For quite some time now (months, maybe years, I don’t remember too well),
I have been experiencing a weird phenomenon: waking up during the night, I
would feel as if my right eye was totally blind, i.e., I would have the
feeling to receive no input at all from it. After a couple of minutes
(during which I would put lights on), the feeling would cease.
Only recently did I try (while leaving my room quite dark), to check
both eyes and to my surprise, it happens that the vision of the right
eye is totally blured to the point of being useless in the quite dark.
Now, by daytime, the right eye is supposed to be my "good" one.
I don’t know about the american 20/20 measurement, by back in France
they were giving me without correction 2/10 for the left and 6/10 for
the right eye. What I get from the right eye at night is worse than
anything I have had before, even with totally mismatched glasses, clearly
less than 1/10 (I could barely distinguish a big flag hanging on my wall).
Now this only seems to happens shortly after I wake up, so I’m wondering
if it could be due to bad blood circulation (maybe my head position is
wrong, or something). Any idea, recommendations?
Thanks in advance.
Jean-Yves Herve’
In article <4…@cvl.umd.edu> he…@cvl.umd.edu (Jean-Yves Herve’) writes:
> For quite some time now (months, maybe years, I don’t remember too well),
>I have been experiencing a weird phenomenon: waking up during the night, I
>would feel as if my right eye was totally blind, i.e., I would have the
>feeling to receive no input at all from it. After a couple of minutes
>(during which I would put lights on), the feeling would cease.
>Now this only seems to happens shortly after I wake up, so I’m wondering
>if it could be due to bad blood circulation (maybe my head position is
>wrong, or something). Any idea, recommendations?
Could your eyeball be temporarily deformed because you were applying
pressure to it while asleep? A (maybe) similar thing happens when I go to
sleep with my head in my arms on my desk (well, I used to do this a lot
when I was a student). If my eyeballs were pressing on my arm, I can’t see
a thing when I wake up–it lasts for several minutes.
–
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |c…@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
———————–
"Update on Fluoride and Cancer" (Health Freedom News, June 1990, p. 42)
by John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D ( 6439 Taggard Rd., Delaware, Ohio 43015)
In 1963, Drs. Herskowitz and Norton from St. Louis University showed that
increasing levels of fluoride increased the incidence of melanotic tumors
in fruit flies. In 1965, Drs. Taylor and Taylor from the University of
Texas at Austin found that fluoride in the drinking water at levels of
one-half to one part per million increased tumor growth rate in mice by
15-25%. In 1984, Drs. Tsutsui and coworkers from the Nippon Dental
University were able to transform normal cells into cancer cells merely
by exposure of the normal cells to fluoride.
It is generally agreed that the ability of a substance to cause genetic
damage is a warning of its possible cancer-causing effects. Fluoride has
been shown to cause genetic damage by researchers from Texas A & M
University, the University of Sciences — as well as by researchers from
the Central Laboratory for Mutagenicity Testing (W. Germany), the Russian
Research Institute for Industrial Health and Occupational Diseases (Poland),
the Kunming Institute of Zoology (Peop. Rep. China), the Nippon Dental
University, Tokyo (Japan), and others. The University of Missouri study
showed that as little as one part per million fluoride in the drinking
water resulted in genetic damage.
In 1977, epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of
Cytochemistry Section of the National Cancer Institute, and myself were
the subject of full-scale Congressional Hearings. Our studies showed
that fluoridation was linked to about 10,000 excess cancer deaths yearly.
During the hearings, U.S. Public Health Service officials (the U.S. Public
Health Service is the world’s leading promoter of fluoridation) claimed
that our results were due to changes in the age, race and sex composition
of the populations examined. We were able to show that these officials
had made mathematical errors and had left out 80-90% of the data. When
these errors and omissions were corrected, their very own method confirmed
that 10,000 excess cancer deaths yearly were linked to water fluoridation.
The Congressional Hearings also revealed that U.S. Public Health Service
officials sent their erroneous and ommissive data to scientists in Britain
who were told by U.S. Public Health Service to publish it as if it were
their own and pretend that they had come up with the same results
independently.
As a result of these hearings, Congress mandated that U.S. Public Health
Service conduct animal studies to determine if they could find whether or
not fluoride caused cancer under laboratory conditions. These tests
were designed to determine whether or not water fluoridation results in
an increase to human cancer risk. They were conducted by the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health
Service. Special attention was given to oral, liver, and bone cancers.
