Prev: Thimerosal: A vaccine ingredient’s toxic legacy
Next: when Breastfeeding......... Keep it in mind
From: Mark Probert on 30 Jan 2010 19:51
On Jan 30, 1:55 pm, Tim Campbell <timc...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 6:50 pm, "Lou" <lpog...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably reliable conclusion
> > as to how effective your proposed treatment is. If anyone's done that for
> > using bicarbonate to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
> So you're denying any degree of validity to the claims of a prominent
> physician of the day, working day in and day out in the trenches of
> the largest influenza outbreak of that era?
> Especially regarding something that is so simply and easily
> demonstrable for oneself. Most folks have a box of Arm & Hammer in
> their kitchen or bathroom.
From: Tim Campbell on 31 Jan 2010 17:45
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you quote Mercola for this? If so, you should realize that Mercola
> has no credibility, since everything he writes is to promote sales in
> his million dollar a year business.
Hmmmm, let's see who else's credibility is questionable:
Study: Money Talks in Drug Trials
June 5, 2007
http://www.intelihe alth.com/ IH/ihtIH/ EMIHC256/ 333/21291/
SAN FRANCISCO (The New York Times News Service) -- Money talks -- and
loudly when a drug company is funding a clinical trial involving one
products, according to a study released Monday.
University of California at San Francisco researchers looked at nearly
head-to-head studies of widely prescribed cholesterol- lowering
statins, and found that results were 20 times more likely to favor the
made by the company that sponsored the trial.
"We have to be really, really skeptical of these drug-company-
studies," said Lisa Bero, the study's author and professor of clinical
health policy studies at the university.
The research, reported in the online editions of PLoS Medicine, a San
Francisco medical journal, focused on studies of six statins --
Inc.'s Lipitor, Merck & Co.'s Zocor and the generic drug Mevacor --
already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The trials
involved comparing the effectiveness of a drug to one or two other
"If I'm a clinician or funder of health care, I really want to know
class of drug which one works better," Bero said.
"What our study shows is that depends on who funds the study."
UCSF researchers also found that a study's conclusions -- not the
research results but the trial investigators' impressions -- are more
times more likely to favor the test drug when that trial is sponsored
Drug manufacturers, through the industry's trade group, said the
government cracks down on biased research.
"The new study overlooks the crucial role of the Food and Drug
in reviewing and approving claims that are based on clinical trial
said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of Pharmaceutical Research
Manufacturers of America, in a statement.
"Our industry is dependent upon well-designed clinical trials that
muster with the FDA," Johnson said.
Mark Gibson is deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based Policy
Oregon Health & Science University, which reviews existing clinical
drug effectiveness and safety. He called the UCSF study an "important
"If Americans really want to be able to have sound evidence on which
their choice of treatments, they need to think about ways to fund
research," he said.
About half of the 192 statin trials examined in the study between 1999
2005 were funded by drug companies. Bero said drug companies fund up
percent of drug-to-drug clinical trials for certain classes of
About a third of the statin trials did not disclose any funding
Trials with no disclosed funding source were less likely to favor the
test drug than those with industry funding, researchers found.
The researchers found other factors that could affect trial results.
example, pharmaceutical companies could choose not to publish results
that fail to favor their drugs, or they could be designed in ways to
The study found the most important weakness of trials was lack of
clinical outcome measures. In the case of statins, some trials focused
less-direct results such as lipid levels but failed to connect the
results with key
outcomes such as heart attacks or mortality.
"None of us really care what our cholesterol level is. We care about
heart attack," Gibson said. "For the drug to be worthwhile taking, it
be directly related to prevent a heart attack."
The UCSF study was funded by a grant from the California Tobacco
Disease Research Program.
The study, "Factors Association with Findings of Published Trials of
Drug-Drugs Comparison," can be found online at www.medicine.
plosjournals. org .
Copyright 2007 The New York Times News Service. All rights reserved.
From: Tim Campbell on 31 Jan 2010 18:59
On Jan 30, 6:51 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, the next time you get a cold try bicarbonate. You'll be
convinced. (...and probably a little embarrassed.)
From: Tim Campbell on 1 Feb 2010 22:45
On Feb 1, 7:03 pm, f...(a)mauve.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> Wait. You're quoting a *sales brochure* from 1924 as evidence? Hell,
> the cigarette companies used to run ads telling you how good tobacco
> was for you more recently than that.
Yes, but just a little common sense would help me tell the difference
between a glass of water & a little baking soda and inhaling tobacco
smoke into my lungs.
And yes, thanks to the "scientific" community, "science" was blurring
the truth about tobacco for decades. So much so that a new term was
created, "tobacco science."
From: David on 2 Feb 2010 02:35
On Feb 1, 7:45 pm, Tim Campbell <timc...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:03 pm, f...(a)mauve.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> > Wait. You're quoting a *sales brochure* from 1924 as evidence? Hell,
> > the cigarette companies used to run ads telling you how good tobacco
> > was for you more recently than that.
> Yes, but just a little common sense would help me tell the difference
> between a glass of water & a little baking soda and inhaling tobacco
> smoke into my lungs.
> And yes, thanks to the "scientific" community, "science" was blurring
> the truth about tobacco for decades. So much so that a new term was
> created, "tobacco science."
Tobacco stuff aside, that still leaves the fact that you're trying to
use a sales brochure from 1924 as "evidence" that baking soda cures