HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Giving a lecture on old-t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:21 PM

Giving a lecture on old-timey quack medicines tomorrow

Some of the DU veterans might remember that I used to serve as President of the North Texas Skeptics before I became a Democratic precinct chair. NTS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, so I felt the need to step down in order to avoid a conflict of interest.

Tomorrow afternoon, I'll be visiting my fellow skeptics once again and bringing part of my collection of antique medicine bottles for a little bit of skeptical show-and-tell and discussing the patent medicine industry in America.

Wish I had a picture of the bottle collection to show you - I've got Radam's Microbe Killer, Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment, Aletris Cordial, a few Healey and Bigelow Kickapoo Indian medicines, and so on. Some of these bottles still contain a little of the medicine to this day, but I'm not about to try any of them.

182 replies, 25265 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 182 replies Author Time Post
Reply Giving a lecture on old-timey quack medicines tomorrow (Original post)
derby378 Aug 2012 OP
MADem Aug 2012 #1
derby378 Aug 2012 #2
MADem Aug 2012 #4
derby378 Aug 2012 #6
lunasun Aug 2012 #9
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #15
derby378 Aug 2012 #22
NickB79 Aug 2012 #120
hifiguy Aug 2012 #11
MADem Aug 2012 #12
Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #33
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #3
derby378 Aug 2012 #5
MADem Aug 2012 #8
longship Aug 2012 #7
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #18
longship Aug 2012 #81
Confusious Aug 2012 #28
longship Aug 2012 #75
derby378 Aug 2012 #156
longship Aug 2012 #164
derby378 Aug 2012 #165
longship Aug 2012 #171
SoapBox Aug 2012 #10
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #17
TheMadMonk Aug 2012 #31
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #34
Habibi Aug 2012 #13
derby378 Aug 2012 #14
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #16
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #19
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #21
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #23
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #180
Care Acutely Aug 2012 #24
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #25
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #27
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #35
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #40
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #41
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #47
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #52
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #57
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #64
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #70
Confusious Aug 2012 #77
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #79
Confusious Aug 2012 #86
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #92
Confusious Aug 2012 #95
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #98
Confusious Aug 2012 #99
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #100
Confusious Aug 2012 #102
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #105
Confusious Aug 2012 #108
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #124
Confusious Aug 2012 #127
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #134
Confusious Aug 2012 #141
dionysus Aug 2012 #159
hifiguy Aug 2012 #148
dionysus Aug 2012 #160
Confusious Aug 2012 #30
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #37
Confusious Aug 2012 #46
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #49
Confusious Aug 2012 #53
sense Aug 2012 #115
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #54
Confusious Aug 2012 #63
Posteritatis Aug 2012 #111
Care Acutely Aug 2012 #147
idwiyo Aug 2012 #177
Confusious Aug 2012 #29
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #36
Confusious Aug 2012 #43
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #56
Confusious Aug 2012 #62
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #65
Confusious Aug 2012 #66
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #69
Confusious Aug 2012 #72
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #74
Confusious Aug 2012 #76
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #80
Confusious Aug 2012 #83
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #88
Confusious Aug 2012 #89
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #93
Confusious Aug 2012 #97
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #109
Confusious Aug 2012 #113
independentpiney Aug 2012 #142
sense Aug 2012 #122
Confusious Aug 2012 #128
sense Aug 2012 #110
dionysus Aug 2012 #167
sense Aug 2012 #169
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #174
sense Aug 2012 #178
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #179
Care Acutely Aug 2012 #20
mucifer Aug 2012 #61
agent46 Aug 2012 #143
flvegan Aug 2012 #26
Confusious Aug 2012 #32
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #38
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #44
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #48
sense Aug 2012 #123
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #145
sense Aug 2012 #149
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #150
sense Aug 2012 #154
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #155
sense Aug 2012 #166
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
dionysus Aug 2012 #168
sense Aug 2012 #170
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #39
Confusious Aug 2012 #42
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #50
Confusious Aug 2012 #59
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #67
Confusious Aug 2012 #68
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #71
Confusious Aug 2012 #73
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #78
Confusious Aug 2012 #84
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #90
Confusious Aug 2012 #94
sense Aug 2012 #125
Confusious Aug 2012 #129
sense Aug 2012 #136
Confusious Aug 2012 #139
sense Aug 2012 #144
Confusious Aug 2012 #85
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #96
Confusious Aug 2012 #101
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #107
Confusious Aug 2012 #114
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #45
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #51
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #58
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #60
Confusious Aug 2012 #87
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #103
Confusious Aug 2012 #104
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #106
Confusious Aug 2012 #118
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #130
Confusious Aug 2012 #132
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #135
Confusious Aug 2012 #140
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #146
flvegan Aug 2012 #55
Posteritatis Aug 2012 #112
Ya Basta Aug 2012 #82
Confusious Aug 2012 #91
Ya Basta Aug 2012 #119
Confusious Aug 2012 #126
Ya Basta Aug 2012 #131
Confusious Aug 2012 #133
Ya Basta Aug 2012 #137
Confusious Aug 2012 #138
Ya Basta Aug 2012 #153
SidDithers Aug 2012 #163
SidDithers Aug 2012 #162
Taverner Aug 2012 #116
derby378 Aug 2012 #158
Posteritatis Aug 2012 #117
appleannie1 Aug 2012 #121
Scuba Aug 2012 #151
madamesilverspurs Aug 2012 #152
SidDithers Aug 2012 #157
NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #161
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #172
NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #173
HiPointDem Aug 2012 #175
NYC Liberal Aug 2012 #176
Taverner Oct 2012 #181
derby378 Oct 2012 #182

Response to derby378 (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:26 PM

1. What was in the bottles? Morphine, cocaine, booze, opiates? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:33 PM

2. Opiates? I think the DEA would want a word with me

However, one of the bottles contains honest-to-goodness strychnine, which was used in very small doses as a stomach remedy until safer remedies like Pepto-Bismol took off.

Another bottle may contain some really dubious kerosene, camphor, and turpentine. I'm not about to uncork the bottle in order to test it, though.

I also have a few bottles of Munyon's homeopathic pills that I may or may not bring to the meeting; I'm still debating that since I've given lectures on homeopathy in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:37 PM

4. Well, I know a lot of those old quacky meds had all kinds of stuff in 'em!

Alcohol, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:50 PM

6. LOTS of alcohol!

That reminds me; I've got a bottle of Hostetter's Bitters I need to show off. That stuff was at least 40% alcohol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:46 PM

9. bitters good for what ails you

Just reading this now going to the cabinet and pour me a shot of some swedish kind i have
good nightcap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:20 PM

15. They used STRYCHNINE for upset stomachs???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #15)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:22 PM

22. About a hundred years ago, they did

Only in very tiny amounts. But it was still an over-the-counter remedy.

Nowadays, if anyone needs strychnine for any medical condition, it's administered in a hospital under very close supervision. Strychnine is one hell of a CNS stimulant, and I've heard that death from strychnine poisoning is rather unpleasant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:24 AM

120. Our dog ate some strychinine-based fly bait when I was a kid

Horrible, horrible way to die. Body-wracking seizures, foaming at the mouth, it just went on and on until my dad got his rifle to put him down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:52 PM

11. A lot of corn liquor and turpentine, I suspect. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #11)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 12:15 AM

12. ...~~~***BURP!***``~~~! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:03 AM

33. Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

I'll take "What do most of the posters in The Lounge run on?" for $1000, Alex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:36 PM

3. One word: Radithor



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 10:49 PM

5. I'd love to grab a bottle - but then again, maybe not

I've heard one story of an old radium jug at an antique shop that was tested with a Geiger counter. It was so radioactive that the NRC was called, who quickly whisked the jug off to a secure location behind a lead-lined wall.

It would have to be an empty bottle for me, I'm afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:32 PM

8. With tongs...while wearing a lead suit!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:31 PM

7. Radium is very bad shit.

Not as bad as Plutonium, but really not something you want to come into contact with. Bad. Bad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:25 PM

18. Radium is probably lead to Marie Curie dying from cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:39 AM

81. And many on the Manhattan Project.

Lots of weird cancers, including one of my heros, Richard Feynman.

Of course, there's always the story of the physicist who was testing criticality by pushing U235 blocks together with a pencil. When the blocks fell together, he pulled them apart by hand. He died within two days, but saved everybody within a rather large area. Probably apocryphal, but it is a common story for freshman physics majors. It even made its way into pop culture in the film, Fat Man and Little Boy, a Hollywood chronical of the Manhattan Project. (Not bad, Paul Newman played Gen. Leslie Groves.)

I prefer Doctor Atomic, an opera by composer John Adams.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:52 PM

28. It's a lot harder

to get poisoned by plutonium then radium.

unless you've been standing next to any nuclear blasts lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:21 AM

75. Radium is natural, Plutonium isn't.

But, you may be correct. I have heard that Pu is toxic in spite of its radioactivity, I am not sure of that now. There isn't a lot of research on the topic given the ethical problems with such a research project.

So the jury's out and not likely to reconvene.