Scheduled for completion by 1980, it was not until 1990 that the results
were reluctantly released. Analysis of the results in rats shows that
(a) precancerous changes occurred in oral squamous cells as a result of
increasing levels of fluoride in the drinking water, (b) there was an
increase in the incidence of tumors and cancers in oral squamous cells
as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in the drinking water, (c) a
rare form of cancer (osteosarcoma) occurred only in animals with fluoride
in the drinking water, and (d) there was an increase in the incidence
of thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of
fluoride in the drinking water. Analysis of the results in mice shows
that (e) a rare form of liver cancer (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) occurred
only in animals with fluoride in the drinking water.
In the NTP study, higher doses of fluoride were given to compensate for
(1) the limited number of animals used, (2) the relatively short time of
their exposure to fluoride, and (3) the fact that "On the body weight basis,
man is generally more vulnerable than the experimental animal, probably
by a factor of 6-42." The doses of fluoride that were linked to cancer
in this study were only 1/10th to 1/50th of the amount used to produce
cancer by benzene.
An in-depth analysis of the NTP study shows that the cancer-causing potential
of fluoride is not limited to one type of cancer. Furthermore, the types
of cancer caused by that same substance in humans. Thus, if fluoride had
caused cancer in the tails of all the rats and mice, this would be
compelling evidence that fluoride was carcinogenic. However, you wouldn’t
do a follow-up study in humans to see if fluoride caused cancer in human
tails. The main point is the fluoride is a carcinogen and that the
Burk-Yiamouyiannis study showing a link between fluoridation and cancer
in humans has been confirmed.
UPDATE on Fluoride and Tooth Decay:
Recent studies by public health dentists in New Zealand, Canada, and the
United States have reported similar or lower tooth decay rates in
nonfluoridated areas as compared to fluoridated areas. Moreover, findings
in the United States and worldwide show that, over the last 25 years,
reductions in tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas are comparable
to those in fluoridated areas.
Using data obtained from the National Institute of Dental Research, we
have completed the largest and most detailed study on fluoridation and
tooth decay ever performed in the history of the United States. Data from
dental examinations of 39,207 schoolchildren, aged 5-17, in 84 areas
throughout the United States were analyzed. Of these areas, 28 had been
fluoridated for 17 years or more (F), 29 had never been fluoridated (NF),
and 27 had been only partially fluoridated or fluoridated for less than
17 years (PF). No statistically significant differences in the decay
rates of permanent teeth (DMFT) or the percentages of decay-free children
in the F, NF, and PF groups were found.
——-
So? Flouride is a drug. Overdoses of *any* drug will result in damage. [1]
It’s well known (or it *should* be well known) that overdoses of flouride
result in mottling of the teeth. It’s also well known (*should* be) that
flouride is this nasty poison that the aluminium industry had trouble
getting rid of until they discovered that it prevents dental caries
when applied in the right dose.
[1] That’s why they’re called overdoses. :-)
The solution to the flouride controversy is to remove it from drinking
water, and let the individual apply it to their teeth by using
flouride toothpaste. After all, the amount of toothpaste you use has
much more to do with the size and number of your teeth than does the
amount of water you drink.
–
–russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
I agree that the inappropriate prescribing of dangerous drugs is
a serious problem. However, the tone of the article was unnecessarily
hysterical. In 15 years of practice, I can only recall 2 or 3 patients
that I have had that had drug reactions severe enough to require
hospitalization. These were all from anticonvulsants which were administered
appropriately for epilepsy. Most drug reactions are minor and easily
reversed by stopping the medication. The biggest abuse probably comes
when antibiotics are prescribed for "colds and flu", which is a truly
dangerous practice. Of course, some here advocate these antibiotics
being over-the-counter medicines. But it is true that medicines can
be dangerous and should only be used when needed.
ae…@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) writes:
>"It’s the doctors who do the real damage. They write 2.4 billion prescriptions
>a year for any one of 10,000-plus medicines.
This seems to work out at about two perscriptions per day per person in the USA.
Does a perscription mean something diferent over there or were the figures for
a wider area?
The quoted article doesn’t do the book justice.
——————————–
"Fluoridation: Controversy at the Crossroads" by Bernard J. Aherne
(in _Health and Nutrition Update_, Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1990, p. 6-8)
A recent editorial in the Oakland Tribune began as follows: "the scientific
equivalent of an atomic bomb [has] just fallen on America’s public health
establishment." This newspaper, which had historically supported water
fluoridation, was referring to a release of an Environmental Protection Agency
memo which stated that the results of a government study showed "fluoride may
be a carcinogen." The editorial pointed out that this information had come
to the public’s attention following forty years of official claims that
fluoridating public water supplies was a safe way to fight dental cavities.
An official of the American Water Works Association said that if the evidence
of carcinogenicity was confirmed it would be, "the environmental story of
the century." The U.S. Safe Drinking Act requires a zero level for
carcinogens.
