Chemical lies?

[scissorhands]

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]

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

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.

@ 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

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]

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]

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

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

[avgas]

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 ... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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-her...licacy-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/...o10844_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]

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!

[mashman]

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

[mashman]

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/...o10844_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.

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 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 ... , 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 , 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?