I worked with radium in my senior year in physics, and not since. It is scary shit. I have no experience with Pu except a coworker at Argonne National Lab dosed himself three times with it and he was let go. The guy was an accident waiting to happen, as his history attested.

I never worked with Pu, and by that time I would never had done it. My projects were solar. No nuclear for me, although I have softened somewhat recently, even in spite of Fukushima. But, that's another post.

Thanks for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #75)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:19 PM

156. Actually...

...isn't plutonium found naturally in very small trace amounts in uranium ore on Earth? That's natural enough for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #156)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

164. Maybe true.

But Pu isn't a natural element in supernovae, which is what I was alluding to. May I state it this way? There would be no natural Pu on Earth except as a daughter product to U fission. There wouldn't be much of it since natural reactors are not common. It is a picky difference, I know.

I am sure the science has passed me by since my studies.

Thanks for the correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #164)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:56 PM

165. And thanks for the clarification

It's interesting that you mentioned supernovae - did they actually find some technetium percolating in one or two of those?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #165)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:47 AM

171. Tc, element 43

Not surprising, I guess. Not my expertease, I am afraid. My physics is a bit old and cranky.

AFAIK, supernovae do not generate beyond U = 92, which puts Tc within reach. I would bet it is rare, though. Anything above iron (Fe = 26) is unreachable except by way of supernovae. And above U, unreachable even with a supernova. Again, AFAIK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 11:49 PM

10. Eckkkkk!

...running away...running a LONG ways away!

But oh gee, it was in Triple distilled water. AND it was patented?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:23 PM

17. WTF is "mesothorium"???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

31. I'd guess Th233 as opposed to Th232 or Th234.

 

Of some interest is that 233 is the stuff that goes boom when there's enough of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:05 AM

34. the old name for radium 228, which is a decay product of thorium 232.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 12:35 AM

13. Got any Holloway's Bitters?

George Holloway was a druggist who produced a bunch of "medicines." Also my great-granddad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Habibi (Reply #13)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 09:33 PM

14. I've got Hostetter's, but not Holloway's

Hostetter's Stomach Bitters clocked in at 40% alcohol. Wheeeee!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:22 PM

16. The woo-woos here on DU would love for us to go back to those bad old days.

Any mention of regulating alternative "medicine" leads to rants about "Evil Big Gummit helping Evil Big Pharma".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #16)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:37 PM

19. plenty of medicines today that are basically ineffective.

 

"The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people," says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch's research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57380893/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:21 PM

21. My not having panic attacks anymore is not any fucking placebo effect.

Paxil is the only thing that stopped them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:24 PM

23. ecological fallacy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:09 PM

180. Okay, but that's you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:27 PM

24. Even that singular naysayer conceedes that antidepressants DO work

and do have a clinically significant benefit for those with clinical ("bad") depression.

The patients I see personally, over and over end up in our facility because they were previously diagnosed with MDD, got onto a good antidepressant that was working for them, felt better, and then quit taking their pills. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "I was feeling so good, I figured I didn't need them anymore."

Me: "Well, perhaps - but when you're ready to quit taking an antidepressant you have to do it with the help of your provider. We want to help you be safe."

So now they've got another major setback, sometimes an incompleted suicide and perhaps a committal or law enforcement action to deal with. Its a damn mess but with the right medication and continuing, effective therapy, I've seen these meds save lives. Save families.

These poor people have had enough cruel, ignorant and whacked-out people like Tom Cruise and other anti-pharm hysterics telling them it's "all in their head."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Care Acutely (Reply #24)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:29 PM

25. where else would depression be but 'in their heads'? that doesn't mean that anti-depressants

 

have a strong effect on depression.

possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:44 PM

27. LOL, never heard of seretonin?

"possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'."

Right, they just need to wish it away, that will work!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:07 AM

35. please tell me how the test for low serotonin works. as you are such a scholar, i'm sure you know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:12 AM

40. So the last 40 years of neuroscience is a Big Pharma conspiracy to sell pills, gotcha.



I read a lot of popular neuroscience books and the connection between serotonin and mood is a well-accepted fact just as much as the connection between dopamine and addiction is accepted as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:15 AM

41. I said, tell me how the test for low serotonin works & when you got yours.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:21 AM

47. You know what you sound like? A Creationist...

...saying "you can't see anything evolve!!!" Just because levels cannot be detected directly doesn't mean anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:29 AM

52. it doesn't? oh really.... thought you were all about the science....

 

but i see, as with your confederate, just another name-caller...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:34 AM

57. No, I'm rejecting your sophistry.

I'm not versed enough in the details of the neuroscience to explain it myself, go read up on it yourself rather than demanding it be spoon-fed to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #57)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:39 AM

64. i've read up on it for years -- including at university. which is how i know that patients

 

complaining of depression aren't tested for serotonin levels as there is no such test & only recently has there even been the glimmer of such a test.

if you're not so well-versed on the 'neuroscience' why are you posing as an authority?

you're the one who mentioned serotonin, so asking what the test for low serotonin is hardly 'sophistry'.

"Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone."

Asking how do you know the people you're prescribing to have "low serotonin" in the absence of a test is not sophistry, but babble about 'low serotonin' being the cause of depression in the absence of a test -- IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #57)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:58 AM

70. The Serotonin Theory of Depression Is Collapsing

 

The idea that low serotonin causes depression has been repeated like a mantra by public health authorities (see movie below for a nice example). The serotonin theory of depression is a good illustration that if you repeat something enough times, people will come to believe it.

The widespread use of serotonergic drugs for treating depression and evidence for their efficacy has also greatly boosted the serotonin theory of depresion (even in the face of evidence that the beneficial drug effects are relatively modest).

But just as headaches are not caused by a lack of aspirin, the efficacy of serotonergic drugs are not a proof that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin.

As it turns out, over the past few decades, neuroscientists have had difficulty supporting the core of the theory with a demonstration that serotonin was low in depressed people. Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to measure serotonin in the brain of a live human. Studies used a variety of different assay methods and researchers had difficulty obtaining any replicable results.

In the meantime, new antidepressant drugs came on the market that had little pharmacologic effect on serotonin but had similar effiicacy as the SSRIs. This, at a miminum, suggested that the serotonin theory of depression was incomplete...

Now recent data present even more serious problems for the low serotonin theory of depression. New findings that directly contradict the core of the theory: A paper in the flagship journal, Archives of General Psychiatry found evidence of increased serotonin activity in depressed persons. Furthermore, growing evidence suggests that it is an error to even talk about the brain having a single serotonin level. Based on work with rats and mice, neuroscientists are increasingly moving to the view that there are different populations of serotonin neurons that are each independently regulated...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/charting-the-depths/201007/the-serotonin-theory-depression-is-collapsing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #70)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:27 AM

77. But the anti depressants still work. Nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #77)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:29 AM

79. depends on what you mean by 'work,' and for whom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #79)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:47 AM

86. Disengenous argument.

You're playing dumb.

Or are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #86)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:16 AM

92. not at all, but you're tiresome. it's well-known that anti-depressants don't work for a significant

 

portion of those they're prescribed to.

More than half the people who take antidepressants for depression never get relief.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163346.htm

Not surprising when you consider that about 40% of studies of anti-depressants funded by drug companies are never published because the results show no benefit.

and as for those for whom anti-depressants do "work," the benefits range from slight to significant.

If insulin didn't work for more than half those it was prescribed to and the benefits to the rest were widely variable, we'd start to question what was really going on here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #92)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:24 AM

95. Well, you'd have a point

If you said they were over-prescribed, but you never did.

As for insulin, if I took it, I would probably die, since I don't have diabetes.

Would you consider that a failure? would you say that insulin doesn't work?

Same thing for anti-depressants. It's just a little harder to find the people it will help.

You really can't open up someones brain to give a test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #95)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:36 AM

98. you'd have a point -- if there were some way of determining who a 'good candidate' for treatment

 

was (since, as you say, there's no test for anything & the theory of how the drugs work itself appears to be wrong) -- and if the pharmaceutical companies weren't pushing these drugs even for off-label uses -- and if the profession of psychiatry and most of the treatment for depression and similar problems weren't *based on* giving out these drugs....

and if practioners' notion of their efficacy wasn't skewed by funding and publication bias and pharma corps' sales efforts and in some cases bribes...

and if the public's notion of their efficacy wasn't skewed by years of propaganda from the same sources...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #98)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:38 AM

99. Well, most people complaining of depression

is a good start.

You don't seem to think so.

And cue the spiel about the drug companies again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HiPointDem (Reply #100)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:45 AM

102. Which is higher then I thought

I would have thought only <30% of the population would get some sort of relief.

Your argument would be to do what exactly?

A. leave things as they are.
B. Take the drugs off the market.
C. proscribe the drugs less, leave them on the market

Seems to me that your entire argument would be centered around B. Everything you've posted points to that.

Am I wrong?