As the news that fluoridated water causes cancer in animals, created a crisis
in the United States, in Canada it was business as usual. A summary report
from Health and Welfare Canada entitled, "Action Towards Healthy Eating,"
released in March, lists areas in which dietary changes are needed to reduce
the risk of heart disease and some forms of cancer. Included are sound
measures such as reducing intake of saturated fat and sodium as well as
eating increased amounts of complex carbohydrates and fibre, but then appears
the unsound recommendation of "introduction of water fluoridation programs
in many communities." The main report, called "Nutrition Recommendations,"
was produced by a scientific review committee that included the work of more
than 70 research scientists from across Canada.
Because most environmentalists, whom the public reveres as reliable, don’t
realize that fluoride is a major industrial pollutant, most people remain
unaware of his high toxicity. In fact, the source of the fluoride that many
cities add to their water supplies is toxic waste from fertilizer plants.
Upon learning this, many people believe that they have uncovered a scheme
that enables industry to dispose of a waste byproduct by selling it to cities
which fluoridate their water supplies. As heinous as this is, it’s not the
whole story.
The late F.B.Exner, M.D., a leading medical expert on fluoride, stated in his
paper, "Economic Motives Behind Fluoridation," that major industrial concerns
have had a vested interest in promoting fluoridation because it obscures the
fact that fluoride is a highly poisonous pollutant. Most of the public
believe that fluoride must be a safe and beneficial substance since it’s
routinely found in the water supply as well as in toothpaste, fluoride
tablets, drops given to infants and as a supplement given to menopausal
women. This has effectively reduced the hassle for big industries who
otherwise would have a more expensive pollution control problem than the
pulp mills in British Columbia have today. We have no idea of the toxicity
of fluoride or how routinely it is discharged by industry into the air,
soil and water.
When industry was experiencing increased economic loss from lawsuits earlier
in this century, the American government obligingly set "safe" limits for
the chemical levels in rivers and lakes. Because these are often the only
source of Municipal water supplies, the water from them was sometimes
mistakenly considered to be naturally fluoridated. One of the principal
originators of promoting fluoridation as a way out of the industrial
pollution problem was Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute. The Mellon
family, who owned this Institute, were also the owners of the Aluminum
Company of America whose smelters were major sources of fluoride pollution.
Fluoride is one of the most toxic substances known to science. The
reference work, _Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products_, Fifth Edition,
by R. Gosselin, et al, gives a numerical toxicity rating for substances
from one (practically non-toxic) to six (super toxic). On this scale
arsenic is rated as five, while fluoride is rated only one level lower at four.
Many proponents of fluoridation state that although fluoride is conceded to
be toxic, this fact is somehow irrelevant because the typical concentration
is only one part per million in drinking water. They ignore the extensive
research which shows a number of serious health problems where people drink
water of this concentration.
One study conducted by Dr. J.D. Erickson of the Centre for Disease Control
and published in the _New England Journal of Medicine_, showed that for one
year 1970, there was a significantly higher death rate in fluoridated than
in non-fluoridated cities. Deaths from gastrointestinal cancer were 8.8
percent higher in the fluoridated cities, while the rate of heart disease
was 12.25 percent higher.
In 1977, the United States Congress decided to mandate animal studies to
determine if fluoride was a carcinogen. This action was in response to a
public concern over the results of epidemiological studies conducted by
research scientists John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, who reported a five
percent higher cancer rate in fluoridated cities. Dr. Yiamouyiannis is
president of the Safe Water Foundation in Ohio, while the late Dr. Burk was
the former head of the National Cancer Institute’s cytochemistry division.
One of the reasons for the widespread ignorance on the issue of fluoridation,
even among medical doctors, dentists and scientists was revealed in a major
report on the subject in the August, 1988 issue of _Chemical and Engineering
News_. According to the article, there has been a consistent pattern of
censorship of negative findings on the toxic effects of fluoride by
scientific journals.
Zev Remba, the Washington bureau editor of _AGD Impact_, the publication of
General Dentistry, wrote in 1987 that fluoridation supporters have had an
"unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a
negative light." Another example of censorship is from a letter written
by a Danish scientist who reported that a World Health Organization study
on fluorides in 1985 had systematically left out any "information that
would cast doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements — Unless I had
been present myself, I would have found it hard to believe," reported
Professor Phillipe Grandjean.
Environmental Protection Agency scientist Robert J. Carton has claimed that
the agency’s scientific assessment of fluoride’s health risks written in
1985 "omits 90 percent of the literature on mutagenicity, most of which
suggests that fluoride is a mutagen."
