alone, even without reading the research, a loaf :killingme, I call foul on the figures. The only way you will ever know for sure, is to find someone who has given birth to an "affected" child, go back in time and either add folic acid to their diet, or remove it... like i say, if that's not enough to question the research results shown on TV, then I don't know what will be.

Rug sir?

mashman

19th January 2011, 17:54

Just because i'm ignorant i went for more of a hunt:

Heart patients in Norway who took folic acid and vitamin B12 supplements were found to have a slightly increased risk for cancer and death from all causes, compared to heart patients who did not take the supplements in a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association. (http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=107743)

In an accompanying editorial, two cancer and nutrition experts concluded that "the prospects for cancer prevention through micronutrient supplementation have never looked worse."
(http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=98438)

I'm sure there's evidence that says otherwise :)... damned if ya do etc...

Where's the trust? After all they're all scientists?

Drunken Monkey

20th January 2011, 10:32

Well it is an interesting question. After surfing the web a bit, I came up with a few points:

Reduction of 'neural tube defects' seems to be described, just like the advertisement, as a percentage. In this case "up to 92%". Canadian studies quote 62%.

The rate of NTD's is expressed in a "x per y live births" figure - how can you use "92%" (or "62%") to calculate against "1 per 1000 live births"?

There are a wide range of neural tube defects, ranging from severe to so minor that people have them and don't even know. Which one(s) are being targetted, do they all get reduced by folate?

To get the recommended folate dosage (.4mg) from bread, you'd have to eat 11 slices a day (at .135mg for 100grams or roughly .036mg per slice).

In New Zealand, the expected change would be a reduction of NTD's by 2-3 births per year, or perhaps 11 per year, depending on who you talk to (from about 65,000 live births per year).

Possible link between too much folate and cancer - is this even a concern if you need to eat 77 slices a week just to reach the RDI? EDIT => I see it is if you're a Norweigan heart patient...

Folate is also present in a lot of other foods - leafy green vegetables, especially spinach, asparagus; legumes, especially beans and peas; to a lesser degree in most fruits; egg yolks; lentils; sunflower seeds; liver. So if you eat a balanced diet, why would you need to eat folate fortified bread anyway?

Well, I don't see a strong case either way...

oneofsix

20th January 2011, 10:50

Banditbandit

20th January 2011, 11:55

heh, it's entertaining to see, sometimes... other times it brings out the rant in me :)... I think this was my first proper rant :shifty:

Yeah ... me too ... It is entertaining ... and yeah, I'll admit I rant occassionally ... then I hear myself and think "What the fuck ? Why do I react to what I know is essentially bullshit?"

Banditbandit

20th January 2011, 12:00

interesting rumour is that folate is already in your commercial bread, not added by the bakery but in the flour when they get it. Guess that means it could already in the highgrade or breadmaker flours as well. If you are concerned it would pay to read the label.

The USA and Australia require folic acid to be added to flour made into bread - so imported flour already has higher levels of folic acid (folate) ... Flour from New ZEaland-grown weheat does not have added folate.

My understanding is that folate already occurs in wheat and is therefore present in flour anyway ... what Australia and the US required is ADDED folate ...

mashman

20th January 2011, 16:09

Yeah ... me too ... It is entertaining ... and yeah, I'll admit I rant occassionally ... then I hear myself and think "What the fuck ? Why do I react to what I know is essentially bullshit?"

Heh... the WTF moments are many, as are the :facepalm: moments... it reminds me of how out of touch I am with the rest of humanity :shifty:

oldrider

22nd January 2011, 11:14

Vaccines are possibly great if you have no bad reaction at all but that is not the case for many, apparently!

Check this site out: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/cbs-covers-court-award-for-dtap-whooping-cough-vaccine-death.html

It's the crap (mercury, etc) they use in the vaccine make-up that is the problem.

That and the "snake oil salesman" attitude of the pharmaceutical companies that make and market them! :facepalm:

Virago

22nd January 2011, 12:00

The issue of vaccines needs to be kept in perspective.

Much of the anti-vaccine propoganda is bases on hysteria around distorted (and often fraudulent) "research". I have yet to see any authenticated data that confirms that the occurance of autism, epilepsy etc is indeed linked.

If there is any risk at all, it needs to be balanced against the greater good - for without the vaccines, the world would be a drastically different place.

Those who wish to make an "informed choice" undoubtedly have the right to do so. But ultimately the health of their children will hinge upon others having their children vaccinated. As such, they are freeloading upon the healthcare of others - a fact freely admitted to by anti-vaccine parents I have spoken to.

oldrider

22nd January 2011, 17:30

The issue of vaccines needs to be kept in perspective.

If there is any risk at all, it needs to be balanced against the greater good - for without the vaccines, the world would be a drastically different place.

Those who wish to make an "informed choice" undoubtedly have the right to do so.

True but:

Unfortunately the freedom to choose isn't always available, the mass hysteria cuts on both sides of the coin!

The reason I am interested in the pro's and con's of vaccination is the fact that our family do not react well to them, so I am very interested in what it is all about!

It's too late to find out you or yours have a serious bad reaction "after" the damn stuff is in there!