PS. Obviously they do wrong. But to try and take away something that helps, as you posted, <50% of the population, is wrong also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #102)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:54 AM

105. my argument wouldn't be any of those things. this discussion began when i stated that there

 

are many medicines on the market with poor efficacy & cited anti-depressants as one such class. i would say if <50% of patients prescribed to receive any relief, that's poor efficacy.

your defense -- that they're 'overprescribed' -- simply points to the lack of any objective criteria for prescription -- as well as to the lack of real knowledge about how they actually work with regard to 'depression'.

this argument continued when i challenged your claim that chinese medicine was 'worthless'.

my argument is confined to those two matters and has consisted of providing evidence to support my claims.

there are few commonly used medication with a 70% non-efficacy rate, i think. lower than placebo i believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #105)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:04 AM

108. So you're just here to spread FUD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #108)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:34 AM

124. I wonder why you felt you had to post all those links, as i've not denied that chinese medicine

 

harms species and in fact have implicitly acknowledged it.

however, it's not the *only* thing that harms them or extinguishes them:

Habitat loss poses the greatest threat to species...It is identified as a main threat to 85% of all species described in the IUCN's Red List (those species officially classified as "Threatened" and "Endangered").

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/

Fewer than 500 endangered Siberian, or Amur, tigers remain in the wild...threatened by poaching, habitat loss due to logging, road-building and development, as well as by the problem of inbreeding that has resulted from the fact that, before conservation measures were implemented in the 1930′s, the entire population had collapsed to around 40 individuals...

In June 1996 a game rancher named John Hume paid about $200,000 for three pairs of endangered black rhinos ....South Africa did not start the auctions because it had a surplus of the animals....they were still critically endangered....

But black rhinos are massive animals, and with just under 7 percent of the country set aside in protected areas, conservationists and wildlife departments had run out of room to accommodate them...

The black rhino is a trophy for many hunters, who are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot them. Such men travel to Africa from Russia, Japan, Spain, and Eastern Europe, but Americans dominate the market....Leonard bemoans the common confusion of hunters with poachers. The difference, he says, is that hunters care about the environment -- and the law....(and have lots more money than poachers...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/hunters-paying-150-000-to-kill-an-endangered-rhino-may-save-the-species.html


As for your calculation that the gain/loss ratio of Chinese medicine = negative -- that's one calculus, though i doubt anyone's ever done that calculation.

But the same thing may be said of anti-depressants once the long-term effects are in. As you say, 'we've only begun to understand,' which makes me wonder why 1/10 are on these drugs, including about 3% of children.

Sorry, don't understand your reference to 'trading two species for one'.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #124)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:41 AM

127. Chinese medicine is the greater part of it

in every one of those cases. Do you think the world wildlife fund, the Smithsonian, etc just didn't do it's homework on what was causing the problem?

You're just trying to shrug it off. Ignore it.

Long term effects of anti-depressants? they've been around for 30 years now. 1980.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #127)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:26 AM

134. I quoted the world wildlife fund on habitat loss being the most important cause of extinction

 

in 75% of listed endangered species. do you think they didn't do their homework?

your dedication to ignoring the content of my posts is admirablly single-minded.

'listening to prozac' was published in 1993 & marks the wider-scale use of SSRIs.

there are few long-term studies.


In 1988, the first SSRI, fluoxetine, was introduced in the United States... SSRIs were initially considered almost free of side effects. Unlike the TCAs, they could be used safely in many patient populations, including the elderly and children...

However, questions about the safety and tolerability of SSRIs have emerged with their continued use. For example, in the original placebo-controlled clinical trials of fluoxetine in depressed patients, sexual dysfunction was reported in 1.9% of trial participants... However, postmarketing clinical trials have reported rates of sexual dysfunction as high as 75%.

Although severe SSRI-induced hyponatremia was not reported in the original clinical trials, it is now known to occur in 1 in 200 elderly patients per year...

Why have the frequency and type of side effects with SSRIs increased with time?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181155/


What is not washed out are the side effects, which include the potential for brain damage. A few years ago one of Glenmullen’s patients who was taking Prozac developed a tic—the tongue darting in and out of the mouth—that persisted for months after the drug was discontinued. That sent Glenmullen to Countway Library. He found reports of tics and other neurological side effects, like drug-induced Parkinsonism, associated with SSRIs. “The tics include lip smacking, lip puckering, fishlike kissing motions, and pelvic thrusting,” Glenmullen says. “They are involuntary, disfiguring, and can be very noticeable—and may persist long after the drug is stopped. This is the dread side effect in psychiatry, and it can indicate brain damage. Such reactions are not rare. Neurologic agitation is estimated to occur in 10 to 25 percent of patients, and muscle spasms in 10 percent.”

The FDA mandates clinical trials for antidepressants that typically last only six weeks and primarily test the drug’s efficacy and short-term safety. “We lack systematic monitoring of long-term side effects,” Glenmullen says, noting that a former FDA head estimated that only 1 percent of long-term side effects comes to the agency’s attention. Glenmullen adds that such side effects of psychiatric drugs typically take three decades to gain a critical level of attention, as with the restlessness and involuntary twitching—tardive dyskinesia—associated with Thorazine and other major tranquilizers. “Those drugs were prescribed the way Prozac is now,” Glenmullen states. (To date, an estimated 30 million people have ingested SSRIs.)

http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/05/the-downsides-of-prozac.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #134)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:46 AM

141. At least it's not death

Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2012, 06:38 AM - Edit history (2)

Like your Chinese cure. Of course, that only happens rarely, right? not like regular medicine, where you get all the side effects all the time.

Like I said, you love to talk about the side effects. Which go away once you've stopped taking the drug. There are side effects to every drug. There are side effects to your Chinese "medicine." There would be, if you actually took it in any quantity to have an effect.

Oh, and you forgot this part:

"The combined pressures of commercial demand, excessive hunting and habitat destruction have depleted Asia's bear, tiger and rhino populations. Most experts agree that the trade in tiger bone for medicinal purposes was a major factor fueling the tiger conservation crisis of the 1980s and '90s." - my link WWF

your words:

"world wildlife fund on habitat loss being the most important cause of extinction in 75% of listed endangered species"

I'm going to assume you mean Asia's bear, tiger and rhino populations too. Of course, you'll tell me how wrong I am, and how you didn't mean that.

"For his part, Glenmullen has long prescribed Prozac and other SSRIs and continues to use them in specific cases. But he also suggests numerous treatment alternatives for anyone using or contemplating the use of such drugs—including psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioral treatment, 12-step programs, herbal remedies like St. John’s wort, exercise, and diet modifications. About one SSRI user in four really does benefit from the drug, he says, but he adds, “There is no free lunch. Most of these people who feel so good about the long-term use of Prozac think it’s cost-free. Patients need to be better educated about the risk-benefit analysis. If they are taking Prozac to feel ‘better than well,’ that’s a big mistake.” "

Like I said, over proscribed, but so are a lot of things. Hyperactive drugs, antibiotics, etc. Your long list of bad things doesn't seem to stop him from proscribing them though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #100)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:31 PM

159. if SSRI's don't work for you, perhaps you should get some benzo's.. i think you could use some...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #79)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:42 PM

148. They work for me. With my twice-a-day dose of Cymbalta

I am perfectly capable of functioning as normally as I can (I am dx'd on the autism spectrum as Asperger's). Without it I barely have the ability to get up and feed the cat. Not all anti-depressants work for all people, and any reputable psychiatrist will tell you so. There are some that have not worked for me. Cymbalta works for me both as an anti-depressant and mood stabilizer. I would be lost without it or something similar.

I suggest dismounting from your high horse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #148)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:33 PM

160. don't try convincing this guy... you're wasting your breath.

he knows better than people who take meds that are working for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:56 PM

30. Seriously?

There must be some other reason then that I'm not depressed, since it stopped when I started taking the meds.

I mean, the 10 years before that, I tried a lot of things. Then I started the meds, gone a month later.

Must have been aliens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:09 AM

37. not sure what relevance your comments have to mine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:18 AM

46. Let me make it easy for you

you said:

"where else would depression be but 'in their heads'? that doesn't mean that anti-depressants have a strong effect on depression.

possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'."

I said:

"There must be some other reason then that I'm not depressed, since it stopped when I started taking the meds.

I mean, the 10 years before that, I tried a lot of things. Then I started the meds, gone a month later."



See now? If you don't, I can't help. It's a personal problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:25 AM

49. He/She is using the same arguments the Creationists use when denying evolution.

It's a kind of absurd hyper-empiricism, declaring if somebody can't see it then it's BS. this kind of tiresome sophistry is spewed a lot by people wishing to deny science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:30 AM

53. Yea I know

Had another discussion with someone about the supernatural.

I said they all try to affect the physical world, so they should be able to be tested using the scientific method. I gave examples, such as spoon bending.

Suddenly spoon bending was no longer supernatural. And it didn't prove anything.

