From: Sidney Lambe on
On alt.food.vegan, dejablues <dejablues(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> "Tim Campbell" <timcall(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:26998af2-51af-4463-83a0-4c7355fe0ef6(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegro
> ups.com... On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know,
>> testimony of this sort is nearly worthless in science.
>
>>Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value >out in
>>the real world. Simply give it a try.
>
> Oh "science" , how funny. As for science, If NaHCO3. were of
> value as an antiviral, it would have been all over the planet
> for the last 80 years.

You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over the
media and the scientific community through ad revenues and grants
and salaries to scientists and educational instititions, etc.

There are hundreds of 'folk remedies' out there with real medicinal
value that you never hear about because they are a threat to the
profits of said medical-industrial-complex.

Here's a perfect example of the corruption of the scientific
community:

In the early 1950's the enormous animal-foods industry bought a
large number of 'scientists' and told them to tell the public
that dairy products were essential to the health of their teeth
and bones.

A real scientist, of course, would look at the real world and
conclude that milk was for babies and cow's milk was for cow's
babies.

And he would quickly discover, if he didn't know already, that
half the people in the world consumed no dairy products at
all and had healthier bones and teeth than those who did.

> Also, it can be dangerous when taken internally. Advising
> people to try it is unwise.

People have been taking it internally for its medicinal
for a very long time. And cooking with it.

google:

"bicarbonate of soda" medicine

1,520,000 hits.

Taking anything can be dangerous, depending on the dosage.

Duh

Are you ignorant, stupid, and lazy, or are you lying?

Sid



From: dejablues on

"Sidney Lambe" <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhm9pr9.6ts.sidneylambe(a)evergreen.net...
dejablues <dejablues(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Campbell" <timcall(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:26998af2-51af-4463-83a0-4c7355fe0ef6(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegro
>> ups.com... On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know,
>>> testimony of this sort is nearly worthless in science.
>>
>>>Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value >out in
>>>the real world. Simply give it a try.
>>
>> Oh "science" , how funny. As for science, If NaHCO3. were of
>> value as an antiviral, it would have been all over the planet
>> for the last 80 years.
>
> You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
> medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over the
> media and the scientific community through ad revenues and grants
> and salaries to scientists and educational instititions, etc.
>
> There are hundreds of 'folk remedies' out there with real medicinal
> value that you never hear about because they are a threat to the
> profits of said medical-industrial-complex.
>
> Here's a perfect example of the corruption of the scientific
> community:
>
> In the early 1950's the enormous animal-foods industry bought a
> large number of 'scientists' and told them to tell the public
> that dairy products were essential to the health of their teeth
> and bones.
>
> A real scientist, of course, would look at the real world and
> conclude that milk was for babies and cow's milk was for cow's
> babies.
>
> And he would quickly discover, if he didn't know already, that
> half the people in the world consumed no dairy products at
> all and had healthier bones and teeth than those who did.
>
>> Also, it can be dangerous when taken internally. Advising
>> people to try it is unwise.
>
> People have been taking it internally for its medicinal
> for a very long time. And cooking with it.
>
> google:
>
> "bicarbonate of soda" medicine
>
> 1,520,000 hits.
>
> Taking anything can be dangerous, depending on the dosage.
>
> Duh
>
> Are you ignorant, stupid, and lazy, or are you lying?
>
> Sid

Wow, way to chime in at the last minute! Talk to the OP, ok?


From: dr_jeff on
Tim Campbell wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>> And, then, I will disregard him. Because, you should know, testimony of
>> this sort is nearly worthless in science.
>
> Worthless in "science," perhaps, but of immense value out in the real
> world.
> Simply give it a try.

I have. It doesn't work.

And what you say is useless in the real world, unless you work for Arm
and Hammer.
From: Tim Campbell on
On Jan 30, 8:12 pm, Sidney Lambe <sidneyla...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

> You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
> medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over the
> media and the scientific community through ad revenues and grants
> and salaries to scientists and educational instititions, etc.

Well said Sid.

Study: Money Talks in Drug Trials
June 5, 2007

http://www.intelihe alth.com/ IH/ihtIH/ EMIHC256/ 333/21291/
558296.html? d=dmtICNNews


SAN FRANCISCO (The New York Times News Service) -- Money talks -- and
very
loudly when a drug company is funding a clinical trial involving one
of its
products, according to a study released Monday.

University of California at San Francisco researchers looked at nearly
200
head-to-head studies of widely prescribed cholesterol- lowering
medications, or
statins, and found that results were 20 times more likely to favor the
drug
made by the company that sponsored the trial.

"We have to be really, really skeptical of these drug-company-
sponsored
studies," said Lisa Bero, the study's author and professor of clinical
pharmacy and
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 --
including Pfizer
Inc.'s Lipitor, Merck & Co.'s Zocor and the generic drug Mevacor --
that had
already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The trials
typically
involved comparing the effectiveness of a drug to one or two other
statins.

"If I'm a clinician or funder of health care, I really want to know
within a
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
actual
research results but the trial investigators' impressions -- are more
than 35
times more likely to favor the test drug when that trial is sponsored
by the
drug's maker.

Drug manufacturers, through the industry's trade group, said the
federal
government cracks down on biased research.

"The new study overlooks the crucial role of the Food and Drug
Administration
in reviewing and approving claims that are based on clinical trial
results,"
said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of Pharmaceutical Research
and
Manufacturers of America, in a statement.

"Our industry is dependent upon well-designed clinical trials that
will pass
muster with the FDA," Johnson said.

Mark Gibson is deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based Policy
at
Oregon Health & Science University, which reviews existing clinical
evidence for
drug effectiveness and safety. He called the UCSF study an "important
piece of
work."

"If Americans really want to be able to have sound evidence on which
to base
their choice of treatments, they need to think about ways to fund
independent
research," he said.

About half of the 192 statin trials examined in the study between 1999
and
2005 were funded by drug companies. Bero said drug companies fund up
to 90
percent of drug-to-drug clinical trials for certain classes of
medication.

About a third of the statin trials did not disclose any funding
source.
Trials with no disclosed funding source were less likely to favor the
so-called
test drug than those with industry funding, researchers found.

The researchers found other factors that could affect trial results.
For
example, pharmaceutical companies could choose not to publish results
of studies
that fail to favor their drugs, or they could be designed in ways to
skew
results.

The study found the most important weakness of trials was lack of
true
clinical outcome measures. In the case of statins, some trials focused
on
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
having a
heart attack," Gibson said. "For the drug to be worthwhile taking, it
has to
be directly related to prevent a heart attack."

The UCSF study was funded by a grant from the California Tobacco
Related
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: Sidney Lambe on
On alt.food.vegan, Tim Campbell <timcall(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 8:12=A0pm, Sidney Lambe <sidneyla...(a)nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't know if it was or not. The multi-trillion-dollar
>> medical-industrial-complex exerts tremendous control over
>> the media and the scientific community through ad revenues
>> and grants and salaries to scientists and educational
>> instititions, etc.
>
> Well said Sid.
>
> Study: Money Talks in Drug Trials June 5, 2007
>
> http://www.intelihe alth.com/ IH/ihtIH/ EMIHC256/ 333/21291/
> 558296.html? d=3DdmtICNNews
>
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (The New York Times News Service) -- Money talks
> -- and very loudly when a drug company is funding a clinical
> trial involving one of its products, according to a study
> released Monday.
>
> University of California at San Francisco researchers looked
> at nearly 200 head-to-head studies of widely prescribed
> cholesterol- lowering medications, or statins, and found that
> results were 20 times more likely to favor the drug made by the
> company that sponsored the trial.
>
> "We have to be really, really skeptical of these drug-company-
> sponsored studies," said Lisa Bero, the study's author and
> professor of clinical pharmacy and 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 -- including Pfizer Inc.'s Lipitor, Merck & Co.'s Zocor
> and the generic drug Mevacor -- that had already been approved
> by the Food and Drug Administration. The trials typically
> involved comparing the effectiveness of a drug to one or two
> other statins.
>
> "If I'm a clinician or funder of health care, I really want to
> know within a 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 actual research results but the trial investigators'
> impressions -- are more than 35 times more likely to favor the
> test drug when that trial is sponsored by the drug's maker.
>
> Drug manufacturers, through the industry's trade group, said
> the federal government cracks down on biased research.
>
> "The new study overlooks the crucial role of the Food and Drug
> Administration in reviewing and approving claims that are
> based on clinical trial results," said Ken Johnson, senior
> vice president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
> America, in a statement.
>
> "Our industry is dependent upon well-designed clinical trials
> that will pass muster with the FDA," Johnson said.
>
> Mark Gibson is deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based
> Policy at Oregon Health & Science University, which reviews
> existing clinical evidence for drug effectiveness and safety.
> He called the UCSF study an "important piece of work."
>
> "If Americans really want to be able to have sound evidence on
> which to base their choice of treatments, they need to think
> about ways to fund independent research," he said.
>
> About half of the 192 statin trials examined in the study
> between 1999 and 2005 were funded by drug companies. Bero said
> drug companies fund up to 90 percent of drug-to-drug clinical
> trials for certain classes of medication.
>
> About a third of the statin trials did not disclose any
> funding source. Trials with no disclosed funding source were
> less likely to favor the so-called test drug than those with
> industry funding, researchers found.
>
> The researchers found other factors that could affect trial
> results. For example, pharmaceutical companies could choose not
> to publish results of studies that fail to favor their drugs,
> or they could be designed in ways to skew results.
>
> The study found the most important weakness of trials was lack
> of true clinical outcome measures. In the case of statins, some
> trials focused on 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 having a heart attack," Gibson said. "For the drug to be
> worthwhile taking, it has to be directly related to prevent a
> heart attack."
>
> The UCSF study was funded by a grant from the California
> Tobacco Related 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.
>
>
>

Good article, Tim. Doesn't surprise me a bit.

The Medical-Industrial-Complex is corrupt as hell.

And the real corruption is this: They don't make any
money unless we are sick or afraid of being sick.

Show me a corporation anywhere that actively works
to achieve its own destruction, which is what would
happen if they were to make us healthy.

So they sell artificial, industrial poisons instead
of natural chemicals that have the same chemistry
as our bodies.

And irradiate us with x-ray machines and MRIs
and the like.

If the doctors were trying to make us healthy
they'd tell us to quit eating garbage, yet what
do you get when you are in a hospital? Garbage food.

And so on.


Sid