On the key question of whether people living in fluoridated communities
have lower rates of tooth decay, a number of studies from various countries
have shown that the difference is negligible; in fact, the former Dental
Health Director for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, Dr. A.S. Gray
wrote in the _Journal of the Canadian Dental Association_ in October 1987
that in B.C., "school districts recently reporting the highest caries-free
rates in the province, were totally unfluoridated." Dr. Gray also pointed
out that B.C., with only eleven percent of the population using fluoridated
water shows lower DMFT (decayed, missing, and filled teeth) rates than
provindes with a 40 to 70 percent rate of fluoridation. The province with
the highest rate of fluoridation is Ontario; Toronto is the largest city
in Canada that has adopted this measure. Articles by journalists in that
city routinely mention the decline in tooth decay and almost invariably
mention fluoridation as the reason.
Dr. Gray retired quietly a few months after publishing his findings without
having lost his faith in fluoridation, which he still supported. Yet
another public health official, Dr. John Colquhoun, who, before he left
his post as Principal Dental Officer for the Department of Health in
Auckland, New Zealand, went on public television and showed the evidence
of dental fluoriosis in children’s teeth. Fluorosis is a classic clinical
symptom of fluoride toxicity. He also found when he studied data from his
community’s dental records that more children in nonfluoridated areas were
free of tooth decay than those in fluoridated areas.
A leading contemporary expert on fluorides is California medical doctor
John Lee. Dr. Lee began studying the issue in 1972, when he was chairman
of the Environmental Health Committee of the Marin County Medical Society.
The committee was asked by the county medical society to evaluate fluoridation.
Since then the California physician has conducted some of his own research;
he has also extensively studied the scientific literature on the subject
from around the world. In February of this year Dr. Lee called for public
health officials to carry out their responsibility to protect the public
from environmental toxins by discontinuing fluoridation in their areas.
He pointed out that the strength of the validated fluoride-cancer link is
greater than that which resulted in the banning of red dye No. 3, alar, and
cyclamate.
Dr. Lee also demonstrated the weaknesses and errors in what may be the last
refuge of fluoridation proponents, namely the claim that fluoride is of
benefit in reducing the rate of bone fractures in women and in treating
osteoporosis. What he told _Option Magazine_ in the Spring 1988 issue was
confirmed in a March 22 issue of the _New England Journal of Medicine_. In
research led by Dr. Lawrence of the Mayo Clinic, the Journal article reported
that the use of fluoride in the treatment of osteoporosis resulted in a
three-fold increase of bone fractures in the women taking fluoride compared
with the control subjects. Dr. Lee has reported great clinical success in
reversing osteoporosis in women in his own practice by the trans-dermal
application of a natural source progesterone
…
read more »
In article <1990Jun5.110546.4…@iclswe.uucp>, g…@iclswe.uucp (Grahame Budd) writes:
> ae…@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) writes:
> >"It’s the doctors who do the real damage. They write 2.4 billion prescriptions
> >a year for any one of 10,000-plus medicines.
> This seems to work out at about two perscriptions per day per person in the USA.
I seem to see an aritmetic error here. 2,400,000,000 divided by
250,000,000 comes our to a little less than 10
(perscriptions/person/year). This is quite different from 2/day.
–
Phil Hughes – FYL – 8315 Lk City Wy – Ste 207 – Seattle, WA 98115 – 206-526-2919
{uw-beaver!uw-nsr,uunet!pilchuck!ssc}!fylz!fyl
Politics & music are too important to leave to professionals – Michelle Shocked
In article <1…@fylz.UUCP> f…@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
>In article <1990Jun5.110546.4…@iclswe.uucp>, g…@iclswe.uucp (Grahame Budd) writes:
>> ae…@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) writes:
>> >"It’s the doctors who do the real damage. They write 2.4 billion prescriptions
>> >a year for any one of 10,000-plus medicines.
>> This seems to work out at about two perscriptions per day per person in the USA.
>I seem to see an aritmetic error here. 2,400,000,000 divided by
>250,000,000 comes our to a little less than 10
>(perscriptions/person/year). This is quite different from 2/day.
Even that would seem excessive unless you count each refill of a
medicine as a new prescription. Very few patients are on as many
as 10 different medicines. Probably half the population takes
no prescription drugs during a year. I’m sure they must be counting
refills. It would be interesting to know the total number of medications
people are taking on average.
In response to my enquiry about perscription rates : –
f…@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
>250,000,000 comes our to a little less than 10
>(perscriptions/person/year). This is quite different from 2/day.
Sorry! It was my mistake. ( The first time I’ve used the 10**12 billion in a
long time. No excuse, the 10**9 or ‘American’ billion is becomming pretty
standard even in Europe.) ( I also took the wrong population group! )
On a releated topic: does anyone have any information of the different methods
prefered for taking drugs in different places? From some articles I’ve read it
seems that the injection/pill ratio is much higher in the states then in, for
example, the U.K. and Sweden, where pills seem to be prefered.