They play dumb when they can't do anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:14 AM

115. You seem to blame everything you don't

understand or have not studied on others being creationists, or following woo woo. Why not educate yourself before insinuating that others who have studied the subject are somehow lacking in education?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:31 AM

54. several hidden assumptions in there...i'll leave you to figure them out as you fancy you are so

 

very very clever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #54)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:38 AM

63. I guess you didn't

How sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:09 AM

111. If you think depression's a monolithic nonbiological thing you really need to stop talking

People getting into that realm of wilful ignorance need to step back and let the grownups discuss things instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:14 PM

147. You appeal to this man's authority and then immediately discredit him.



Vizzini would be so proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:43 AM

177. Depressive illness is a physical illness, not a bloody "all in your head" BS!

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 03:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Have a look at this PET scan and tell me again that depressive illness is not a physical illness:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM00356

Your posts are extremely offensive to everyone who suffers from this horrible illness.
Here is a good book for you and everyone else ignorant of what they are talking about:

Depressive Illness - Curse Of The Strong by Tim Cantopher:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Depressive-illness-curse-strong-Tim-Cantopher/dp/0859699749


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:53 PM

29. I second what odin said

Seems a lot of experts here with no first hand knowledge, nor medical degrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:08 AM

36. how do you know what degrees posters have?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:17 AM

43. Well you don't

obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:32 AM

56. oh really? your esp is poor

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:37 AM

62. Deductive reasoning.

You can get from point A to point Z without woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #62)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:44 AM

65. why don't you then? your brand of 'deductive reasoning' goes like this:

 

hipointdem questions the efficacy of certain modern pharmaceuticals.

hipoint dem disagrees that all chinese medicine is 'useless'

ergo, hipointdem has no degree.


but it's not really deductive reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #65)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:46 AM

66. You forgot C

Hitpointdem sounds just like all the other woos out there, and none of them has ever shown any evidence of having a science degree, or any understanding of science, for that matter.

Just science fear.

It's a wonder you even believe in global warming, if science is so bad.

Or does science only count when you agree with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #66)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:56 AM

69. "sounds like someone" is an opinion, not a fact. not an objective premise, sorry.

 

the only two pieces of evidence you had, i listed.

it was the *assumptions* you made (faulty assumptions) based on those two pieces of evidence that led you to *conclusion* C: "hipointdem sounds like a woo".

both ways, not deductive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #69)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:05 AM

72. Well you haven't disputed my claim

Now have you?

You could I suppose, but then on the other hand, you site one study that says anti depressants have no effect, while there are loads of others that say they do.

You can find outlying studies all over the place. Using them to make a theory won't get you very far.

I'm sure you could find studies that say global warming isn't real. But in the face of everyone else saying it is, whom would you believe.

All studies in science are not equal. The basis for a theory is based on the most evidence. The most evidence is that anti depressants work, and that global warming is real.

If you had a science degree, then you should know that.

Either that, or you just want to make a buck, like deepak chopra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #72)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:15 AM

74. except it's not just one study (the one cited was a meta-study, btw).

 

now let's talk about studies that never see the light of day because the results are unfavorable and the percentage of researchers with ties to drug companies and the differential in results obtained by tied & untied researchers.

also editing and peer review issues...

the debate could go on for some time...

meanwhile, 1/10 of the population is on these drugs, including toddlers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #74)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:22 AM

76. See that's another thing

Your hostility towards these medications.

belief in conspiracy theories.

The list gets longer the more you talk.

I've seen a lot of people they've helped, and most people who have conspiracy theories, push things like Chinese medicine, have no real first hand experience.

You just have a belief. And you're willing to bring that curse back down on people, because of your belief.

Not much better then a fundie, in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #76)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:31 AM

80. your assumptions are showing again -- and you're back to the name-calling.

 

also, i note you don't address the fairly well-known fact that there's a significant culling that takes place before publication, or the well-known fact that many researchers make lots of money from pharma ties, or the well-known fact that some editors do as well.

all of which skews the 'data'.

and it's not just 'woo' types who say so.

Concerns about the influence of industry money have prompted universities such as Stanford and the University of Colorado-Denver to ban drug sales representatives from the halls of their hospitals and bar doctors from paid promotional speaking.

Yet, one area of medicine still welcomes the largesse: societies that represent specialists. It’s a relationship largely hidden from public view, said David Rothman, who studies conflicts of interest in medicine as director of the Center on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University.


http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-societies-and-financial-ties-to-drug-and-device-makers-industry

Payments to Doctors by Pharmaceutical Companies Raise Issues of Conflicts

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-pharmaceutical-companies-raise-issues-of-conflicts.html

Publication bias:

Publication bias is a bias with regard to what is likely to be published, among what is available to be published....

one very problematic, and much discussed bias is the tendency of researchers, editors, and pharmaceutical companies to handle the reporting of experimental results that are positive (i.e. showing a significant finding) differently from results that are negative (i.e. supporting the null hypothesis) or inconclusive, leading to a misleading bias in the overall published literature.

Such bias occurs despite the fact that studies with significant results do not appear to be superior to studies with a null result with respect to quality of design.

It has been found that statistically significant results are three times more likely to be published than papers affirming a null result....

The effect of this is that published studies may not be truly representative of all valid studies undertaken, and this bias may distort meta-analyses and systematic reviews of large numbers of studies—on which evidence-based medicine, for example, increasingly relies. The problem may be particularly significant when the research is sponsored by entities that may have a financial or ideological interest in achieving favorable results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

Funding bias:

The terms funding bias, sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, or funding publication bias refer to an observed tendency of the conclusion of a scientific research study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias is an instance of experimenter's bias...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias


Publication Bias Again, This Time For Antipsychotics

As we reported earlier today, new research has discovered that pharmaceutical companies withheld a handful of nonsignificant and negative data from publication when working to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve atypical antipsychotics. However, the problem was significantly less severe than the publication bias researchers found when looking at antidepressants...

In 1998 Moore used the Freedom of Information Act to pry such data from the FDA. The total came to 47 company-sponsored studies—on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Serzone, and Celexa—that Kirsch and colleagues then pored over. (As an aside, it turned out that about 40 percent of the clinical trials had never been published. That is significantly higher than for other classes of drugs, says Lisa Bero of the University of California, San Francisco; overall, 22 percent of clinical trials of drugs are not published. “By and large,” says Kirsch, “the unpublished studies were those that had failed to show a significant benefit from taking the actual drug.”)

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/03/21/publication-bias-again-this-time-for-antipsychotics/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #80)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:43 AM

83. Did I hurt your feelings?

I didn't call YOU a name, I compared your actions to those of a fundie.

You seem to have some problems understanding the difference.

Like claiming Odin called you a name, when he called your argument crap.

The list keeps growing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #83)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:51 AM

88. more name-calling, while i'm citing evidence. readers can judge for themselves who's more

 

scientific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #88)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:00 AM

89. Like I said

You can't seem to see the difference between calling your argument crap, and calling you that.



Who's more "scientific"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #89)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:19 AM

93. i haven't noticed you making any arguments at all. or linking any evidence.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #93)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:33 AM

97. because you're asking me

to disprove the existence of unicorns.

We all know they don't and never have, yet you want me to prove it.

That, in an analogy, is your claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #97)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:04 AM

109. i don't recall asking you for anything at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #109)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:10 AM

113. Ok, so you're trying to prove your case

Glad we got that figured out.

Since you're the one trying to prove your case, the burden of proof is on you. not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #88)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 09:24 AM

142. I have, and it's certainly not you

I hope you don't consider that name calling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #83)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:25 AM

122. Why don't you reply to the evidence

presented instead of ignoring it? Your actions and lack of a cogent argument show that you really have no sound argument. It's well known that the pharmaceutical industry hides the studies they do that do not show their products in a positive light and hire ghost writers to make any small amount of evidence in their favor appear to be much a much larger effect. The evidence is out there if you're looking for it. Since you seem to only want to repeat your incorrect "beliefs", instead of accepting the scientific evidence your behavior seems far more in the creationist mode than those you accuse of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #122)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:43 AM

128. I have argument plenty

You just don't agree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:08 AM

110. So true.

I was only able to kick my depression when I quit taking statins. I'm convinced they are what caused it, but I was never told that could be one of the side effects. Recent discoveries, or should I say, recent exposure of discoveries that statins may also cause type 2 diabetes are interesting to me, as I used to have that diagnosis. I've managed to cure that by ignoring everything we've been told about nutrition by the politicians who created the food pyramid! Who thought allowing politicians to dictate nutrition was a good idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #110)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:29 AM

167. woo peddling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #167)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:36 AM

169. Way to add

to the discussion. Got nothin'? Accuse someone of woo. Very boring and tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #110)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:40 AM

174. politicians didn't create the food pyramid, dietitians/professor types did. but the ones who

 

decide nutrition guidelines are heavily influenced by the food industry, the medical industry, and politics. the journal of the american dietetics association is basically one long advertisement. it's possibly the worst professional journal out there.

i've heard of many cases where people are told they have diabetes based on a single reading -- a big no-no.

a friend of mine was told by his doc he had diabetes while in hospital with an infection. infection is only one of the myriad things that can send your blood sugar up -- another big no-no to diagnose diabetes under those circumstances, and it shocked me that any doctor would tell a patient that. the person's readings normalized once his infection ended.

i'm very leery of statins for many reasons. they're very overprescribed imo & i think some of the research is dubious as well -- perhaps the entire paradigm.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #174)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:14 PM

178. I imagine I wasn't

very clear in my prior post. The Food pyramid was heavily influenced by food industry lobbyists who were able to completely change what we were told to eat from the original in 1991 to the one that was actually released in 1992.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/pyramid.html

As to type 2 diabetes, I was diagnosed with it for at least 5 years, with many labs confirming that. I knew from daily testing at home that when I followed the guidelines of the ADA and other organizations about the "proper diet", my blood sugars only got higher and higher. When I instead ate the foods that do not raise blood sugar, ignoring the advice given to me by those organizations and my doctor, my diabetes and all other labs improved and are now within the normal range and I am healthy.

