Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

survey finds 49% of Americans believe in a medical conspiracy

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Tumor was gone with that patient ..as the CT showed

    100% success rate so!


  • Options
    #33
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    On a more serious note the active compound is quite small for a naturally occurring chemical and it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a series of synthetic analogues that might lead to something useful.


  • Options
    #34
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    To be fair, I can understand how the US public would be in general suspicious of healthcare providers given they're known for favouring profit over patient outcomes. Many groups within this industry in the US have been known to downplay or hide the results of some research in order to prevent a downturn in their own products.

    This is likely to have a knock-on effect where some believe that they're deliberately hiding or misinforming the public about much larger health-related issues in the pursuit of profit.

    The funny thing is the counter-balance side are just as bad. Those who deliberately overstate or falsify the effectiveness of "natural" remedies or "alternative" strategies, do so in order to generate profit for themselves.


  • Options
    #35
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    seamus wrote: »
    To be fair, I can understand how the US public would be in general suspicious of healthcare providers given they're known for favouring profit over patient outcomes. Many groups within this industry in the US have been known to downplay or hide the results of some research in order to prevent a downturn in their own products.

    This is likely to have a knock-on effect where some believe that they're deliberately hiding or misinforming the public about much larger health-related issues in the pursuit of profit.

    The funny thing is the counter-balance side are just as bad. Those who deliberately overstate or falsify the effectiveness of "natural" remedies or "alternative" strategies, do so in order to generate profit for themselves.

    But at least big pharma puts some effort into it, how people are taken in by the alt crowd i'll never understand.


  • Options
    #36
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    But at least big pharma puts some effort into it, how people are taken in by the alt crowd i'll never understand.

    effort in making huge profits ... you are quite right there


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    On a more serious note the active compound is quite small for a naturally occurring chemical and it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a series of synthetic analogues that might lead to something useful.

    seems useful enough for that patient to me

    It looks to me that anything that its not somehow syntheticy fabricated is rubbish to you ... as your posts indicate in almost every thread ... whats your real angle here JH? come on tell us :)


  • Options
    #38
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    effort in making huge profits ... you are quite right there

    I meant when they mislead people it is understandable that people get taken in they hide flaws in studies well but the other crowd , well, there is no excuse.


  • Options
    #39
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I meant when they mislead people it is understandable that people get taken in they hide flaws in studies well

    Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?


  • Options
    #40
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    seems useful enough for that patient to me

    It looks to me that anything that its not somehow syntheticy fabricated is rubbish to you ... as your posts indicate in almost every thread ... whats your real angle here JH? come on tell us :)

    I have studied in this area that's my "angle". History and research teaches us that herbs in their natural state are unlikely to be effective.

    It is not an "angle" it is called an education.


  • Options
    #41
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?

    The studies were fine integrity wise it was our interpretation of them that was the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?

    Here is another review form Cochrane this time on the much heralded antioxidants

    http://www.cochrane.org/CD007176/LIVER_antioxidant-supplements-for-prevention-of-mortality-in-healthy-participants-and-patients-with-various-diseases


  • Options
    #43
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The studies were fine integrity wise it was our interpretation of them that was the problem.

    The interpretation of the people who based upon the studies decide fluoridation is beneficial or not you mean ?


  • Options
    #44
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I have studied in this area that's my "angle". History and research teaches us that herbs in their natural state are unlikely to be effective.

    It is not an "angle" it is called an education.

    Well clearly your education gave you that angle


  • Options
    #45
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    The interpretation of the people who based upon the studies decide fluoridation is beneficial or not you mean ?

    Nobody was mislead is all i'm saying.


  • Options
    #46
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Well clearly your education gave you that angle

    True but my angle towards herbs as medicine stands up to scrutiny yours doesn't.


  • Options
    #47
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Nobody was mislead is all i'm saying.


    Informed incorrectly which resulted in policy being made based on flawed research


  • Options
    #48
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    True but my angle towards herbs as medicine stands up to scrutiny yours doesn't.

    Your angle in blind following the so called fluoride evidence states otherwise

    And a lot of medicine come from herbs/plants but somehow the synthetic version for sale is the only proper one


  • Options
    #49
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”

    The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/


    Seems the 49% have a few big hitters amongst their ranks


  • Options
    #50
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    less of the back and forth sniping


  • Options
    #51
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    There is an argument there that big pharma companies could be withholding discoveries or medications that could help a lot of people. They are businesses and it is true they will look out for the best interests of the company and profit is the priority in any business.

    The problem is there isn't just one pharma company, even if you did believe that the management of every pharma company were in league with each other so they could withhold treatments, it would be next to impossible to stop all these separate entities from competing with each other (even by accident), or stepping on each others toes, because they all exist in the same free market. It would be a nightmare to keep all these separate entities on a leash considering the thousands of educated professionals trying to fulfil their role as they've been trained and instructed to do. All these companies would have to have people sitting in offices and labs doing next to nothing to stop the companies from accidentally competing with each other.

    Technology is also getting to the point that just about anyone can do their own experimenting. There are punk labs all over the us where people are doing amateur gene splicing. The genies out of the bottle in that regard, pharma companies aren't as mysterious or cutting edge as they used to be, our technology is leveling that playing field too. So pharma companies are not just competing with each other anymore, they're competing with anyone that takes the time to educate themselves. If they have some big fancy drugs in hiding they better get them to market rapidly or someone else will.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    The phrase "free market" got my attention there.
    I am always saying that the world works backwards, to figure things out just reverse everything or many things anyway.
    I think if the market was free people could do more work in their own homemade labs to helpothers and themselves or sustain a living wage. But because of the strict rules with patents, the competition gets dirty. It seems to me if it was a free market, I could start selling my own stuff. But if someone books a method, I can't sell anything and so one company gets a monopoly.
    Isn't that a closed market then? I haven't really read up on that, despite all my patent seaching years ago ^^

    But your points made ScumLord are pretty valid I think.

    I'm also reminded of Hutchins( or hutchinson?) experimenting with magnets and electricity in his garage workshop. I think his stuff has been confiscated a few times by the men in black lol
    Maybe he ran his billuptoo much, maybe he was doing stuff agencies didn't like. But i get the feeling if I was found tobe synthesizing a cancer cure in my garage and word got out, I would find my life a whole lot more complicated.


  • Options
    #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ScumLord wrote: »
    The problem is there isn't just one pharma company, even if you did believe that the management of every pharma company were in league with each other so they could withhold treatments, it would be next to impossible to stop all these separate entities from competing with each other (even by accident), or stepping on each others toes, because they all exist in the same free market. It would be a nightmare to keep all these separate entities on a leash considering the thousands of educated professionals trying to fulfil their role as they've been trained and instructed to do. All these companies would have to have people sitting in offices and labs doing next to nothing to stop the companies from accidentally competing with each other.
    Heres a good article that outlines how this, and a bunch of other reasons, makes such a conspiracy very very unlikely.

    http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/07/02/10-reasons-why-hidden-cancer-cure-conspiracy-theories-fail/


  • Options
    #54
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Torakx wrote: »
    What type of cancer was it?
    I had an ulcer recently and juicing green cabbage made a massive difference, right from day one. It has a lot of glutamine apparently, which helps rebuild damaged tissue.
    The regular medication for such a thing i think is medications to lower stomach acid (Nexium was what I was given years ago), which destroys the stomach and throat, known to cause cancer eventually.
    I wonder if broccolli has the same effect.


    That reminded me of this guy


    http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery

    The Dr. Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery


    For their work on H. pylori, Marshall and Warren shared a 2005 Nobel Prize. Today the standard of care for an ulcer is treatment with an antibiotic. And stomach cancer—once one of the most common forms of malignancy—is almost gone from the Western world.




    By then I was working at a hospital in Fremantle, biopsying every patient who came through the door. I was getting all these patients and couldn’t keep tabs on them, so I tapped all the drug companies to request research funding for a computer. They all wrote back saying how difficult times were and they didn’t have any research money. But they were making a billion dollars a year for the antacid drug Zantac and another billion for Tagamet. You could make a patient feel better by removing the acid. Treated, most patients didn’t die from their ulcer and didn’t need surgery, so it was worth $100 a month per patient, a hell of a lot of money in those days. In America in the 1980s, 2 to 4 percent of the population had Tagamet tablets in their pocket. There was no incentive to find a cure.


    You published a synthesis of this work in The Medical Journal of Australia in 1985. Then did people change their thinking?


    No, it sat there as a hypothesis for another 10 years. Some patients heard about it, but gastroenterologists still would not treat them with antibiotics. Instead, they would focus on the possible complications of antibiotics. By 1985 I could

    cure just about everybody, and patients were coming to me in secret—for instance, airline pilots who didn’t want to let anyone know that they had an ulcer.


    I wonder how much money is spent on drugs like nexium today I was on Protium myself for years


  • Options
    #55
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Your angle in blind following the so called fluoride evidence states otherwise

    And a lot of medicine come from herbs/plants but somehow the synthetic version for sale is the only proper one

    Never said that , it just is highly unlikely to be effective in its natural state. Bioavailability being one major stumbling block.

    A synthetic version would be a more realistic option or maybe the extraction of the active chemical (which would be a processed form of a natural substance).


  • Options
    #56
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    enno99 wrote: »
    The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/


    Seems the 49% have a few big hitters amongst their ranks

    Some extra reading on Pauling

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/


  • Options
    #57
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    So i read an old paper that said there were 20,000 natural remedies / herbs available in the US market.

    Lets say I make the claim that 99.99% are ineffective could you find more than 2 that have been shown to be more effective than placebo?

    Let say 99.9% are ineffective, could you find 20?
    How about 99% so more than 200?

    Even if you were to find a 1000 that still means 95% do nothing at all.


  • Options
    #58
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Yeah there are deceiving products left , right and center.
    Anywhere money is involved.


  • Options
    #59
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Torakx wrote: »
    Yeah there are deceiving products left , right and center.
    Anywhere money is involved.

    I wonder how many of the natural products would be approved for selling when they had a list of side effects found in pharma drugs


  • Options
    #60
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I wonder how many of the natural products would be approved for selling when they had a list of side effects found in pharma drugs

    None because the lack of a beneficial effect wouldn't justify it.

    Any substance that has a positive effect is likely to have some side effects given the way the same receptors can be found in numerous areas with different roles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    None because the lack of a beneficial effect wouldn't justify it.

    Is that why they Banned st Johnsworth ?


Advertisement