If so, does this mean that a vitamin ‘shot’ adds to the perscription statistics.
In article <1990Jun8.102906.5…@iclswe.uucp> g…@iclswe.uucp (Grahame Budd) writes:
>example, the U.K. and Sweden, where pills seem to be prefered.
>If so, does this mean that a vitamin ‘shot’ adds to the perscription statistics.
Most of the "shots" are penicillin shots for kids with colds. Bad medical
practice, but the mothers expect/demand it. Vit B12 shots have to be
given as an injection, since those who really need them (as opposed to
those who get them as a placebo, in which a shot is a much more powerful
placebo) can’t absorb oral B12.
—–
g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
> Most of the "shots" are penicillin shots for kids with colds.
> Bad medical practice, but the mothers expect/demand it. …
Since there are medical students on the net, would this
not be a good opportunity to encourage all physicians to
practice only good medicine, even it means explaining to
patients (or parents) about their misconceptions? At a
more abstract level, should doctors allow lay people’s
misconceptions to influence their medical practice for the
worse, or should they take strong educational and prescriptive
stands about which treatments are good and which are not?
Russell
I was trying to figure out whether 160,000 is a lot in the
greater scheme of things. There are about 250 million americans, with a
life expectancy of about 75, so roughly 3.2 million people more or
less die per year (I’m sure the actual number is known). The number
attributed to prescription drugs is 5% of the value. Hmmm, that probably
is too high. It’s certainly nothing to be proud of. However, how many of
those drugs preserved the patients life or improved its quality? I for
one, don’t know, but I’m sure it’s a sizable percentage. Many
prescription drugs are a double edged sword, and many are quite tricky,
and well, frankly, well, it’s only human to emphasize the benefit and
downplay the risk. But perhaps its not fashionable to atttribute the
qualities of humanity on doctors.
—
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
wer…@aecom.YU.EDU — Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"…if that’s the hand you use, well, nevermind…"
There is a really good book about medical incompetence
in the United States put out by a bunch of guys called
"The People’s Medical Society"… The book is called
"Medicine on Trial" and is authored by Charles B. Inlander,
Lowell S. Levin and Ed Weiner.
THe book covers both issues you mention, medical training
and the tendency for doctors to give out too many of the
wrong sort of drugs.
While the book is biased, it is also based on very good
evidence, much of it taken from various medical journals.
If you are interested in such issues, i suggest you read it.
It is rather scary, and is sure to add to patient paranoia!
This stuff really bugs me. My mom is on several different medications
now. She takes something to thin her blood because she has a plastic
valve in her heart. She has high blood pressure so she takes medication
for that and then takes something else to prevent her from having side
effects from THAT. On top of this, she has had side effects from the
one she is taking to prevent side effects. Plus she has to take a pill
to keep her from retaining water. Oh, I almost forgot the stuff for
the high cholesteral, which is something that just runs in our family.
Every one of us has it. We all eat what we should too. Strange.
Why give someone a medication that is not making a difference, one
way or the other? Makes no sense to me.
I could talk about all of the stuff that my dad has to take, but I
don’t want to be here all night. In one vist to the pharmicist,
they spent over $500 between them. They aren’t old either. My dad is
59 and my mother will be 58. At least not in my opinion.
Just had to get this off my chest.
Cindy McConnell
In article <8…@cs.utexas.edu> tur…@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>—–
>g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>> Most of the "shots" are penicillin shots for kids with colds.
>> Bad medical practice, but the mothers expect/demand it. …
>Since there are medical students on the net, would this
>not be a good opportunity to encourage all physicians to
>practice only good medicine, even it means explaining to
>patients (or parents) about their misconceptions? At a
>more abstract level, should doctors allow lay people’s
>misconceptions to influence their medical practice for the
>worse, or should they take strong educational and prescriptive
>stands about which treatments are good and which are not?
Medical students are all taught that this practice is not
good medicine. However, don’t forget that the private
practice of medicine is a competitive business for most
practitioners. There is an element of "the customer is
always right" and it is so easy to rationalize that "it
shouldn’t do any harm" to give a few shots rather than lose
a patient. You can also bill for the shot, but not for
the advice that the shot won’t help. So when the patient
vociferously wants the shot, you see the difficulty.
In my field there are many patients with simple migraine
headaches who feel that they should have $1000 worth of
scans to make sure they don’t have a brain tumor. It takes
a brave physician to inform them that this is not good
medicine nor is it cost effective, especially when their
insurance will pay for it. Should they later (even years later)
turn up with any kind of intracranial pathology (not related
to the headache, but people are known to have more than
one disease) you will often be looking a lawsuit in the
face. Is it any wonder that most of these patients presenting
to privates get scanned, (almost all of them if the private owns
his own scanner, I’m afraid).
If we’re talking numbers – does anyone have figures for the number of
people who die each year from inadequately treated cancer, depression and
other conditions when under the care of weirdopathic practitioners? [if
the homeo and naturo crowd can dream up the "allo-" prefix as an insult I
figure some terminological retaliation is in order...]. Is there any
reason to believe the figure is any lower, even given the smaller number of
people they treat?
–
— Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcvax and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: j…@glasgow.uucp
In article <5…@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>If we’re talking numbers – does anyone have figures for the number of
>people who die each year from inadequately treated cancer, depression and
>other conditions when under the care of weirdopathic practitioners? [if
>the homeo and naturo crowd can dream up the "allo-" prefix as an insult I
>figure some terminological retaliation is in order...]. Is there any
>reason to believe the figure is any lower, even given the smaller number of
>people they treat?
I’m not sure such figures exist. While good statistics can be gathered
on patients who die in hospitals under the care of scientific practitioners,
religious and folk medicine practitioners do not usually participate in
systems that would allow such data to be collected. We all know personally
of patients who were "cured" by laetrile and faith healing and then died
some months later, but I am not aware of any systematic research on it.
(I haven’t searched thoroughly though, so this doesn’t mean there isn’t
any.)
Most folk medicine is rather harmless in the context that it is practiced.
Bad folk medicine is usually less dangerous than bad scientific medicine,
due to the tremendous potency of the agents developed through technology.
It is hard to kill someone with homeopathy. It is indirect killing in
cases where scientific medicine would have helped but the patient chose
an ineffective alternative therapy. Many, if not most, patients that turn to
quackery have diseases not curable or treatable by scientific medicine.
This does not mean the quacks are harmless, as many of their treatments
are capable of quickly draining the financial resources of the dying
patient and their families in a hopeless pursuit of a cure.
There are of course exceptions to the rule of alternative therapies not
being directly harmful. Vigorous chiropractic manipulation of the
neck is an important cause of vertebral artery dissection, not an uncommon
cause of strokes.
In article <1990Jun14.134246.14…@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>, g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <5…@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
> >If we’re talking numbers – does anyone have figures for the number of
> >people who die each year from inadequately treated cancer, depression and
> >other conditions when under the care of weirdopathic practitioners? [if
> >the homeo and naturo crowd can dream up the "allo-" prefix as an insult I
> >figure some terminological retaliation is in order...]. Is there any
> >reason to believe the figure is any lower, even given the smaller number of
> >people they treat?
> I’m not sure such figures exist. While good statistics can be gathered
> on patients who die in hospitals under the care of scientific practitioners,
> religious and folk medicine practitioners do not usually participate in
> systems that would allow such data to be collected. We all know personally
> of patients who were "cured" by laetrile and faith healing and then died
> some months later, but I am not aware of any systematic research on it.
> (I haven’t searched thoroughly though, so this doesn’t mean there isn’t
> any.)
………………………..
This material is excerpted from a posting by John Logajan to the
libertarian mailing list, and is reproduced with permission.
The point being made is that it works both ways.
—————————
Some FDA stuff from the works of Dr. Sam Peltzmann, Professor of
Economics at the University of Chicago and also UCLA.
Some conclusions (circa 1973) about the effect of the 1962
Kefauver amendments to the FDA:
1.) There is a two year delay (1973 and 8-10 years 1989) in
introducing new drugs.
2.) There is a reduction of new drugs introduced. (down 60%)
3.) The risk involved in the use of new drugs prior to the new
regulations is much exaggerated.
4.) The total costs imposed on the public outweigh the gains.
(About 10% of the total annual drug expenditures — using
extremely optimistic assumptions [below].)
Peltzmann calculated the net cost to the public of the FDA by
making the following (fantastically pro-FDA) assumptions:
1.) No more than a two year delay on new drugs. (8-10 in reality)
2.) No useful drugs prevented unintentionally. (thousands are)
3.) All bad drugs prevented. (nonsense)
4.) No discouragement of introducing useful drugs. (Thousands
are. The average approval costs are $153 million. Many special
use drugs will never return that investment. Most non-patentable
substances (already in use in non-medical applications) will not
return that kind of investment.)
Yet even with these pie-in-the-sky assumptions, there was a $350
million dollar NET loss to the public per year (1973) due to the
FDA. So even if the FDA is blessed with ideal conditions, it is
still more costly to the public than if the 1962 amendments didn’t
exist at all. It should also be noted that the costs waved out of
existence by assumptions 1,2, and 4 in reality devastate even
these costs estimates.
Peltzmann, "These conclusions hold even when we consider the
potential costs of a thalidomide tragedy in its most virulent form
and on the most extreme interpretation of its costs — that
malformation is the equivalent of death. My high estimate of the
economic cost (or cost in "lives" lost) of such a hypothetical
tragedy is well below that of a one-year, let alone two-year,
delay in marketing the phenothiazines [tranquilizers.]"
" … it may be concluded that there was too little risk taking
before 1962, not to mention since 1962."
It was noted above that new drug introductions is down 60% per
year since 1962, yet pre-1962 the percentage of ineffective drugs
introduced was less than 10%. The means HALF of all new effective
drugs are being held off the market each year. The costs in lives
of this must be staggering.
Peltzmann, "… the resulting gains [of relaxation of FDA
requirements] would have left a margin of lives saved and
disability avoided that would more than have offset increased
losses from unsafe drugs. The risk-return tradeoff was already
biased against drug consumers in 1962. The amendments have simply
exaggerated the bias."
Also, a correction to my earlier post. Beta blockers were held
off the US market for 16 years after they were available in
Europe. The lowest estimates of lives saved by beta blockers in
the US is 25,000 ranging up to 80,000. So you can see that
between 400,000 and 1,280,000 people lost their lives due to this
delay in just one drug introduction.
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
– loga…@ns.network.com, j…@logajan.mn.org, 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853
–
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru…@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)
In article <5…@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, j…@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes…
>If we’re talking numbers – does anyone have figures for the number of
>people who die each year from inadequately treated cancer, depression and
>other conditions when under the care of weirdopathic practitioners?
Tuesday (june 12) a man and wife were convicted in toronto
canada for not providing the neccessaries for life to the infant
daughter. they had consulted an herbelist for treatment
and refused to see a (registered) doctor.
Lance R. Bailey | l…@rri.uwo.ca
Systems Manager | (519)663-3787 ext. 4108
Robarts Research Institute |
Clinical Trials Resources Group | P.O. Box 5015, 100 Perth Drive
London, Canada | London, Canada, N6A 5K8
In article <1990Jun14.134246.14…@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>I’m not sure such figures exist. While good statistics can be gathered
>on patients who die in hospitals under the care of scientific practitioners,
>religious and folk medicine practitioners do not usually participate in
>systems that would allow such data to be collected. We all know personally
>of patients who were "cured" by laetrile and faith healing and then died
>some months later, but I am not aware of any systematic research on it.
>(I haven’t searched thoroughly though, so this doesn’t mean there isn’t
>any.)
>Most folk medicine is rather harmless in the context that it is practiced.
>Bad folk medicine is usually less dangerous than bad scientific medicine,
>due to the tremendous potency of the agents developed through technology.
>It is hard to kill someone with homeopathy. It is indirect killing in
>cases where scientific medicine would have helped but the patient chose
>an ineffective alternative therapy. Many, if not most, patients that turn to
>quackery have diseases not curable or treatable by scientific medicine.
>This does not mean the quacks are harmless, as many of their treatments
>are capable of quickly draining the financial resources of the dying
>patient and their families in a hopeless pursuit of a cure.
>There are of course exceptions to the rule of alternative therapies not
>being directly harmful. Vigorous chiropractic manipulation of the
>neck is an important cause of vertebral artery dissection, not an uncommon
>cause of strokes.
This is pure drivel. You call the kind of medicine that you
practice "scientific medicine" which gives it a holy aura, and everything
else alternative (when you’re being kind) or quackery. Well, I don’t
accept this premise. Even if one was to try and meet your criteria of
"scientific", where would say a chiropractor publish his double-blind
study? In the New England Journal of Medicine? Sure. Now if her were to
publish it in a peer-reviewed chiropractic journal, you would still discount
it. Now, I’m not defending chiropractic medicine here. I’m just trying to
point out that since you represent the generally accepted medical
system in this country (note I avoided using the evil term, allopathy)
you get to call the shots. You get to say what’s "scientific", and
whats "quackery". But that doesn’t make it true. Now in mainland China
for example, Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine are
practiced *together* so that a patient may benefit from what each one
has to offer. Hey, they even do double-blind herbal studies. Think
such a system will ever evolve here? Not if *you* can help it. After all,
why would you want "alternative" practitioners muscling in on your turf?
And that is the name of the game, isn’t it?
One other point I would like to take issue with is one which you have made
before, is that alternative medicine will drain you of all your money.
Now I’m sure there are unethical alternative practices which do just that.
But in general, acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc., are relatively
inexpensive compared to the cost of more conventional treatment. Just
check into the hospital sometime and see how fast your wallet is drained.
In article <1…@island.uu.net> gr…@island.uu.net (Robert Greenstein ) writes:
>This is pure drivel. You call the kind of medicine that you
>practice "scientific medicine" which gives it a holy aura, and everything
>else alternative (when you’re being kind) or quackery.
Even though in practice everything we do isn’t scientific, our goal is
to be a scientific as we can, using the methods of science to validate
our diagnostic procedures and therapy. That is what distinguishes
the medicine I teach and practice from that of the quacks. Obviously,
I am a scientist and believe that science offers the best way of validating
knowledge. I recommend it to people. I am not interested in forcing
people to use it, if they are not so inclined. But I will criticize
the quacks when I see fit.
>accept this premise. Even if one was to try and meet your criteria of
>"scientific", where would say a chiropractor publish his double-blind
>study? In the New England Journal of Medicine? Sure. Now if her were to
>publish it in a peer-reviewed chiropractic journal, you would still discount
>it.
Are there any peer-reviewed chiropractic journals? They could certainly
apply the scientific methods (which doesn’t mean everything has to be
double-blind, by the way) to evaluation of their therapy if they so
choose. I am not aware that they are even interested in trying.
> Now, I’m not defending chiropractic medicine here. I’m just trying to
>point out that since you represent the generally accepted medical
>system in this country (note I avoided using the evil term, allopathy)
>you get to call the shots.
To a limited degree, you are right. I sit on committees that decide
who gets NIH funds (I’ve yet to see an application from a chiropractor).
But quack medicine gets plenty of funding from rich eccentrics.
I know of several quacks right now who have ample research funding to
prove the pet theories of theirs from patients who feel they were helped
and want to promote the therapy. Recently, a fellow who believes Dilantin
is a cure-all published a book and sent it to every MD in the US. From
time to time quack theorists do come up with a scientific study
(see the homeopathy one in Nature 2 years ago). To date, all of them
have been successfully shot down, (as a lot of the theories that
the rest of us come up with are shot down similarly). But true science
will eventually prevail, even if it is unpopular and contradicts the
orthodox notions as has been shown time and again in the history of
science when old theories that everyone believed had to be abandoned
(not without a fight, though).
>such a system will ever evolve here? Not if *you* can help it. After all,
>why would you want "alternative" practitioners muscling in on your turf?
>And that is the name of the game, isn’t it?
No Bub, that’s not the name of the game for everyone. The alternative
practitioners have been around for centuries and will continue to abound.
No danger of them disappearing anymore than religion disappearing.
There are people who will go to them no matter what we say.
>One other point I would like to take issue with is one which you have made
>before, is that alternative medicine will drain you of all your money.
>Now I’m sure there are unethical alternative practices which do just that.
>But in general, acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc., are relatively
>inexpensive compared to the cost of more conventional treatment. Just
>check into the hospital sometime and see how fast your wallet is drained.
Conventional treatment is often expensive because of the high cost of
the technology used. Acupuncture, homeopathy, and naturopathy are
generally quite cheap. Chiropractic is cheap on a per-visit basis, but
chiropractors have this gimmick that many of them insist that you come in for
regular treatments for life, which over the years can amount to huge sums of
money. The real villains are those who claim to be able to cure incurable
diseases, such as cancer, arthritis, alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis,
etc. Those who are sick are desperate for the cure and will pay huge sums
for the magic potion. If you examine these potions, there isn’t any
ingredient in them that remotely justifies the huge price tag. The other
trick that is used is the frequent treatment trick. The patient needs
daily or several times weekly treatments (often using some bogus machine)
that keep them coming back again and again, or have to be resident in a
"hospital" owned by the practitioner. It is simply exploitation of the
desperate patient by cunning psychopaths. Such "doctors" should be taken
out and shot!
geb>Chiropractic is cheap on a per-visit basis, but
geb>chiropractors have this gimmick that many of them insist that you come in for
geb>regular treatments for life, which over the years can amount to huge sums of
geb>money.
Yes, and doctors insist you see them for regular checkups. And
psychologists and analysts are into the "regular treatment" game, but
they sure aren’t cheap on a per-visit basis.
Why can’t you accept that some people find chiropractors useful for
physical therapy and leave it at that? I can go to my chiropractor
once a month and it will do me a lot more good than seeing my doctor
once a year and cost me about the same amount of money.
I will admit there are plenty of greedy dentists, doctors, chiropractors,
psychologists to go around, and that chiropractors have more than their
fair share.
In article <21500…@m.cs.uiuc.edu> ca…@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Yes, and doctors insist you see them for regular checkups. And
No, I think the concept of regular checkups for normal healthy
people has pretty much gone by the wayside in modern medicine.