Processed foods, grains, starches and sugar do immeasurable damage to our bodies. Unfortunately far too many doctors are not looking at the results of the advice they give out and are no longer looking for the cause of disease, but simply handing out more and more pills that generally only mask the symptoms and call for more pills to try to alleviate the side effects. The only reason we're told to eat these foods are because the large corporations who profit from them have far too much influence. Even the training that our doctors receive in school are skewed by pharmaceutical company influence.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #178)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:52 PM

179. i understand what you're saying about the pyramid, i'm just saying you've got some of the

 

details wrong.

1. food guides date to 1916 & have always been influenced by various lobbies, esp agricultural. it's nothing new, and in fact all the american food guides were published under the aegis of USDA which is agricultural lobby city.

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall02/greene/history.htm


2. The biggest difference from the older guidelines was a recommended number of servings and specification of serving size. Specification for grains was 6-11 servings (the low range for smaller people, the higher for bigger).

One serving of grain = 1/2 c. = the amount that will fit on your cupped palm. Or a piece of bread the size of a CD case, which is about half-2/3 the now-standard size of a piece of bread.


3. the committee that makes the recommendation the pyramid guidelines are based on is composed of nutrition people & academics, not lobbyists. of course they are *influenced* by lobbyists, but they aren't themselves lobbyists.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dgas2010-dgacreport.htm

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/DGAC-Membership.pdf


4. In 2011 the pyramid was replaced by "MyPlate":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPyramid


I was not talking about *you* in my comments about diabetes, just making general comments based on my own knowledge & experience. Nor was I commenting on your diabetes treatment or your diet.

I'll also say that i don't think the pyramid per se had a big effect on american eating patterns. what had a big effect was the steady barrage of "hi-fat bad, low-fat good, lose weight with low-fat" propaganda in the media.

plus people's interpretation of things like 'low-fat cookies/snackwells' as 'diet cookies'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #16)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 10:43 PM

20. Indeed, I think it would be fairly easy to put together a presentation showcasing

old quack medicines and their equivalent (or near equivalent) quack medicines of today.

And too many people, lacking any scientific education, waste precious resources enriching the pockets of charlatans and hacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:36 AM

61. yeah because the fact that now 80% of kids with cancer get cured by treatments

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:03 AM

143. Interestingly

The New Age movement embraces the corporate gospel dressed up for the woo set and titled "The Secret."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sat Aug 18, 2012, 11:35 PM

26. From your post, it seems you think any "antique medicine" is worthless.

I hope that's not true, your collection aside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:00 AM

32. Personally, I would say most

Aspirin and Quinine where two that I can name off the bat that weren't.

Homeopathy, Chinese medicine, worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:10 AM

38. Willow bark, foxglove, quinine, opium, all still useful

but yeah, for the most part the majority of the 19th century pharmacopoeia is pretty worthless (mercury pills, anyone?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:17 AM

44. But now we can make all those synthetically without hurting any plants.

If we had to use willow bark as a source of asprin the genus Salix would be extinct in a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:24 AM

48. Some, not all

poppies are still harvested for opiate production, for instance. Digitalis still comes from foxglove. Acetylsalicylic acid can be synthesised in a lab, and there are better antimalarials than cinchona bark, but plants still provide significant sources of drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:32 AM

123. Making medicines synthetically

is done for profit, not to save the plants. We're also not able to completely synthesis natural things, in most cases, and therefor end up with inferior substitutes that cause side effects, which then necessitate more meds. Yea, more profit! When natural cures are discovered they often are hidden by pharma because there's no profit in that. Then they go to work making something infinitely profitable, yet inferior. Greed driven medicine. Not what we need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #123)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:46 PM

145. LOL! Here comes the "Natural good, artificial bad!" nonsense.

A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, they are all fungible, it does not matter where it comes from.

When natural cures are discovered they often are hidden by pharma because there's no profit in that.

Prove it or I'll have to assume that's a Kevin Trudeau lie or pulled out of your ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #145)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:59 PM

149. That's all you've ever done

is accuse me of being Kevin Trudeau. It doesn't matter where molecules come from? It doesn't matter what you eat? Ok, then just eat plastic. That's your argument? You're simply here to argue against information. That's your m.o. So, so telling.

The more information we have the better informed we are as a population. The only ones I know who argue against that are republican cons. Way to go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #149)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:04 PM

150. So you admit your scientific ignorance.

Your "Eat Plastic" comment is a red herring. synthetic acetylsalicylic acid isn't "plastic".

A molecule acts the same no matter how it was formed, to insist otherwise is denying facts. It is a throwback to the false doctrine of Vitalism that has been disproved for over a 100 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #150)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:54 PM

154. Anything to support

corporate interests and obfuscate... Quick, jump in front of any new information.... can't have the masses know the truth... You're better at it than some... but you're are what you do. You accuse anyone presenting anything that doesn't conform to your conservative support of the status quo of being woo woo pushers or criminals. Your lack of curiosity is a dead giveaway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #154)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:57 PM

155. I'm not obsfuscating, you are.

I have FACTS on my side. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule. Refute that or shut the fuck up and admit your utter ignorance of what your talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #155)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

166. A molecule is a molecule?

Those are the facts that you use to excuse corporate malfeasance and the high jacking of our health by pharma and politicians? Well, ok then. Let's all go with that!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #123)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:34 AM

168. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #168)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:37 AM

170. That's who you are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:10 AM

39. opium. & if you think chinese medicine was/is worthless you don't know anything about it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:16 AM

42. Yep, figured you for a woo.

Congrats on driving species into extinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #42)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:26 AM

50. as i said, you have no idea what credentials people have. but namecalling in place of an argument

 

is certainly a typical tactic of certain types of apologists for power.

the medical/research/pharma conglomerate is responsible for all sorts of harmful bullshit, but according to folks like you, questioning these gods = 'woo'. it doesn't matter if the questioning is done with full citations by degreed people, in one ear & out the other to the apologists.

sorry, it's your kind who has the 'woo'.

and re chinese medicine, you dismissed an entire complex of treatments as 'worthless'. i'm wondering where the empirical evidence for that global is, you scientist you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:36 AM

59. I never said "don't question"

Questioning is what science is all about.

I said Chinese medicine was woo. Have the data to back your argument up, I'll listen, and most likely agree. But you don't, and never will.

You also haven't said whether you have a degree. But I would assume you don't. Any doctor of science worth salt wouldn't push hooey.

I'm a supporter of science, not woo. I would expect, in your mind, that means I'm a supporter of power. Nah, I just don't want to return to the middle ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #59)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:48 AM

67. you said chinese medicine (en toto) was "worthless". i'm not 'pushing' chinese medicine, i'm

 

saying that statement is too global & there isn't enough evidence to make it.

if you're such a scientific type, why are you so prone to making grand assumptions on limited evidence?

including the assumptions you've made about me, what i think, and my lack of a degree.

not only prone to sweeping conclusions, but also to calling people names and degrading them on the basis of your sweeping conclusions.

really funny when the defenders of 'science' act so unscientifically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #67)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:55 AM

68. It's been around thousands of years

Or so I've been told multiple times.

From what I've seen, and read, and watched, there is no value to it.

It never cured smallpox, measles, or any other diseases. Never made the blind see or the lame walk. And the west has been in contact with china for thousands of years. I would have expected those things to pass like wildfire.

So yea, I think it's worthless. Doesn't mean I can't change my mind upon further evidence though.

But I haven't seen it it, and I probably never will.

One can have opinions, and one can change those opinions.


Really name calling? "puppets of power" or some shit? Really, kettle pot, black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #68)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:04 AM

71. "From what I've seen, and read, and watched"

 

well, i'm sure that covers every one of those thousands of years, every facet of chinese medicine, and every one of the hundreds of 'medicines' and treatment modalities in the toolbox.

not.

if there's evidence that even *one* is useful, your statement is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:09 AM

73. You got that one thing?

Let's have it.

The efficacy of tiger penis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #73)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:28 AM

78. nih

 

Thunder god vine is a perennial vine native to China, Japan, and Korea. It has been used in China for health purposes for more than 400 years.

Thunder god vine has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for conditions involving inflammation or overactivity of the immune system...for excessive menstrual periods or for autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and lupus...applied to the skin for rheumatoid arthritis.