Only being dangerous to 10% of the population and a risk society is prepared to live with is fine for everyone except those who are part of the 10%! :mellow:

mashman

22nd January 2011, 17:51

The reason I am interested in the pro's and con's of vaccination is the fact that our family do not react well to them, so I am very interested in what it is all about!

that explains a few things :shifty: :bleh:

It's too late to find out you or yours have a serious bad reaction "after" the damn stuff is in there!

Only being dangerous to 10% of the population and a risk society is prepared to live with is fine for everyone except those who are part of the 10%! :mellow:

The rest of us will likely find that out in 5 - 10 years time :yes: when new research will be released warning of long term side effects :facepalm:... those side effects carrying themselves through the genetic pool with whatever mutations that throws out... I don't like the idea behind vaccines... as said before, i'd much prefer to be baselined and have the "base vaccine" tweaked for my particular physical deficiency of the moment... ahhhh, dreams are free :)

oldrider

25th January 2011, 06:40

Your precious baby gets "one" shot at life and you let medics jab them full of stuff "without question" simply on "trust"!

Once you have experienced your child's life fucked up by medical incompetence and misadventure you wouldn't do that again let me tell you!

How many of these cock-ups are swept under the mat in our hospitals and medical practices in New Zealand alone?

Statistics have been "quietly" published that it exceeds the road toll!

It is difficult to become "informed" so that you can make correct decisions for your babies, other children or your self but it's too late after the damage has been done!

Here is some alternative "information" for you to consider if you are interested:

http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/coincidental

You must judge for your self of course.

Oddly enough the reference to the Catholic church paedophilia is ironical because our baby was fucked up first by the medics and later fell victim to bastards in the church! :eek:

And these people expect us to "trust them on face value without question"! :facepalm:

cave weta

25th January 2011, 08:56

Im going to hijack your thread Mashy- This is something that Im sitting and watching at the moment and Im shitting myself!
There is huge evidence that for some reason - The US are planning to create a huge eathquake in the mid US. not just this video. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hxpuqdgY8o4" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

here are links to the FEMA Government procurement website. - see what the US government are wanting to buy .........
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=list&tab=list&pageID=2
Freeze dried food for 7 million!!! plus all this other shit- there are pages of it!

mashman

25th January 2011, 16:24

Im going to hijack your thread Mashy- This is something that Im sitting and watching at the moment and Im shitting myself!

No problem fella.

Your precious baby gets "one" shot at life and you let medics jab them full of stuff "without question" simply on "trust"!

etc...l

but they are the experts :facepalm:... we have no choice but to trust these fuckers, as distasteful as it feels. Whilst the scientist may have the best of intentions in mind, the mantra of breaking a few eggs continues and is accepted by the world as a whole as best practice :facepalm:... but this is indicative of the shoddy practices of every industry... If I was more of a reader i'd probably get those books... although I shouldn't really have to and neither should he need to write them, but faster, cheaper, more efficient is the driver, health care seemingly taking very much the back seat...

fucking unbelievable that they'd call that a coincidence :facepalm:

rwh

25th January 2011, 19:56

Im going to hijack your thread Mashy- This is something that Im sitting and watching at the moment and Im shitting myself!

With laughter?

There's rather a large difference between "planning for a disaster" and "planning a disaster".

Check out this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNxgm3tdG0

Richard

rwh

25th January 2011, 20:53

Check out this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNxgm3tdG0

Actually that's not the one I meant, though it's interesting nonetheless. Follow it up with this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg

Richard

oldrider

26th January 2011, 06:47

There really is some weird shit floating around the internet but "the sun arrives two days early" is a bit indisputable, isn't it?

http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/sun-early

What's going on in our little old world, what is fact and what is fiction?

ellipsis

26th January 2011, 09:13

....weird shit or just shit...believing half of what you can actually see and believing none of what you hear is a safe way to view the planet these days...I've always kept an open mind regards a lot of stuff that more adroit or cynical people may call fantasy or paranoia, but sometimes a liberal dose of humour or laughter needs to be applied to a lot of the shit that is being fed to us...I seldom trawl or surf the web, but last night followed a lot of links to do with aliens...clever people who once worked for NASA or one of the big universities or govt departments who seem to have all the qualifications to fool people seem to be doing just that...or is it the truth...when I turned in last night after getting sore eyes from reading the 'indisputable truth', coming from such authorities, it was with a bit of a smile...apparently, here down on boring old earth . there are at least 57 known extra-terrestrial races who have made contact with , mainly yanks. Some are humanoid, some are even human, but from other systems and the big bad ones are lizardy types...one bunch of these reptilean types are actually the original inhabitants of Earth and have been here forever...some of them are goodies and some are baddies...I particularly like the group known as the 'NORDIC'S'...they are here just to help us out against the Lizards...being of Nordic descent myself, I am wondering if I am just a normal old Western Isles Scot with Norwegian ancestry or a bloody alien...should I have it recorded in my passport and why is it that these ET's are dealing with the American Military and not , for instance, Hone Harawira or Bob Parker...maybe they are...Bob Parker IS a lizard I reckon...