| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
First off..
cocaine and adderall are amphetamines... which have both been prescribed by psychiatrists and MD's..... how many years would i get for giving a 16 year old amphetamines? What the hell are you talking about? Making things up is not a good debate tactic. Cocaine is not an amphetamine. The only thing it has in common with amphetamines is that it is a stimulant, like caffeine. I don't know why you'd claim that cocaine is an amphetamine when the resources are right in front of you (erowid.org) to look into these things. It's not even remotely correct. Is that enough for you? I just got tired of copying and pasting the miltitude of people complaining about Adderall and its side effects on an ADD forum. This isnt some fringe group. This isnt some ploy or ruse, this is actual people with actual symptoms, and many of these people arent alone, they have very many other people who understand the symptoms they are having, because they have them as well. A few anecdotes about discomfort still doesn't prove anything. What percentage of people experience these effects? Are these effects so serious that they can't simply stop? How do you even know that all of these effects are the direct results of Adderall? That's why they don't use anecdotes as scientific evidence. Placebo, mismatched cause and effect, and statistical probability are completely ignored in favor of a story. nope, no problems at all right? These arent new side effects, these arent something unique to Adderall, these are consistent problems and side effects of any amphetamine. You try to make it sound as if there is Adderall, and then there are amphetamines, when in reality, there is no difference. Uh, no, I'm not. I'm trying to make it sound like when you use the drugs safely, they are safe. You're acting like all the anti-drug propaganda against amphetamines, and all of the worst possible dangers that can be associated with it are the same as the dangers that come with using small, regulated doses. Phluck, you are a stout evoluntionist (i think) and a very scientific person; can i ask you what the evolutionary purpose would be of a 40% increase in ONE YEAR! IN 1996 of people who "need" anti-depressants? or the constant, and never once declining (i dare you to prove this wrong) rate of children who are "afflicted" with ADD/ADHD? Evolution doesn't have anything to do with purpose. If you understand the concept of natural selection, you'd know that evolution is about change and adaptation, not about improving. 40% more people need antidepressants? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Are you implying that 40% more people were prescribed antidepressants in 1996 or something? Well, I don't think it has anything at all to do with evolution. The drugs probably are being overprescribed, but maybe not to the extent you think they are, who knows. Anyways, if someone takes a drug that makes them happier, is there something terribly wrong with that? People often say things like "well, society lived without antidepressants before, why can't people just be happy now?" Well, people were depressed in the past too, they commited suicide, hated their lives, the whole deal. Honestly answer this in your own opinion: does Adderall cure (not treat) ADD/ADHD? I never once said that Adderall was a cure for anything, it seems like phrasing your question this way is an attempt to make me look like I'm claiming things I'm not. It's not a very honest tactic. Anyways, if a treatment is effective, then what's wrong with it. Sure it doesn't help everyone, just as your hanful of quotes demonstrates, but that's not my point. The people who it doesn't help can stop using it, and the people that it does help can continue using it. Dont you get it? the government, FDA, and pharmy corps are preying on the greatest human flaw: the inability to take responsibility. I cant get enough of people trying to pawn their problems off on the scapegoat that is chemical imbalances. "oh, dear me, im a tard, but it isnt my fault! i have ADD!", "my child isnt stupid, it just has ADD". Everyone wants an excuse for their shortcomings and psychiatry (along with the FDA and pharmy companies) have given them just that. Everyone IS subject to the failings of their own mind. Stupid people aren't stupid people because they decided to be stupid. Some people are able to focus and change themselves... and good for them. Others aren't. There have always been, since the beginning of time, people who were unable to achieve, no matter what they had to motivate them. Some of these people have been able to use drugs that change their brain chemistry to a point that allows them to achieve. You want to deny them this tool. Why? Because you think it's being sold to them in the name of greed, and there is some truth to this, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a very useful tool. It's almost as though you see the world in black and white: Pharmaceutical companies are greedy and often push ethical boundaries: therefore every single drug they sell, every claim they make, every motivation they have is evil, and everyone who disagrees with you fully supports and believes in everything drug companies do. If a drug poses a rare risk to a small group of people, then it is too dangerous for anyone to use, and it isn't effective at all. I remember when health canada pulled Adderall, and I think that it was fairly silly. 20 deaths worldwide is a very small number. I can pull up way more deaths from peanut butter, bee stings, car accidents, playground accidents, etc.... If the FDA were so great at making unbiased and solely scientifically supported decisions about drugs given to people, then why has vioxx, celebrex, Fen phen, phenylpropanolamine (which is foud in Acutrim?, Dexatrim?, Robitussin?), Naproxen, Ephedra, Baycol, Rezulin (which killed thousands of diabetics), Propulsid (an anti-heartburn medication which killed 70!) and lotronex (which killed as well, those who were afflicted with IBS, better known as irritable bowel syndrome)ALL BEEN PULLED AFTER THE OK OF THEIR USAGE AND SALES?. 