What the Science Says

Laboratory findings suggest that thunder god vine may fight inflammation, suppress the immune system, and have anti-cancer effects.

Although early evidence is promising, there have been few high-quality studies of thunder god vine in people.

Results from a large study funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), which compared an extract of thunder god vine root with a conventional medicine (sulfasalazine) for rheumatoid arthritis, found that participants’ symptoms (e.g., joint pain and swelling, inflammation) improved more significantly with thunder god vine than with sulfasalazine.

A small study on thunder god vine applied to the skin also found benefits for rheumatoid arthritis symptoms.

There is not enough scientific evidence to assess thunder god vine’s use for any other health conditions.

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/tgvine

Considering that the chinese pharmacopoeia contains literally thousands of substances, most little-studied, it's a safe bet they're not all 'worthless'.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #78)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:45 AM

84. Rhino horn?

Tiger penis?

Got any data on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #84)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:08 AM

90. you asked for one example & i gave you one. now you want to talk about tiger penises.

 

when we consider that western 'scientists' deliberately infected unsuspecting guatemalans with syphilis (precursor to the tuskeegee experiment conducted by similar 'scientists'), just one in a long list of misdeeds, i'd say the west can match the east atrocity for atrocity.

and species extinction? you're playing favorites. how many primates and other exotics killed & tortured for medical research?



chimpanzees are endangered:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/chimpanzee/

the us is still using them for medical & other research:

http://io9.com/5897269/tthe-case-for-ending-medical-research-on-chimps

as for extinction generally, the US can more than match the chinese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #90)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:21 AM

94. You always use "western"

Why do you now specifically single out the US?

Because most other "western" countries have stopped doing that, and every scientist would say, and has said, that those tests on those people was unethical.

You have to narrow your argument to make it not look so bad.

"I may be crappy, but the other guy WAS crappy, so that makes it all OK."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #84)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:36 AM

125. Straw man.

Quit ignoring the evidence against your invalid argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Confusious (Reply #129)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:43 AM

136. Try replying to the correct post.

When presented with evidence, you obfuscate and refuse to consider it. You and Odin2005 wander around here trying to obscure and discredit (not with evidence, just name calling and accusations of woo woo) anything presented that doesn't agree with the status quo and the version of reality presented by pharma, the ADA, AMA, AHA and others. We've been deceived in so many other areas by the PTB and to think that the greed doesn't extend to medicine or health is preposterous. But then, you know that.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #136)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:41 AM

139. Yea, well if the shoe fits

Your woo is better then anyone else's woo.

Of course you have no proof of that....

If you did, it would be science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #139)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:44 PM

144. Same reply to every post....

You've got nothing so you just keep accusing everyone of woo.... It's obvious why you're here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #78)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:46 AM

85. Oh god! look at the side effects!~

Thunder god vine can cause severe side effects and can be poisonous if it is not carefully extracted from the skinned root. Other parts of the plant—including the leaves, flowers, and skin of the root—are highly poisonous and can cause death.
A number participants in the NIAMS study experienced gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, indigestion, and nausea, as well as upper respiratory tract infections. (The rate of adverse effects was similar in both the thunder god vine and sulfasalazine groups.)
Thunder god vine can also cause hair loss, headache, menstrual changes, and skin rash.
There are no consistent, high-quality thunder god vine products being manufactured in the United States. Preparations of thunder god vine made outside the United States (for example, in China) can sometimes be obtained, but it is not possible to verify whether they are safe and effective.
Thunder god vine has been found to decrease bone mineral density in women who take the herb for 5 years or longer. This side effect may be of particular concern to women who have osteoporosis or are at risk for the condition.
Thunder god vine contains chemicals that might decrease male fertility by changing sperm.
Tell all your health care providers about any complementary and alternative practices you use. Give them a full picture of what you do to manage your health. This will help ensure coordinated and safe care. For tips about talking with your health care providers about CAM, see NCCAM’s Time to Talk campaign.


I think death is pretty serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #85)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:32 AM

96. "The rate of adverse effects was similar in both the thunder god vine and sulfasalazine groups."

 

Possible side effects include death with sulfasalazine as well. However, in the case of TGV, the 'death' is a risk when the drug isn't processed correctly, not from the correctly processed compound.

You really don't know much about medicine if you think that post constitutes a critique of TGV. Nearly all medicines in the western pharmacy carry some risk of fatality.


Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Sulfasalazine:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody diarrhea; bluish discoloration of the skin or nails; chest pain; dark urine; decreased urination; fever, chills, or sore throat; hearing loss; mental or mood changes; muscle pain; numbness or tingling in the fingers or toes; pale stools; persistent loss of appetite; pinpoint bruises; red, swollen, peeling, or blistered skin; seizures; severe or persistent dizziness, drowsiness, headache, or trouble sleeping; severe or persistent stomach pain; shortness of breath; trouble walking; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual tiredness or weakness; unusually pale skin; yellowing of the eyes; yellowing of the skin along with dark urine, pale stools, or persistent loss of appetite.

General

Gastrointestinal intolerance to sulfasalazine occurred frequently and resulted in drug withdrawal in 17% of treated patients. Hypersensitivity reactions accounted for therapy withdrawal in 13% of sulfasalazine-treated patients. Hypersensitivity adverse effects are generally attributed to the sulfapyridine moiety, which is common and is often the cause of serious complications in patients receiving sulfasalazine.

The use of sulfonamides, including sulfasalazine, is associated with large increases in the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, although these phenomena are rare as a whole.

Hypersensitivity side effects have included sulfasalazine-induced rash, erythema multiforme (Stevens-Johnson syndrome), exfoliative dermatitis, toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell's syndrome) with corneal damage, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, serum sickness syndrome, pneumonitis (with or without eosinophilia), vasculitis, fibrosing alveolitis, pleuritis, pericarditis (with or without tamponade), allergic myocarditis, polyarteritis nodosa, lupus erythematosus-like syndrome, hepatitis and hepatic necrosis (with or without immune complexes), fulminant hepatitis (sometimes leading to liver transplantation), parapsoriasis varioliformis acuta (Mucha-Haberman syndrome), rhabdomyolysis, photosensitization, arthralgia, periorbital edema, conjunctival and scleral injection, alopecia, and interstitial lung disease.

Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, nausea, vomiting, gastric distress, dyspepsia, stomatitis, abdominal pain, pancreatitis, altered taste, diarrhea (including bloody diarrhea), impaired folic acid absorption, impaired digoxin absorption, hemorrhagic colitis, and neutropenic enterocolitis. Pseudomembranous colitis has been reported in at least one patient, and necrotizing pancreatitis in at least two patients. The use of enteric-coated preparations may decrease gastrointestinal adverse effects.

Hepatitis associated with sulfasalazine often developed two to four weeks after therapy was initiated, although hypersensitivity hepatitis has been reported after longer periods of therapy. Associated rash usually progressed to desquamation. Liver biopsy has shown necrosis and infiltration with moderate number of inflammatory cells. Noncaseating granulomas have also been seen. Hepatitis generally resolved over several weeks after therapy discontinuation, although some patients progressed to fulminant hepatic failure.

Hepatic side effects have included abnormal liver function tests, hepatitis, and hepatic failure. Hepatitis has been reported in patients with sulfasalazine hypersensitivity. Hepatotoxicity, including elevated liver function tests, jaundice, cholestatic jaundice, cirrhosis, and possible hepatocellular damage including liver necrosis and liver failure have been reported during postmarketing experience with the use of products containing or metabolized to mesalamine. Some of these cases were fatal.

Hematologic side effects have included agranulocytosis, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia and cyanosis, Heinz body anemia, aplastic anemia, purpura, hypoprothrombinemia, methemoglobinemia, congenital neutropenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, red cell aplasia, and megaloblastic (macrocytic) anemia.

Agranulocytosis has been reported to generally occur during the first one to three months of therapy. Patients often present with fever and sore throat. A few have also presented with a rash. Bone marrow hypoplasia or aplasia is usually confined to the myeloid series, but may be accompanied by erythroid hypoplasia and marrow plasmacytosis. In one review of 62 cases of sulfasalazine-induced agranulocytosis, 6.5% of patients died. Recovery of granulocytes is generally seen within one to two weeks after drug discontinuation, and leukocyte counts and differential return to normal in one to three weeks. Some cases of agranulocytosis have been treated with colony stimulating factor, which appears to increase the time to recovery.

Patients often presented after several weeks or months of therapy with fever, malaise, shortness of breath, and nonproductive cough. Eosinophilic infiltrates have been seen. Respiratory changes generally resolved over a few weeks, however, fatal reactions involving fibrosing alveolitis have been reported.

Respiratory side effects have included pulmonary infiltrates (frequently accompanied by eosinophilia), fibrosing alveolitis, and bronchiolitis obliterans. Sulfasalazine lung toxicity may mimic Wegener's granulomatosis and false positive c-ANCAs have been found in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Immunoglobulin suppression was slowly reversible and rarely accompanied by clinical findings.

In most cases of sulfasalazine-induced SLE, patients received the drug for greater than one year. Patients most commonly developed arthralgias and pleuritic chest pain. Generally, these patients had a positive ANA, anti-DNA antibody titer, and were slow acetylators of sulfonamides. Symptoms typically resolved over several weeks to several months.

Immunologic side effects have included a 10% rate of immunoglobulin suppression and drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Transverse myelitis developed in one patient after receiving sulfasalazine for two years. All symptoms resolved within two months after discontinuing sulfasalazine.

Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, malaise, insomnia, meningitis (including aseptic meningitis), neurotoxicity, seizures, dysphasia, neuropathy (including peripheral neuropathy), acute encephalopathy, monoparesis, transverse myelitis, transient lesions of the posterior spinal column, cauda equina syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities, vertigo, hearing loss, ataxia, hallucinations, tinnitus, and drowsiness.

Renal side effects have included toxic nephrosis with oliguria and anuria, nephritis (including interstitial nephritis), nephrotic syndrome, and hemolytic uremic syndrome. At least one patient developed bilateral renal calculi composed of acetylsulfapyridine, a metabolite of sulfasalazine. Proteinase 3-ANCA positive necrotizing glomerulonephritis has been reported in at least one patient.

Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia.

Infertility appears to be reversible upon drug discontinuation.

Genitourinary side effects have included reversible oligospermia, decreased motility, and abnormal sperm penetration sometimes resulting in infertility. Impotence (rare), urinary tract infections, hematuria, crystalluria, proteinuria, and urine discoloration have been reported.

Dermatologic side effects have included rash, pruritus, urticaria, and skin discoloration. Rare cases of lichen planus and at least two cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis have been reported.

Psychiatric side effects have included depression (guess it messes with that 'brain chemistry', confusion, and vivid dreams.

Musculoskeletal side effects have included myopathy.

Other side effects have included fever. At least one case of Kawasaki-like syndrome with hepatic function changes has been reported during postmarketing experience with the use of products containing or metabolized to mesalamine.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/sulfasalazine-side-effects.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #96)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:41 AM

101. Certainly I know that

I also know that woo people always complain about the side effects.

Which, BTW, companies are required to put every little thing that happens to people on the drug packaging, sometimes whether it is the drug or not.

another thing, one well tested drug VS.

"Although early evidence is promising, there have been few high-quality studies of thunder god vine in people."

One not so tested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #101)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:03 AM

107. i'm not a woo person.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #107)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:11 AM

114. Seems like it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:18 AM

45. Chinese Medicine is good for driving species into extinction from poaching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #45)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:27 AM

51. no, that's capitalism. chinese medicine isn't all about endangered species, fyi.

 

not to mention that westerners have killed off a hell of a lot more species than the chinese -- more money & power until quite recently.

(west also killed more chinese...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #51)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:35 AM

58. LOL, what crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #58)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:36 AM

60. that name-calling is highly effective in convincing the converted. go team!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #51)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:49 AM

87. We killed more chinese?

Then whom? The Chinese?

The Japanese?

The Russians?

The Vietnamese?

List keeps growing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #87)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:47 AM

103. i see why you're having a problem; you can't read properly.

 

"westerners have killed off a hell of a lot more species than the chinese"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #103)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:50 AM

104. No I can read

You posted:

(west also killed more chinese...)

You want to go and correct that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #104)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:59 AM

106. ah, my error then. no, i'll leave it stand, as it's true re modern times. also vietnamese &

 

others, as you kindly noted.

the biggest power is typically the biggest killer. perhaps china will outstrip us at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #106)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:16 AM

118. Really?

When and where did we kill so many Chinese?

What I noted were the wars china was involved in, some that they involved themselves in, of their own free will.

Chinese vs Chinese -> thousands of years of fighting each other.
WW2 -> Japanese
Korea -> china - north korea VS United Nations
Vietnam -> china - Vietnam war. (That would be China and vietnam fighting)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #118)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:54 AM

130. see the dip circa 1851? 20-30 million = opium wars/taiping rebellion. biggest population loss of

 

modern times. bigger than anything mao did, despite the propaganda.




many ways to kill people.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h38china.htm


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #130)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:09 AM

132. 50,000 deaths due the opium wars

Sure I can see that.

But you're blaming a revolt (1850-1863) on the western powers, which was led by a Chinese native who thought he was Jesus Christ, against the Qing dynasty. Almost entirely fought between Chinese. (Western powers only joined in in the last stages of the rebellion I might add).

it's the western powers killing people.

Did the western powers use mind control to make the rebellion happen and the people fight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #132)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:34 AM

135. yes, i'm blaming the western powers, for multiple reasons. the opium wars and the taiping

 

rebellion are inextricably linked, not discrete events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #135)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:44 AM

140. Guilt by association then, is it.

I guess we all can't uphold modern ideas of justice when it clashes with our dogma.

PS. It's not like the Chinese didn't overthrow their own emperors way back when, on their own. No... wait. They did.

PS. The only reason they're linked is because the rebels didn't like the weakness of the Qing in dealing with the western powers. The Western powers didn't hold a gun or use mind control to make the rebellion happen. The rebels had a choice.

And they made it. So did the Qing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #140)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:48 PM

146. I see the "West evil, West evil" BS has started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:31 AM

55. Ignorance is bliss, some say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:10 AM

112. Most antique medicine *was* worthless. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 01:41 AM

82. Homeopathic Medicines?

 

Here you go. Here's just a few examples out of plenty more.















Suzanne Somers cured her breast cancer with this one






























This one may or may not qualify as homeopathic, but its a powerful therapy against cancer but big pharma and the medical establishment call it quackery. View the results and judge for yourself.













How To Use Cayenne Pepper To Stop A Heart Attack Fast!

Famed healers such as Dr. John Christopher, N.D., and Dr. Richard Schulze, N.D., sang the praises of Cayenne pepper. For instance Dr. John Christopher declared: "In 35 years of practice, and working with the people and teaching, I have never on house calls lost one heart attack patient and the reason is, whenever I go in--if they are still breathing--I pour down them a cup of cayenne tea (a teaspoon of cayenne in a cup of hot water, and within minutes they are up and around)."

It should be noted that these men, and many other healers like them, were speaking from personal experience and not speculation when referring to this powerful plant.

So what are the best practices in using Cayenne pepper based upon the voice and experiences of those that have actually used it?

First the Cayenne pepper must be at least 90,000 heat units or 90,000(H.U.) to be able to stop a heart attack. If the cayenne is at least 90,000 H.U. and the person is still conscious, the recommendation is to mix 1 teaspoon of cayenne powder in a glass of warm water (this is essentially a "cayenne tea"), and give it to the person to drink.

If the person is unconscious then the recommendation is to use a cayenne tincture or extract, again of at least 90,000 H.U., and put a couple of full droppers underneath their tongue full strength. As noted above by Dr. Christopher, in 35 years of practice he never lost even 1 heart attack case if the person was still breathing when he arrived, and he attributed this to the prudent use of the cayenne pepper.



http://www.naturalnews.com/030566_cayenne_pepper_heart_attack.html#ixzz22tgzV6hV




Advance this video to 3:13 and this woman gives her personal experience in stopping a heart attack using cayenne pepper extract.





Capsaicinoids, (capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin), are the major pungent constituents of chili peppers from the genus Capsicum. Regular intake of chili peppers delays oxidation of serum lipids, and lowers and improves insulin and glucose profiles following a meal, both of which contribute to reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease (Ahuja 2006). In animal models, capsaicin reduces platelet aggregation (Wang 1984). An early study attributed the reduced plasma fibrinogen and increased fibrinolytic activity of native Thai individuals, compared to Americans living in Thailand, to the amounts of capsaicin in their diets (Visudhiphan 1982). In laboratory tests, both capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin reduced platelet aggregation and reduced the activity of clotting proteins in blood samples from 6 healthy patients (Adams 2009).


http://www.lef.org/protocols/heart_circulatory/blood_clot_02.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #82)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:11 AM

91. The cayenne cure reminded me of these guys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #91)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:18 AM

119. ...

 
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #119)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:36 AM

126. The good (not so good) Dr had his license revoked

Maybe if you wee on his head, it'll fix things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #126)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:06 AM

131. Your comment only demonstrates your ignorance

 

Dr. Glenn Warner had his license revoked for curing cancer patients with methods that didn't make the pharmaceutical industry its billions of dollars. That tends to happen to doctors as some of the above videos illustrate.

So go ahead confusious keep serving the corporate interests of money before health. In the end, your arrogance toward homeopathic medicine is only doing a disservice to the sick and dying.




Dr. Glenn Warner, unconventional oncologist

Seattle Times:

Before his license was revoked, Dr. Warner was seeing about 1,500 cancer patients a year at the clinic, which he had opened in Seattle in 1979. "He saved my life," said Lois Berry, 81, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1969.

Berry has never had conventional treatment for her cancer, which metastasized to her bones in 1973. And like legions of Warner's patients, she credits his holistic approach to treatment for the fact that she is still alive.