2 reasons: Being scientific and unbiased isn't the same as having magical powers of truth, and being infalliable. Doing as much research as possible doesn't mean that it isn't possible to overlook somethings. And the other reason, because some corruption has existed. Of course, by your logic, some corruption is the same thing as absolute corruption. It's easy to see things this way when you have no personal involvement with the industry. To an outsider, it just looks like one great big blob of people producing drugs and sucking in money. They fail to see that it is a wide collection of different labs, run by different people. Some labs are run from the inside, and some by outsiders who are truly unbiased. There are people who are willing to whore themselves out, and there are people who are willing to go to almost unfathomable lengths to make sure that things are done properly. Funny you should mention fast tracking drugs... this was something that patients lobbied for, as many of them were basically going to die anyways if they didn't get the chance to try certain drugs. You say that the fact that drug testing sometimes misses some potential dangers is a failing of psychiatry. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a drug is tested, shows little or no danger, and shows to be quite effective, and then after many years of use, a small number of people using it die, is it really that dangerous? It seems to me that more people that ride in cars die in car accidents than people who take Adderall die from that, but I don't see you railing against cars. Your accusations are really vague and weird like the industry ties within the FDA... okay, they exist (not like you'd bother to provide sources, but whatever), but do they actually mean anything? Could this perhaps be a piece of information that is easily manipulated to make it look like it means things it doesn't? You don't even have a specific crime you're accusing them of, you're just pointing out that they're associated, and that this must mean fishy things are going on. Because of the fact that you didn't feel the need to provide a source, I don't have the information on the nature of their connection, so I can't even really comment on it. And finally, do you even have a valid alternative? Should we all switch over to reiki and faith healers just because drug companies are occasionally corrupt? All big businesses are occasionally corrupt. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us Edited by Phluck (07/17/05 05:36 PM)
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I've often seen things from the other side. But really Phluck, your points are good and well balanced. I'm impressed. I think I'm going to change my mind on some things here. Thanks.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Where in my post did I refer to diet outside the context of doctors? Doctors don't give proper attention to the role of diet in medical conditions and if you're going to be honest you'll admit that. The typical doctor receives very little course work in nutrition during medical school and that is reflected in their scant knowledge of the subject and the impact diet has on their patients' health. In all my years of visits to doctors, the issue of nutrition has never been raised. Not once! And I don't think I'm alone in this. Incredible. When I was a child my dentist even offered me a lollipop before he went to work on my cavities! Just out of curiosity, how well versed are you in what doctors are taught? How much time did you spend in medical school? Has it occurred to you that perhaps doctors don't discuss things about nutrition because nutrition doesn't have a direct impact on certain issues? -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Phluck is a bit defensive when it comes to his drugs isn't he? My drugs? I'm just trying to be reasonable. People like to have big bad enemies they can blame everything bad about the world on, and they'll accuse them of pretty much anything, and treat absolutely everything they do as evil. That bothers me, so I try to get them to see things from the other side as well. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
According to a 1992 study by the Association of American Medical Colleges, only one-fourth of the 172 medical schools in the United States require a course in nutrition.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n2_v12/ai_15168091 According to the 1996-1997 American Medical Association Liaison Committee on Medical Education survey, 32 medical schools (26%) currently require a nutrition course. Physicians have little practical knowledge of nutrition or physical activity counseling and under use nutrition professionals such as dietitians. The American Medical Student Association state[s], "Next to smoking, diet and nutrition-related factors are among the greatest contributors to preventable, premature illness and death in the industrialized world as well as in less-developed countries." People like to have big bad enemies they can blame everything bad about the world on, and they'll accuse them of pretty much anything, and treat absolutely everything they do as evil. That's quite an overstatement. No one here is saying doctors are evil. On an individual level they are well intentioned people. Unfortunately, the system they work in has become corrupted and lost focus on patient's health and is too often driven by profit. By making this observation I am not singling out the medical profession- the love of money is a major problem in society at large. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/3/890S http://www.med-ed-online.org/res00091.htm -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
That's quite an overstatement. No one here is saying doctors are evil. On an individual level they are well intentioned people. Unfortunately, the system they work in has become corrupted and lost focus on patient's health and is too often driven by profit. By making this observation I am not singling out the medical profession- the love of money is a major problem in society at large.
________________________________ -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I apologize for this. Cocaine isnt an amphetamine, but it is pretty much the same thing. Both are appetite suppressants, stimulants, and schedule 2 drugs. Quote: Well, they do have side-effects, and I showed those to you, from a scientific standpoint, but you dismissed them. These were the side-effects that the tests you describe above have found to be prevalent. Quote: Didnt you read the article? these 20 deaths caused by Adderall were the recommended and prescribed dosage, there was no abuse of it outside of its prescripted dosage. Some of these people that died, were children, and Ill go back and check my sources, but im pretty sure their deaths came about by heart attacks or strokes. Little children dont have heart attacks and strokes for no reason usually. Quote: So, the constantly rising rate of people inflicted with ADD/ADHD would have absolutly no bearing in the realm of evolution? either ADD/ADHD would be some way of evolving to adapt to something, or it would be a hinderance to people, and work itself out of the gene pool. Quote: So now Adderall makes kids happier? i thought it was so they could focus on schoolwork. Dont you think there would be better and less expensive and harmful ways of going about trying to increase happiness in society without giving children drugs? Quote: Im willing to bet that suicide rates of today are exponentially higher than the suicide rates of 1905. One of the warnings the FDA issued about Ritalin involving withdrawl was that it could make people suicidal. Id like to see anything anywhere about how Adderall has anything to do with the prevention of suicide. Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050715/bs_prweb/prweb262261_3 Quote: Most kids arent given a choice as to whether or not they are using amphetamines. Most kids arent even told Adderall and Ritalin are amphetamines, or what an amphetamine is. Nor are they told all the side effects, or possibility of heart failure. Like I said before, sure it can hide the problem for a while, but at what cost? Quote: not to rehash an old topic, but...werent these the very same things I was saying about Scientology?... What kind of existence is it to wake up everyday and drastically alter your brain chemistry? You make it sound as if these people had no other alternative whatsoever, as if their were just dealt the stupid card and it isnt their fault at all, so here, you get the consolation prize of taking drugs everyday so you can be more like us. Quote: Im not even talking about a rare risk. Im talkign about the organizations that abuse american trust and on multiple cases have hidden test results! why would you hide test results? i dont know, maybe because some company wanted billions of dollars and didnt care about the expense of human life and well-being. Quote: Allergic reactions are bound to happen, and so are accidents. Are you saying that these 20 deaths from adderall were accidents? no, these were 20 deaths that could have been avoided if drug companies told the truth and werent financially entertwined with regulation and legalization. Its not like, "oops, i slipped on an adderall pill and died", this is "oh shit, im dying and all i took was my recommended dose of adderal". These deaths were malicious. these people were murdered by their doctors. If someone were prescribed adderall, and they ran out, but "needed" it, and I gave them their dosage, and they died, i would be put in jail. why arent these corporations and doctors held responsible for this? guess they can get away with just saying "oops, sorry, but it didnt happen to ALL of my patients". Quote: right, cancer patients and AIDS patients. not kids and parents with ADD. It was a noble action, but it has been abused. No one is going to die if they dont get amphetamines in time. Quote: People have a choice to use cars, even when the facts about car accidents are easy to find. Children dont have this choice usually. Quote: http://www.newstarget.com/005766.html http://www.newstarget.com/005414.html http://www.newstarget.com/005413.html Quote: I dont have an alternative, but i bet if we spent a quarter of the money spent on drug research, lobbying and advertising on finding a balanced alternative, we could. But some suggestions would be like: less tv, more reading, less sugars and sweets, more outside activity and no drugs.
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
These were the side-effects that the tests you describe above have found to be prevalent.
Prevelant? Where did you show me any information about frequency? They were not shown to be prevelent, they were shown to be possible. Didnt you read the article? these 20 deaths caused by Adderall were the recommended and prescribed dosage, there was no abuse of it outside of its prescripted dosage. Some of these people that died, were children, and Ill go back and check my sources, but im pretty sure their deaths came about by heart attacks or strokes. Little children dont have heart attacks and strokes for no reason usually. No, little children don't usually have heart attacks for no reason, but little children on Adderall also don't usually have heart attacks for no reason. 20 deaths is a pretty small number when you consider the number of people overall on Adderall. Like I said, the dangers involved with everyday activities like riding in a car are greater than the dangers of taking Adderall. So, the constantly rising rate of people inflicted with ADD/ADHD would have absolutly no bearing in the realm of evolution? either ADD/ADHD would be some way of evolving to adapt to something, or it would be a hinderance to people, and work itself out of the gene pool. I'm not entirely sure that your grasp of evolution is quite correct. New traits do not come into existance because they help people adapt. The traits that evolve are the cause of mutation, which is damaged or incorrectly reproduced genes. They are essentially random. When they help something survive, the genes are passed on to further generations. If they don't help at all, but the being carrying the genes still reproduces, the genes are still passed on. If the carrier of the genes dies off, the genes die off with it. If something is a hinderance, but the carrier of the genes still reproduces, the genes are still passed on. Natural selection is not a process of our genes magically knowing that say, fingers would be useful, and creating fingers. That said, the increased rate of ADD just means increased diagnosis. Like I've said many times already, it probably is overdiagnosed. However, a lot of people do benefit from the drugs they are prescribed. You can say "well they didn't have those drugs in the past, and people were okay", of course, in the past, many intelligent people could have ended up being total failures in their lives because they were unable to benefit from certain drugs. So now Adderall makes kids happier? i thought it was so they could focus on schoolwork. Dont you think there would be better and less expensive and harmful ways of going about trying to increase happiness in society without giving children drugs? I was talking about anti-depressants, because you brought up happiness. You were talking about people being diagnosed with depression, but if you have better ways that actually work, please, tell them to me. Im willing to bet that suicide rates of today are exponentially higher than the suicide rates of 1905. One of the warnings the FDA issued about Ritalin involving withdrawl was that it could make people suicidal. Id like to see anything anywhere about how Adderall has anything to do with the prevention of suicide. "I'm willing to bet..." Since when was this a valid source for any kind of information. First off, do you have ANY data to back this up? The article you linked to quoted a rich Scientologist who claimed that chemical imbalances are pretty much made up, and uses a pretty dishonest distortion of the facts to justify this belief. He has no authority whatsoever, what are his qualifications, anyways? First off, nobody knows what causes ADHD, people don't even really claim that it is a chemical imbalance, although that is a possibility. Things like depression, however, have been demonstrated to be linked with different chemical levels in the brain. http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/articles/chemicalimbalance.htm Quote: What, do you think this stuff is just made up? Quote: Well, you can scratch the idea that less sugars will reduce hyperactivity. That's an urban legend. As for less TV, more reading and excercise, sure that's all great, but it's not going to help the kids that are SERIOUSLY afflicted ADHD. I feel like I'm being forced into arguing things that have nothing to do with my opinion here, if you look at my initial posts you'll see that I do agree that there are issues with overprescription of certain drugs, and that the FDA isn't completely free of corruption. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
"Back in my day, if a kid was stupid, we just called them stupid, they didn't have a 'learning disability' or 'ADHD', we knew what the problem was, they were dumb."
And of course the kids were treated like they were dumb, they failed, and ended up being janitors, if they were lucky enough not to turn out to be criminals. Nowadays, by looking into the root causes of learning problems, we are able to find ways of treating them. ADHD is actually fairly rare. I can say for sure I have met two kids with it. It is not simply a mild issue of not being able to pay attention, it is a very extreme behavioral disability. The problem with these kids certainly isn't too much TV, they don't pay attention to the TV. They constantly ask questions, but don't even wait for the answer before asking a completely unrelated one. They run around from activity to activity, and they have an extremely difficult time making friends because they irritate all the other kids. The thing is, when they're given an ADHD drug, they almost magically change. They become completely different children. Parents talk to one another and often hear about how little Jimmy is doing so much better in school now that he's on Ritalin, so they take their kids to a psychiatrist, and beg him to do something for their kids. I think this is a bigger factor in the overprescription of these drugs than the FDA is. Some people recognize that these drugs aren't working very well, if at all on certain children, and question whether or not these children have ADHD, which is a very valid concern. Of course, others take this questioning even further and will claim that ADHD doesn't exist at all, and that these drugs are completely unnecessary. This is an insult to those kids who actually need these drugs, and greatly benefit from them. Many people have been able to succeed because of these drugs. The issue with corruption in the FDA is very real, but claiming that doctors and scientists are all helpless to follow the whims of the corruption is nonsense. Medical journals are not run by the FDA, no matter what lies people will tell you to the contrary. In fact, it is the medical journals which are the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry. It is the medical journals that banded together to make the decision to only publish studies that were not funded by drug companies. http://www.progress.org/archive/medic03.htm Those people pushing the idea that mainstream medicine is corrupt usually have an agenda of their own. More often than not, they have some treatment that they feel isn't getting the respect it deserves. Often it is something with little or no scientific credibility. They will claim that the only reason it doesn't have credibility is because mainstream science refuses to study it, or because the studies related to it showed it to be ineffective, and they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. Zorbman claims that there is no medical research done unless it is directly related to a drug, which is simply false. Research related to a drug may be more likely to receive funding and interest from drug companies, but other forms of research receive funding from government grants (not just the United States government, governments around the world provide funding into medical research) or from private charitable organizations. Zorbman's claim that chemotherapy is ineffective is also false, and stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of cancer and how it is treated. At any given time, thousands of cells in our bodies are mutating in strange ways. Occasionally, one of these mutations will cause the cells to continuously replicate. This happens quite often, actually. Our bodies are filled with tiny cysts; clumps of mutant cells. Sometimes they mutate in such a way that they not only continue to grow, but they spread throughout the body. We end up with something that is not an infection or parasite, but part of our own flesh, growing throughout our bodies. Because cancer is part of ourselves, it is very difficult to treat. We use chemotherapy to little poison ourselves in small doses because it attacks the tumor, and hopefully kills it off. It is quite easy to say "Hey! Poisoning ourselves isn't good, we should do it a better way than that!", but actually coming up with a more effective method is another story altogether. There are people out there who claim that they have found cures for cancer involving nutrition or all kinds of things, and almost all of these people claim that their method is better than radiation or chemotherapy, and most of them believe it wholeheartedly. They haven't studied cancer in depth, but they may have opened a few books and picked up some terms. Their intentions are good, but they simply don't understand how sophisticated the techniques for testing various methods are. While many of them feel that it is okay to swear up and down that their methods are effective and that the reasons for the lack of evidence are due to drug company interference, real researchers know that it is NEVER okay to claim that something works perfectly until it has been thoughouly tested. These people simply don't realize how misleading anecdotal evidence can be. The reason practices like bloodletting or sacrifice lived on in the past were due to anecdotal evidence. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
In fact, it is the medical journals which are the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry.
You must be joking.Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Want to know what's really going on here, folks? Follow the money trail. Filthy lucre. Although prestigious, venerable medical journals put on a veneer of being objective, scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of accountability every mainstream magazine also faces: don't piss off your advertisers! Want to see something funny? Take a look at the McDonald's ads which have often appeared in the prestigous Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Then keep in mind that this is the same publication that for nearly 50 years ran cigarette ads endorsing the health benefits of tobacco. What a joke. Are you beginning to see whose interests are being served here? It is the medical journals that banded together to make the decision to only publish studies that were not funded by drug companies. So the fox has offered to guard the hen house, eh? This is a nice gesture, but based upon past experience I doubt anything will come of it. It is one thing to enact a rule, it is quite another to enforce it. This appears to be their latest tactic to relieve growing public pressure long enough to get back to business as usual. Think I'm exagerating? There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. So much for "the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry.". Now on to the rest of your post: Zorbman claims that there is no medical research done unless it is directly related to a drug That is false; I never stated that. However, I certainly believe far too much research is profit driven and I stand behind that claim; I am not alone in this belief. Zorbman's claim that chemotherapy is ineffective is also false Wrong again. Statistics on chemotherapy successes are notoriously hard to come by (for some strange reason the drug companies don't advertise their supposed success rate )The success rate is extremely poor. And yet how many times have we heard the media trumpeting, "We are winning the War on cancer." "Breakthroughs are just around the corner."? (New and expensive "breakthrough" drugs of course. Just a tip- Whenever you want to market a new drug, be sure to include the word "breakthrough" in your press releases.)Dr. Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician who contacted 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to supply him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. By the time he published his report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer) he probably knew more about chemotherapy than any person alive. His report, in the publication Lancet, August of 1991, described chemotherapy as a failure that neither physician nor patient were willing to give up on although there is no scientific evidence that it works. "Success of most chemotherapies is appalling?There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer? Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland." ~Dr Uhlrich Abel, Stuttgart. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr Another person very knowlegable about the numbers behind orthodox cancer treatment is John Gofman, a medical doctor with a Ph.D. degree in nuclear and physical chemistry. He is professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at University of California, Berkeley and has compiled large volumes of statistics on health care in America in numerous books and publications. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. Linus Pauling, PhD was the only person in history to win two solo Nobel Prizes, Chemistry in 1954 and for Peace in 1962. Pauling had this to say about orthodox cancer research: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." Chemotherapy is much like radiation in the sense that both "treatments" themselves cause new cancers. Think about the insanity of that. Dr. Gofman's research also led him to write a 400-page book in which he states that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Incredibly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer". So there you have it, folks. Orthodox medicine offers no proof that its brutal cancer treatments are any more effective than doing nothing, and many of them are actually carcinogenic. If that represents success, I'd sure as hell hate to see failure. Edited by zorbman (07/19/05 12:19 AM)
| |||||||
|
Third prize is you're fired Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 4,263 Loc: Denver, Colorado Last seen: 4 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: but...that would take a WHOLE VILLAGE to do. its easier to drug em and put em in front of their Playstation 2's. -------------------- If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all. There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn. Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?
| |||||||
|
Mmmm... pizza Registered: 07/03/04 Posts: 14,299 Loc: |
| ||||||
|
I have to agree that some drugs are overprescribed.
What I have learned from my experience is that [most] doctors can't be trusted. The last time I got HELP from a nondental doctor for anything was when I broke my leg about 4+ years ago. There was no medicine involved whatsoever, and I'm back with only trivial permanent damage. Since then, I have gotten NOTHING but incorrect diagnosis, permanently damaging or worthless prescriptions, and doctors who make ridiculous mistakes. There's nothing we can do. We should just drop this debate. -------------------- Delicious Pizza
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I have had much the same experience with doctors. You will find if you bother to get second and third opinions that they may all be different.
These people are scary. I have found a couple of good ones in my day also. Not enough though.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
I guess I'm cool ![]() Registered: 05/12/05 Posts: 136 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I wanted to throw my two cents into this discussion....
I work at a mental hospital with pediatrics and every one of them is on some form of medication. What I've noticed is that the use of drugs is a matter of cost/time verse effectiveness. I beileve that most matters that kids are given drugs for is done for the sole reason that it is not possible/too hard to address the problems so they must address the symptoms. Sometimes its to enable work on the problems, unfortantely not always. I also think that the unatural state of our society is the cause of most of the demand as well. Peace and Love - Justin
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Um... actually I've got scientific journals lying around my house, most of the ads are from companies selling lab equipment, drug ads aren't that common. Are we talking about the same magazines? There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). Why is it up to the journals to disclose this information? A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Exactly my point... the medical journals are the ones investigating the issue and trying to deal with it. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html Dr. Gofman's research also led him to write a 400-page book in which he states that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Incredibly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer". So there you have it, folks. Orthodox medicine offers no proof that its brutal cancer treatments are any more effective than doing nothing, and many of them are actually carcinogenic. If that represents success, I'd sure as hell hate to see failure. What was his proof? Am I to believe that because his book was an impressive 400 pages, his logic and evidence was impeccable? Another person very knowlegable about the numbers behind orthodox cancer treatment is John Gofman, a medical doctor with a Ph.D. degree in nuclear and physical chemistry. He is professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at University of California, Berkeley and has compiled large volumes of statistics on health care in America in numerous books and publications. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. That's one hell of a goofy correlation to make. Any area with an increased density of physicians is going to be subject to all kinds of other factors. More doctors likely means higher population density, which likely means more pollution, etc... That sounds like an example of how you can use statistics to prove anything you want than evidence for anything. If you search pubmed for the name of any chemotherapy drug, you'll find a list of studies demonstrating their effectivenss. Of course, you have a convenient excuse for not believing any scientific studies. Chemotherapy has long proven itself to be the most effective method of treating cancer. Not vitmins, vegetable shakes, magic potions or healing crystals. There are hundreds of people with books to sell tauting naturopathic methods of curing cancer, but none of them have any evidence to back them up other than anecdotes, which can be easily misused. When someone stops chemo and starts eating well, they will always start to feel healthier and have increased energy, even if the cancer is growing back and destroying them. The cancer is a part of themselves, things that normally nourish your body and keep it healthy also feed the cancer. Attacking cancer is literally attacking part of yourself. You've read the accounts of a small handful of doctors who disagree with the use of chemotherapy (none of them are oncologists, of course, they're all speaking outside of their field of expertise), but have you spoken to, or read the works of those who are in favor of its use? If you'd like, I can put you in contact with my father, who is a scientist, and the director of research at a cancer research institute. Since the vast majority of his funding comes through government grants, and he does not directly study the use of drugs, only the genetic origins of cancer, perhaps you'll find his word more credible than the scientists you seem to think make up the majority of cancer research. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
|
Just to expand a bit on what phluck said:
Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Also realize that nowadays, research is done almost entirely through database searches (e.g. pubmed and Ovid). This gives you a direct link to your article or "hit". The days of flipping through a full medical journal are ending rapidly, if not gone forever. Also, I would think an advertiser has little incentive to place their content in a medical journal. I say this due to the above reason and also because mainstream consumers don't read medical journals. At least, to my knowledge I've never seen one on a public newstand, have you? In any event this doesn't effect the peer review process. An article is submitted, and then reviewed by independent reviews which usually rotate frequently. I've been involved in the peer review process for some articles and can assure I have no ties to big pharma. There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). Every piece of original research ends with an "acknowledgements" section which includes the ever-so-famous phrase: "This work was sponsored by....". I'd be curious to see the Wall St. Journal article though, the link didn't work for me. A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Due to the enormous costs, drug companies fund their own studies. However, there are contract clauses concerning publication, who gets to review data before publication etc. While this is a conflict of interest there are contractual safegaurds (the effectiveness of these however, is debateable). Even with this conflict of interest, intial clinical trails are always done "double blind" to demonstrate superiority to placebo. "Success of most chemotherapies is appalling http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract While I'm not overly knowledgeable about cancer, in the first sentence of the abstract gofman is referring only to "epithelial cancer". While I think this a broad classification I'm not sure if his statement can be extended to all types of cancer. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. This is probably because life expectancy increases as well. The longer you live, the greater your chances of developing cancer. Linus Pauling, PhD was the only person in history to win two solo Nobel Prizes, Chemistry in 1954 and for Peace in 1962. Pauling had this to say about orthodox cancer research: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." While a respectable quote, we've made many advances in the last 50 or so years; especially with regards to medicine. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436 Edited by badchad (07/20/05 10:12 AM)
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Does anyone have any supporting figures which are pro-psychopharmacology? Id like to see some, maybe even experiments where the term chemical imbalances are proven and such. Or maybe statistics that show since adderal use is constantly increasing, the amount of (X) crime has gone down or whatever.
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=1
"CONCLUSIONS: In children with ADHD, once-daily 10 mg-30 mg MAS XR was well tolerated and significant behavioral improvements were consistently maintained during 24 months of treatment." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=1 "CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that twice-daily dosing of Adderall may be an effective strategy for afternoon control of attention and deportment for children with ADHD." http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160 "As research in neurotransmitters continued, studies between neurotransmitters and mental conditions revealed a strong connection between amounts of certain neurotransmitters in the brain and the presence of specific psychiatric conditions." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=7 "Whole-blood 5-HT concentrations therefore appear to predict mood in healthy males." You can search through pubmed for hundreds of studies regarding neurotransmitter levels and mood. If you want evidence for a drop in violent crime, here you go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-crime_x.htm But there are so many thousands of factors for crime rates that saying this has anything to do with Adderall would be kind of weird. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
Quote: Well, for a medication to be approved it has to be shown to be significantly better than placebo. Here's a link showing the effectiveness of adderrall in a group of 28 preschoolers. and another adderrall study These two (of 33 total results)are relatively small, probably because adderall is in the same "class" of medications already used to treat ADHD. You can find all sorts of stuf on pubmed, but you can specifically select "clinical trials" to get human studies. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: None of these even have any statistics. It is just a research group saying "yeah, well we put 12 kids on amphetamines and they did better at math". I have already stated that giving amphetamines to kids can make them more focused, nothing you posted links to addressed anything out side of that. And the report about neurotransmitters was highly cloudy and vague and didnt really say anything exact....summary:"we just know that there are chemicals in the brain, and all these chemicals affect us in some way"... You know, sitting down one-on-one with a kid and helping them with math also has shown to improve math scores. It is pure laziness on parents and teachers parts to allow the distribution of schedule 2 drugs to 6 year olds to fix a problem. These are children, and they act like children, they dont need to be on stimulants and speed. Adderall is quickly becoming a very popular and abused drug, especially in colleges. Why is it that my college friends can get a high similar to cocaine, with a similar dose they prescribe to even children? Oh, its not a big deal... we are only giving them a LITTLE heroin, just enough to make them draw better, since my child has ACD (abstract conceptualization disorder)... now my child can play like miles davis! thank you heroin!
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Health statistic? HELP | 617 | 3 | 05/15/08 03:57 PM by johnm214 | ||
![]() |
Yup, chemotherapy sure doesn't work | 643 | 5 | 11/06/12 03:55 PM by LiquidSmoke | ||
![]() |
Ridiculously Scrawny/Weak | 2,131 | 16 | 02/05/04 03:56 PM by TODAY | ||
![]() |
. | 769 | 7 | 01/30/08 04:23 PM by Andy21 | ||
![]() |
Cure for Cancer & Other Diseases through Simple Food & Vitamins ( |
10,885 | 58 | 10/21/13 01:42 AM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Big Pharma companies ARE in control! ( |
17,807 | 368 | 06/13/13 08:27 PM by akira_akuma | ||
![]() |
. | 1,001 | 17 | 08/06/09 09:45 PM by fazdazzle | ||
![]() |
Germany's Merck halts supply of cancer drug to Greek hospitals ( |
2,644 | 30 | 11/04/12 10:12 PM by LiquidSmoke |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: CherryBom, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, feevers, CookieCrumbs, Northerner 6,310 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

You must be joking.
)The success rate is extremely poor. And yet how many times have we heard the media trumpeting, "We are winning the War on cancer." "Breakthroughs are just around the corner."? (New and expensive "breakthrough" drugs of course. Just a tip- Whenever you want to market a new drug, be sure to include the word "breakthrough" in your press releases.)
These people are scary. I have found a couple of good ones in my day also. Not enough though. 