"He was the most wonderful, caring, loving, religious man I've ever known," Berry said. "The medical community couldn't stand it because he didn't practice medicine the way everybody else did. He was way ahead of everybody. He always treated the whole person."

--

In the 1960s, Dr. Warner became taken with scientific evidence that the body's own defenses could be used to fight cancer. In the medical lexicon, the practice of boosting those defenses to help a patient battle cancer is known as immunology.

Dr. Warner started the immunologic-oncology division at the Tumor Institute and did research on immunology in cooperation with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle before striking out on his own to start the clinic.


http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001114&slug=4052895

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #131)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:20 AM

133. No, I place science first

because it has a proven track record.

smallpox, measles, rubella, polio, antibiotics, heart transplants (Where are the homeopathic surgeons I wonder?) (Where are the homeopathic engineers I wonder?) (homeopathy has been around since, ooh, the 1850's. Why didn't it cure smallpox? It's bullshit, that's why.)

I prefer to move forward, not backwards. You're making a b-line to the middle ages. It isn't to any sort of better health, it's backwards to superstition.

Homeopathic A&E




Oh, yea... The "you're a puppet of power" is getting worn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #133)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:09 AM

137. No you don't

 

For if you did you would acknowledge that some illnesses are best treated by homeopathic medicine and other illnesses are best treated by allopathic medicine. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that fact illustrates you're not about science.

As for homeopathic medicine being bullshit. Then why is homeopathic medicine not only doing a far better job at curing cancer and other degenerative diseases, but also why is homeopathic medicine the basis of a lot of allopathic medicines?

The fact that you don't know that again illustrates to me you're not about science. You're just someone who lacks critical thinking skills and observation. Big pharma can't patent natural cures so they take natural cures and attempt to extract components so they can then get a patent. Its all about the money. But go ahead and keep drinking the kool-Aid.

Do you even have any idea how many people have been sent home to die by allopathic doctors who could do nothing more for them. Only to be saved by homeopathic medicine. Countless.

n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #137)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 05:39 AM

138. Bullshit

Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2012, 06:16 AM - Edit history (3)

You've been drinking to much koolaid.

Homeopathic "medicine" has saved no one.

Well, maybe some people from a terrible thirst.

"The effectiveness of homeopathy has been in dispute since its inception. One of the earliest double blind studies concerning homeopathy was sponsored by the British government during World War II in which volunteers tested the efficacy of homeopathic remedies against diluted mustard gas burns.

No individual preparation has been unambiguously demonstrated to be different from placebo. The methodological quality of the primary research was generally low, with such problems as weaknesses in study design and reporting, small sample size, and selection bias. Since better quality trials have become available, the evidence for efficacy of homeopathy preparations has diminished; the highest-quality trials indicate that the remedies themselves exert no intrinsic effect.:206 A review conducted in 2010 of all the pertinent studies of "best evidence" produced by the Cochrane Collaboration concluded that "the most reliable evidence – that produced by Cochrane reviews – fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

60 years of tests, and no one can find shit that shows it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #138)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

153. LOL.. Ha ha!

 

This will be my last post on this.

If homeopathic medicine was nothing more than snake oil or witchcraft, then why does the pharmaceutical industry employ botanists and other scientists to research the efficacy of natural substances so that they can then find a way to synthesize it or extract a component? The answer is because nature has had billions of years of natural selection to create these substances to fight off and defend against many pathogens and illnesses.

If homepathic medicines were ever standardized and serious clinical studies done to ascertain most effective protocols the pharmaceutical industry as well as the rest of the health-care industry would be gravely at risk of losing many billions of dollars since homeopathic medicines can't be patented, are sold over the counter and are without the nasty and dangerous side-effects common with many allopathic drugs. This is the crux of the matter and the basis why we see the medical industry shun homeopathic medicine. Its about the money and they don't want the competition.

Clinical trials cost money and since no patents can be issued for natural cures, there's little to no incentive from the medical industry to pay for clinical trials. But if you can synthesize it or extract a component such as we see for example with sativex and marinol in an attempt to patent marijuana therapy (there are hundreds of other examples). Then not only is there now financial incentive to regard the efficacy of a natural substance. But also we see financial incentive to discredit the use of these substance in their natural form for which there is also efficacy. Especially since they usually come without all the side-effects as we see with many allopathic drugs. Again, the health-care industry does not want any competition.

Clinical trials for substances need approval from the FDA. However there's a cozy financial conflict of interest between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. In the cancer videos I posted above it shows proof this conflict of interest is used against natural substance's efficacy from being recognized. Again, the health-care industry does not want any competition.

--


the guardian

Scientists are supposed to make unprejudiced observations, then draw conclusions. As I thought about this, I was left with the highly uncomfortable conclusion that homeopathy appeared to have worked. I had to find out more.

So, I started reading about homeopathy, and what I discovered shifted my world for ever. I became convinced enough to hand my coveted PhD studentship over to my best friend and sign on for a three-year, full-time homeopathy training course.

Now, as an experienced homeopath, it is "science" that is biting me on the bottom. I know homeopathy works, not only because I've seen it with my own eyes countless times, but because scientific research confirms it. And yet I keep reading reports in the media saying that homeopathy doesn't work and that this scientific evidence doesn't exist.

The facts, it seems, are being ignored. By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen, J, et al; Linde, K, et al; Linde, K, et al; Cucherat, M, et al) and one was negative (Shang, A et al). It's usual to get mixed results when you look at a wide range of research results on one subject, and if these results were from trials measuring the efficacy of "normal" conventional drugs, ratios of 63:11 and 4:1 in favour of a treatment working would be considered pretty persuasive.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/homeopathy-works-scientific-evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #137)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:46 PM

163. Homeopathic medicine is an oxymoron...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #82)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

162. naturalnews and lef...

well done.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:15 AM

116. Could you have them analyzed?

 

It would be cool to see if it had anything other than the oil of a snake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #116)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:30 PM

158. I probably could, but it might be expensive

The "snake oil" bottle that I have, from records compiled by the precursor to the FDA, had no rattlesnake oil at all, but instead contained camphor, turpentine, cayenne pepper, and beef fat.

I reckon if I ever uncork that bottle, my entire home is going to stink something fierce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:15 AM

117. I've always enjoyed watching the patent med vendors switch their target audiences

When doing my undergrad thesis I was studying the advertising for them in local papers for awhile. I'd see one around 1900 that would claim to cure various "nervous ailments" - the specifics varied by paper but that was the general theme.

Eight or ten years later, the same medicine was in the paper still, but this time it claimed to strengthen the blood and liver with no mention of nervous anything.

A few years after that, it's briefly claiming to be a panacea, curing heart problems, nerve problems, arthritis and so on.

Little after that, it's back to "nervous exhaustion" again.

I was mostly just looking at the wording in the ads rather than specific products, but I was always curious if the vendors were just following the fad ailments of the day or if there was some regulatory pressure quietly going on somewhere.


Also? Favorite quack-medicine claim: "Cures errors of youth." (What?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:24 AM

121. Gee, back in the day Coke was made with real cocaine. People gave paregoric to infants

with belly aches and I thought terpin hydrate was great for a cough. So many of the remedies I grew up with are now illegal or off the market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:06 PM

151. Don't forget Trickle Down, the ultimate snake oil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:27 PM

152. Always wondered about this one:

?w=289&h=300

Dad used to burn it and inhale the smoke to help rid him of congestion. Smelled really nasty. In later years, he burned it outside and some neighbor kids peeked over the fence and asked if he was smoking weed. Well it was green . . .


-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:24 PM

157. Awesome...

sounds like it would be a great presentation to hear. Knock 'em dead.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 10:36 PM

161. Sadly there is plenty of anti-science thinking among otherwise rational people on the left.

Lots of homeopathy woo peddlers still around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #161)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:33 AM

172. Snake oil salesmen are as popular as ever

In some cases (like with some of the pharma companies) they are more sophisticated about it, but some really aren't. They will always be around so long as there are people willing to give them money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #172)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 02:43 AM

173. They rail on about "big pharma" making obscene profits,

yet they sure aren't giving away their snake oil for free; they're making billions. If their snake oil worked then "big pharma" could sell it just like they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #173)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:47 AM

175. Although the pharmaceutical industry claims to be a high-risk business,

 

year after year drug companies enjoy higher profits than any other industry. In 2002, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the United States had a median profit margin of 17%, compared with only 3.1% for all the other industries on the Fortune 500 list.1 Indeed, subtracting losses from gains, those 10 companies made more in profits that year than the other 490 companies put together.


http://www.cmaj.ca/content/171/12/1451.full

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #175)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:51 AM

176. And?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 01:07 PM

181. Do you have the bottle of Heroin by Bayer (for toothing infants)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #181)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 07:19 PM

182. Ooooohh!!!

No, I'm afraid I don't. I'll bet that's real hard to find. On the other hand, a bottle of Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup might be an easier acquisition (contained morphine, used to put kids to sleep - some of them never woke up again).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread