Slashdot Mirror

While iridology is bunk , it would be interesting to see what disease markers could be found with eye exams. We already know about a few. Ankylosing spondylitis is often associated with eye inflammation and abnormalities in the retina can be associated with diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease, and stroke, as well as a lot of systemic diseases.

Eye exams are generally non-invasive and the scans could be set up almost anywhere.

The Bt toxin produced by GMO corn (itself - not sprayed on) is every bit as bad. It's an insecticide. It works by chemically punching holes in the digestive tract of insects that try to feed on it. When humans eat this corn over time, it has a similar effect. This produces an autoimmune condition known as "leaky gut syndrome".

So-called "leaky gut syndrome" is complete, utter bollocks.

- T

It's kind of funny that everyone keeps saying that anti-oxidants are good for you, when studies show they're not (one of many links - you can google for more).

The assumption is that they prevent DNA damage by scrubbing the body of free radicals. This ignores a few things - I1) those free radicals are caused by damage that has already happened (cosmic ray hit, mutagen damaging DNA, etc); (2) removing the free radicals removes one of the signals the body needs to trigger either attempt repairs or if it's not possible trigger cell death; (3) the mechanisms for dealing with this damage have evolved over the course of a billion years, and have been optimized to ensure cellular survival only when cellular survival is the optimal solution.

People who go whole-hog on anti-oxidants accumulate more cells with uncorrected damage. Not a good thing.

Understanding the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in apoptosis opens new approaches for controlling cancer growth, and suggests that patients with cancer may not always want to ingest extra antioxidants. Many epidemiological studies suggest that increased intake of fruits and vegetables, and of other foods that contain antioxidants can protect against the DNA damage that can initiate carcinogenesis. However, recent data indicates that cells use reactive oxygen species as part of the signaling process responsible for activating an important mechanism for eliminating cancer cells, programmed cell death (also called apoptosis). Many anti-cancer agents depend on this form of cell death for their efficacy. In this review we present an overview of the role of ROS in carcinogenesis and in apoptosis, and we raise questions about the proper dietary recommendations for individuals with cancer.

Also note that the beneficial claims of anti-oxidants have been widely debunked using longterm double-blind experiments and here and even red wine fails the test

For years, the Western world has marvelled at the so-called French Paradox, which points to the low incidence of coronary heart disease in that population despite their high-cholesterol and high-saturated fat diet. This has been attributed to their regular intake of red wine, with its high levels of resveratrol and other polyphenols.

But this latest study, which assessed a large group of Italians - who consume a diet rich in resveratrol - found that they do not live longer and are just as likely to develop cardiovascular disease or cancer as individuals who consume smaller amounts of the compound.

"The story of resveratrol turns out to be another case where you get a lot of hype about health benefits that doesn't stand the test of time," says Dr. Semba. "The thinking was that certain foods are good for you because they contain resveratrol. We didn't find that at all."

There's a lot of science that looks good and logical on the surface that doesn't stand up to long-term investigation. Anti-oxidants are like cold fusion, but people want to believe, so they ignore the negative evidence.

On the one hand, this could be huge. On the other hand, let's see the peer reviewed articles. Remember "resveratrol"? After seeing resveratrol covered by CBS 60 Minutes, etc, I bought some tablets, based on the similar mouse aging claims. Interesting history in Quackwatch.com describes how the mouse aging study led to $720M investment by GlaxoSmithKline. Once the money started rushing in, it went quacky...

"In 2012, the University of Connecticut announced that it had concluded that Dipak K. Das, Ph.D., a professor in its Department of Surgery and director of the Cardiovascular Research Center, was guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data and that the university had notified eleven journals about this problem [20]. In recent years, Das had gained attention for his reports on allegedly beneficial properties of resveratrol. As of March 2014, journals had retracted 20 of his papers, many of which were repeatedly cited by others [21]. Das died in 2013."

Some interesting research is still going on, tangentially from the resveratrol research. But the way anti-aging anything gets marketed, suspicion always seems warranted.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Qu...

This isn't the U.S.

On the one hand, this could be huge. On the other hand, let's see the peer reviewed articles. Remember "resveratrol"? After seeing resveratrol covered by CBS 60 Minutes, etc, I bought some tablets, based on the similar mouse aging claims. Interesting history in Quackwatch.com describes how the mouse aging study led to $720M investment by GlaxoSmithKline. Once the money started rushing in, it went quacky...

"In 2012, the University of Connecticut announced that it had concluded that Dipak K. Das, Ph.D., a professor in its Department of Surgery and director of the Cardiovascular Research Center, was guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data and that the university had notified eleven journals about this problem [20]. In recent years, Das had gained attention for his reports on allegedly beneficial properties of resveratrol. As of March 2014, journals had retracted 20 of his papers, many of which were repeatedly cited by others [21]. Das died in 2013."

Some interesting research is still going on, tangentially from the resveratrol research. But the way anti-aging anything gets marketed, suspicion always seems warranted.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Qu...

[mercola.com]

According to recent information and studies there seems to something to the Low Carb High Fat diet, not just for weight loss, but for much better serum cholesterol numbers and lower inflammation markers. But citing Joe Mercola probably isn't convincing anybody of the credibility of what you're saying.

Your link is nothing but stuff the FDA complained about Mercola doing. Frankly, in my book, anyone that the big-pharma paid and Monsanto-protecting corporate-controlled bully that the FDA is today wants to discredit must be someone who is doing something right.

[mercola.com]

According to recent information and studies there seems to something to the Low Carb High Fat diet, not just for weight loss, but for much better serum cholesterol numbers and lower inflammation markers. But citing Joe Mercola probably isn't convincing anybody of the credibility of what you're saying.

But with fluoride added to the water supply, we can reverse those gains..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

It all traces back to this guy: http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html

Maybe not.

Does Fluoride Make Your Kids Dumb?
Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?
FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims
Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations - 2011
Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations - 2006
Joe Mercola: 15 years of promoting quackery
The New PuritansWhen did liberals become so uptight?

Phrenology returns with a vengeance for the public to swallow along with a variety of cancer curing pseudoscience!

Link. Someone way down the page posted this, there are other sources too. Basically, he is using a possibly toxic chemical refined from human urine, which has no form of chemical interaction with DNA like he claims it does (a fact he, himself, has admitted), and which has under study been shown to have no effect on cancer.

While refining chemicals from urine is exactly the kind of of-the-wall treatment that might cure cancer (remember the study that used HIV to reprogram cells to kill cancer?), this doesn't.

Quackwatch article: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Poster right below you dropped this link. They did replicate his work, and found no effect on cancer. The man is a quack, a liar, a fraud, probably not even a doctor, and deserves to be sued into oblivion for intimidation.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Pretty open and shut.

Burzynski is a fraud.

I say that as a real researcher (and research director.) The amount of work this man has done is PATHETIC. Even his supposed year-long lab experiment to get his "D.Msc (which didn't exist at the time,) has the shittiest documentation ever.

Sure.

http://web.mit.edu/~sdavies/MacData/afs.sdavies/MacData/afs.course/other/sp275/www/organicmyth.pdf
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14079717/The-Seven-Most-Dangerous-Myths-About-Organic

Uh huh, you lucked out - a good chiropractor is basically a physical therapist without that accreditation, or an actual physical therapist going by another name for some reason. It doesn't really matter that the fundamental chiropractic theory is complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit equivalent to Chi or ghost stories; if the treatment works, after all, it works (though I and I'm sure many other people have philosophical objections to that, it's hard to come up with pragmatic ones).

Unfortunately, not all chiropractors are as good as yours, and not all people who go to chiropractors are as lucky as you. There's definitely bad chiropractors out there, who say that their manipulations can cure literally everything. I mean, don't you remember the three or four Slashdot articles about the British Chiropractor Association suing Simon Singh for libel? They sued him because he said that a lot of their claims were bogus (literally, they sued him for using that word), and they eventually dropped the case because the claims are bogus.

Here's the problem, though: you can't tell which kind it will be before you go to them. Sure, you can look up reviews and ask your friends, but that is pretty meaningless; unless your friends are trained medical professionals, they're not really going to have a good idea of whether or not the chiropractor knows wtf they're doing. If you were designing a house, you wouldn't just find a random architect on Yelp - you'd make sure you found one who had a good reputation and was a licensed architect. The problem with chiropractors, though, is that there's very little if any regulation on who can call themselves a chiropractor, and there's almost no educational requirements; Joe Random off the street can basically just decide he's a chiropractor one day and open up shop, which is not how it works for the MD you so casually disregard.

"Fine," you say, "it doesn't really matter! From a pragmatic standpoint, they're not really hurting anyone, right? Either they cure you, or they send you off to a real doctor who does." Unfortunately, it often doesn't work like that; in terms of actual medical problems, the time a chiropractor spends trying to fix you by adjusting your sublaxations and crackin' your bones is time that's wasted unless you actually had certain classes of muscular or skeletal problem. If you had, say, severe joint pain and spent a couple of weeks going to a chiropractor instead of going to a doctor, the chiropractor might not even know to look for lupus. In the worst cases, unethical chiropractors might refrain from referring a patient with problems they can't handle to a doctor, simply because there's really no standards of conduct for them.

And even then, the contention that what they can only harm you by delaying treatment might not even be true! It's been argued (quite convincingly, I think) that certain kinds of chiropractic manipulations on the neck can cause stroke.

So yeah, it boils down to this: the actual art chiropractors practice (i.e, chiropractic) is a sham and a scam with absolutely no medical backing. Though there are actual chiropractors that know enough to heal you out there, there is no way of guaranteeing that any specific chiropractor won't try to adjust your neck and potentially give you a stroke, or give you bad advice that doesn't work, or string you along and delay effective treatment.

If you don't believe me, check your chiropractor's website or pamphlets - if they're in the USA, I bet you anything that they have something like the Quack Miranda Warning somewhere in there. And if they don't, they're not just a chiropractor - they almost certainly have some sort of real medical certification, which means that they don'

I fucking HATE people like this, trading on desperation. They remind me of the Laetrile wackos in the 70's and 80's. It's no more legitimate than the frantically dying who spend their last few pennies going to Lourdes, or giving money to "doctors of healing of the Lord." My wife's mother did this when my wife was 12 and her description of the outright robbery by the assholes who run the place and the surrounding "guesthouses" made me nauseous.

He claims "in vivo" success, then spouts some BS anecdotal "I've seen miraculous Stage 4 cures" rubbish. You have proof of in vivo success in properly executed peer reviewed studies? Post the links or STFU. I'll bet you aren't interested in naysayers. Just the desperate with a checkbook.

He describes theoretical, early-stage research which MAY, one day, have some use, after it is peer reviewed and proven legitimate. Right now, I see nothing but the most early suggestions of biochemical ideas, and FAR from any "unified theory" by biochemists. That's just silly.

This boob is simply suggesting a variation on the long-discredited Induced Hypoglycemic Therapy bullshit, and doing it in a really inappropriate place. Hey Sparky, if low sugar starved cancer cells, why aren't diabetics cancer-free? BTW, neurons starved of glucose die way before any other cells. "Avoid sugar, not just HFCS." Pfffft. IHT is DANGEROUS.

Posting rubbish like you did in this thread is fucking ghoulish and if there is any real karma, you just burned a whole lot of it.

I fucking HATE people like this, trading on desperation. They remind me of the Laetrile wackos in the 70's and 80's. It's no more legitimate than the frantically dying who spend their last few pennies going to Lourdes, or giving money to "doctors of healing of the Lord." My wife's mother did this when my wife was 12 and her description of the outright robbery by the assholes who run the place and the surrounding "guesthouses" made me nauseous.

He claims "in vivo" success, then spouts some BS anecdotal "I've seen miraculous Stage 4 cures" rubbish. You have proof of in vivo success in properly executed peer reviewed studies? Post the links or STFU. I'll bet you aren't interested in naysayers. Just the desperate with a checkbook.

He describes theoretical, early-stage research which MAY, one day, have some use, after it is peer reviewed and proven legitimate. Right now, I see nothing but the most early suggestions of biochemical ideas, and FAR from any "unified theory" by biochemists. That's just silly.

This boob is simply suggesting a variation on the long-discredited Induced Hypoglycemic Therapy bullshit, and doing it in a really inappropriate place. Hey Sparky, if low sugar starved cancer cells, why aren't diabetics cancer-free? BTW, neurons starved of glucose die way before any other cells. "Avoid sugar, not just HFCS." Pfffft. IHT is DANGEROUS.

Posting rubbish like you did in this thread is fucking ghoulish and if there is any real karma, you just burned a whole lot of it.

I encourage you to check your sources better. A quick Google shows that Dr. Mercola is not necessarily a reliable source. Specifically, he has been cited by the FDA for marketing multiple products with false claims.

Now, perhaps you just used him as a source because you've checked his sources for that particular article and they are good - but if so, please don't use him as a reference. He blocks reading his articles without signing up for his site, and I'm sure not signing up for some quack's site just to try and tell if that one article is good.

Next time try some Colloidal Silver. I had some sort of hideous flu at the begining of this month, and it wiped it out within a week.

Or pink socks. Yesterday I had a nasty headache, so I put on some pink socks. Today, the headache was gone. Bam! Lesson learned: Pink socks cure headaches.

Colloidal Silver: Risk Without Benefit

The weight of scientific evidence against the use of pesticides is quite frankly, frighting. For a decent condensed summary of many scientific papers from many fields demonstrating the effects of pesticides, (especially on the endocrine system) check out the book/collection of scientific reports Our Stolen Future.

In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?

Not so fast. If you're concerned with pesticides, you might want to brush up on what exactly constitutes an "organic" food.
  Here is a Quackwatch article about the subject. It also addresses pesticides directly.

In my opinion, refusal to openly adopt electronic medical records is a direct result of overt protectionism by physicians and surgeons.

Sure, all those people must be in cahoots. There must be a conspiracy here.

DOs are close

Yes, let's promote a profession with foundations as dubious as baby twisting motherfuckers.

See title.

A year ago, I started taking the anti-epileptic medication, Topamax, and I started to suffer from psychosis shortly there after. I am better now though, now that I no longer take Topamax. Psychosis is a rare, but potential, side effect of Topamax, and there may be genetic factors that influence the occurrence of this particular serious side effect. A casual term that a layperson might use to describe me is that I was psychotic, but saying that I was suffering from psychosis is probably a better description I think anyways. It has something to do with not labeling an individual as a condition, but instead saying they have the condition.

In any case, Mr. Savain I have seen other post on your blog and even your separate website, and basically I think that the conclusions that you have made are entirely illogical and without merit. The reasoning you must have performed for your work was seriously delusional. I am certain that I could not have managed that quality of delusional thinking, when I was ill a year ago.

In any case, I would urge you to drop by the nearest ER immediately and ask to have a professional perform a mental evaluation on you. It is generally just a few questions and the results may be enormously helpful. Note, I am not any sort of health practitioner.

In any case, for other readers, a fairly valid comparison to the validity all of Mr. Savain's irrational ideas can be found in the "Alternative Engineering" story here:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/alteng.html

Also could a slashdot admin make an appropriate sig for the "Louis Savain" with the above link to Quackwatch and lock it such that he cannot change it. I'm tired of this idiot's posts getting modded up by confused mods impressed by the technical and pseudo-technical terms which get arranged into gibberish on the page he links to, which is invariably one of his blog postings or his website.

one is superstition, the other is actual medical fact.

Only if you're hanging around in the 19th century. With very few exceptions, examining the iris doesn't give you any information about illnesses (although it can certainly tell you about problems with the iris). Iridology lives on the trash heap of medical history these days. Aside from the fact that it makes no sense from a physiological perspective, it also simply fails on evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that has no theory or data to back it up doesn't even approach the realm of medical fact.

I'm a doctor

Same.

it is difficult for an individual (even a doctor) to tell somebody to NOT do something that is not harmful, and (very, very unlikely) may be beneficial.

Unfortunately I disagree with this statement. While most homeopathists generally don't do harm I have seen plenty who have. Things that I've personally seen:

1) Patients who are struggling with money spending more than they can afford on bogus treatments. Depriving them on money they could have spent on other things.

2) Patients refusing or delaying treatment to see try homeopathy. While people have the right to chose their own treatment, a faith heeler and homeopathest misled people by saying that their treatment works. One case springs to mind of a patient in their mid 30 with Duke's A bowel cancer. This should have had a good chance for cure, but after 12 months of "trying the homeopathy first" the cancer had disseminated (liver/retro-peritoneum etc).

3) I've also seen direct harm based on dangerous advice. When I was a house surgeon we had a patient come in with seizures due to a low serum sodium. It turned out that her homeopathists had advise her to drink about 5-7L of water per day. The little old lady did this and essentially diluted herself with excess water until she almost died. (BTW drinking so much water that you do this is REALLY HARD. It requires a lot of will power to drink much beyond your thirst.)

So, while its nice to say homeopathists etc do no harm, its simply not true. I suggest reading this article on quack watch.

elivs

When I was a kid, I played in the dirt and ate bugs. Now, I never get sick and I have no allergies.

Changing the *angle* between the hydrogen atoms?!?!

...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH---HA-HAHAHAH AHAHAHAH!


By the way, Quackwatch and Junk Science are great places to get info for "enlightening the unclean", so to speak.

Incidentally, there are also illnesses that are actually being proven to exist, like fibromyalgia, where the complex list of ailments is also real... again, NOT to be taken as evidence that every ailment with such a laundry list of symptoms is genuine yet unproven, in fact this is the exception, rather than the rule. This list of ailments comes up with almost any new toxin. It came up with"Electricity Allergy," where the patient claims to have an allery to Electromagnetic fields which can even break the devices that bear the fields. Again, cases where the patient does the describing and the diagnosis. *shaking head* Doesn't anybody believe in double blind studies any more??

i hope this fellow gets better. I hope that people stop referring to empirical- science based medicine as 'allopathic,' which is a label that only self-stylised 'holistic' pseudomedics seem to use. I just wanted to point out the exception or two where the symptoms are diagnosable, distinct, testable, and can be demonstrated not to be psychosomatic. I didn't read anything that leads me to believe that he's had all the tests to rule such things out. Medicine is NO PLACE for shoddy science!!!!

<AOL>Me too.</AOL>

To the guy talking about losing 20 pounds in a week on Atkins - dude, you went into ketosis and dehydrated yourself. Nothing to do with the diet. Good think you knew to drink plenty of water, though.

To the guy who started this thread, talking about losing a pound a week on Atkins - dude, you can do that on any calorie-restricted diet!

A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. Losing a pound a week means a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day.

Suggested reading #1: The Hacker's Diet (Former CEO of Autodesk describes an approach to dieting in language that will appeal to engineers. He starts with the "3500 calories in a pound of fat", applies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and derives the rest from there.)

If you normally burn 2000 calories per day to keep yourself alive (i.e. to maintain a body temperature of 98.6F in ambient air of 70F, and to sit erect at a computer terminal), and you want to lose a pound a week, you need to cut 500 calories a day. A moderate-to-heavy soda drinker (say, 4 cans a day) can accomplish this simply by switching from regular (at ~130 cal per can) to diet (zero).

The exercise suggestion part of Atkins is good (but it's a good idea with or without diet), but IMNSHO, the nutritional advice is questionable at best - and dangerous quackery at worst.

Suggested Reading #2: As Quackwatch appears to be down at the moment, I recommend anyone considering a low-carb diet read Google's cached copy of Stephen Barrett's analysis of Atkins and the other low-carb approaches.

I agree with Barrett's conclusion - that most of the "success stories" of Atkins dieters are merely the logical end result result of caloric restriction, and not anything "magical" about the approach -- other than that it's a lot easier and more pleasant to eat 1500 calories of "what you want" (guzzle coffee, water, and diet sodas all day long at the office and finish off - at 400 calories per 4-oz serving - with a juicy well-marbled 16-oz New York Strip for dinner! Every night!) than to live on 1500 calories a day of tofu.

I take EXTREME issue with the idea that there hae been HUNDREDS of "studies"..where studies means an FDA approved double blind clinical test.

For the rest you you out there who think hemeopathic medicine is for real(let's not get into whether or not its safe)..please check this article
out

Why don't the homeopathic remedy manufacturers go thuugh a series of FDA clinical studies to be come FDA certified drugs? If this stuff actually works...why are the remedy manufactures using a loop hole in FDA statues and marketing this stuff as herbal suppliments and not as effictive drugs. I'll tell you why...these remedies would not be found to be proven effective for most of the things word of mouth advertising claims. Oh yeah I'm sure hidden in many of the remedies being pushed at the super crunky health food store down the road from me will contain something that helps prevent or cure one or two specific illnesses. But we can't be sure until they actually conduct FDA trials and get FDA certification. And quite frankly taking this stuff can be DANGEROUS...especially if you are on ANY type of real drugs. homeopathic remedies don't have to do any sort of drug interaction testing. Is this stuff safe for a healthy person to take...probably...there is a long track record of other ignorant people taking this stuff without dying. But is it safe if you are also taking ANY modern scientificly researched medications? No way. Don't mix medications with out talking to the docters who gave you the idea to take the medications..even herbals can interfere with how modern FDA approved prescription or over the counter drugs work

This is WHY we have the FDA...if something is an effective drug for a certain illness...the FDA is there to test and certify that. If you are taking any medicine (no matter how ancient it is) sold by a company and placed on retail shelves...you should DEMAND that that they get FDA approval certifying that what they are selling you really works for what you think it does. There is a reason the homeopathic remedies in the store don't actually make specific claims to help any specific illness.

I can understand desperate people taking experimental drugs for live threatening illnesses. But to sell this stuff over the counter without making any specific claims on the label...and letting word of mouth spin a tale of fanasticly wonderful benifits is a slap in the face to the benifits this past century as seen thanks to the explosion of the understanding of how medicines work and the great strides modern medical science have taken to improve the quality of life for those who hae access to it.

Please go back to living in your flat world, with the sun circling overhead, and take your ancient medicines with you.

-jef

Agreed on the latter, but I disagree vehemently on the former.

Taking Forrest Mims' little paperbacks at Radio Shack for example -- the laws that govern electronics are the same whether God slacked off for six days and pulled an all nighter, or if evolution is correct.

I fail to see the relevance of his unscientific beliefs with regards to biology if he's writing a column of hands-on science projects. Sometimes smart people make mistakes outside of their area of expertise.

A similar example would be that of Linus Pauling (winner of the 1954 Nobel Prize for chemistry). It appears that Linus Pauling was just plain wrong about vitamin C. This in no way invalidates his other outstanding work as a chemist.

The difference is that Pauling wasn't raked over the coals for being wrong about one particular thing, and Mims was. IMNSHO, so long as Mims kept his creationist beliefs out of his electronics columns (and I can't imagine any project which would require us knowing about them :-), Mims' treatment was unjust.

Anyone who hasn't been trained in the ways of logical reasoned thought is a target for quacks.

Quackery is a multimillion dollar business in America. (Depending on how strictly or loosely you define it, it's a multibillion dollar business.)

The best answer to your question is here:

A Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking "Alternative" Treatments

If you don't have time to go through that whole list, the short answer to your question is that quacks use every trick in the book to find the most efficient way of separating the emotionally-vulnerable from their money, and (like any other group of professionals), they're extremely good at it. They even have lobby groups to get laws changed in their favor.

Unlike most professionals, of course, quacks harm their clients, rather than helping them.

I'm gratified to see the FTC moving in on these bastards as part of the spam problem, but I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone who hasn't been trained in the ways of logical reasoned thought is a target for quacks.

Quackery is a multimillion dollar business in America. (Depending on how strictly or loosely you define it, it's a multibillion dollar business.)

The best answer to your question is here:

A Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking "Alternative" Treatments

If you don't have time to go through that whole list, the short answer to your question is that quacks use every trick in the book to find the most efficient way of separating the emotionally-vulnerable from their money, and (like any other group of professionals), they're extremely good at it. They even have lobby groups to get laws changed in their favor.

Unlike most professionals, of course, quacks harm their clients, rather than helping them.

I'm gratified to see the FTC moving in on these bastards as part of the spam problem, but I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone who hasn't been trained in the ways of logical reasoned thought is a target for quacks.

Quackery is a multimillion dollar business in America. (Depending on how strictly or loosely you define it, it's a multibillion dollar business.)

The best answer to your question is here:

A Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking "Alternative" Treatments

If you don't have time to go through that whole list, the short answer to your question is that quacks use every trick in the book to find the most efficient way of separating the emotionally-vulnerable from their money, and (like any other group of professionals), they're extremely good at it. They even have lobby groups to get laws changed in their favor.

Unlike most professionals, of course, quacks harm their clients, rather than helping them.

I'm gratified to see the FTC moving in on these bastards as part of the spam problem, but I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone who hasn't been trained in the ways of logical reasoned thought is a target for quacks.

Quackery is a multimillion dollar business in America. (Depending on how strictly or loosely you define it, it's a multibillion dollar business.)

The best answer to your question is here:

A Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking "Alternative" Treatments

If you don't have time to go through that whole list, the short answer to your question is that quacks use every trick in the book to find the most efficient way of separating the emotionally-vulnerable from their money, and (like any other group of professionals), they're extremely good at it. They even have lobby groups to get laws changed in their favor.

Unlike most professionals, of course, quacks harm their clients, rather than helping them.

I'm gratified to see the FTC moving in on these bastards as part of the spam problem, but I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

True.

> Second, research has shown that you do not need nearly as much protein in your diet as you have been led to believe. Most of the research in this field has been funded by the meat and dairy industries (see "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins for some excellent sources).

You mean

Virtually all the advocates of "alternative" medicine share this view. In Reclaiming our Health, John Robbins, a New Age devotee, vegan, and animal rights activist, states that "many conditions, including most forms of cancer, viral infections, allergic and autoimmune disorders, and most chronic degenerative diseases . . . are more effectively handled with alternative approaches." This is statement is startling, but he provides no evidence to back it up.

I look forward to the Quackwatch review of Reclaiming Our Health.

(Before you accuse the maintainer of quackwatch.com as being some kind of protein industry co-conspirator, he's just as hard on the low-carbohydrate diets (e.g. Atkins Diet) as he is on other forms of quackery.

> Third, meat is unhealthy when consumed in normal portions. It contains large amounts of saturated fat and is high in cholestoral. The rate of heart disease is 3-5 times higher in meat eaters than in strict vegetarians (vegans).

But you just finished telling us that most meat-eaters don't eat balanced diets! So even if there were such a thing as a "normal portion" (odd, I'd define "normal portion" as "that portion of meat which makes a balanced diet - it's rather tautological, no?), you've just finished telling us that the typical carnivore overconsumes it anyways. So of course they're not going to have a normal heart disease profile.

Perhaps the risk of heart disease among meat-eaters is higher, not due to something inherent in meat, (a normal portion of which causes ventricular fibrillations!), but due to other factors in the lifestyle of the typical carnivore -- such as an unbalanced diet, or a higher tendency of health-conscious people to do other things that reduce the risk of heart disease.

When was the last time you saw a vegan come home from work to plunk himself down in front of the TV before lighting up a cigarette, cracking open a six-pack of beer, and munching on a bag of potato chips for dessert?

While I'll agree that the typical American doesn't eat a balanced diet, if that's the strength of his evidence, John Robbins is hardly a source to be taken seriously.

True.

> Second, research has shown that you do not need nearly as much protein in your diet as you have been led to believe. Most of the research in this field has been funded by the meat and dairy industries (see "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins for some excellent sources).

You mean

Virtually all the advocates of "alternative" medicine share this view. In Reclaiming our Health, John Robbins, a New Age devotee, vegan, and animal rights activist, states that "many conditions, including most forms of cancer, viral infections, allergic and autoimmune disorders, and most chronic degenerative diseases . . . are more effectively handled with alternative approaches." This is statement is startling, but he provides no evidence to back it up.

I look forward to the Quackwatch review of Reclaiming Our Health.

(Before you accuse the maintainer of quackwatch.com as being some kind of protein industry co-conspirator, he's just as hard on the low-carbohydrate diets (e.g. Atkins Diet) as he is on other forms of quackery.

> Third, meat is unhealthy when consumed in normal portions. It contains large amounts of saturated fat and is high in cholestoral. The rate of heart disease is 3-5 times higher in meat eaters than in strict vegetarians (vegans).

But you just finished telling us that most meat-eaters don't eat balanced diets! So even if there were such a thing as a "normal portion" (odd, I'd define "normal portion" as "that portion of meat which makes a balanced diet - it's rather tautological, no?), you've just finished telling us that the typical carnivore overconsumes it anyways. So of course they're not going to have a normal heart disease profile.

Perhaps the risk of heart disease among meat-eaters is higher, not due to something inherent in meat, (a normal portion of which causes ventricular fibrillations!), but due to other factors in the lifestyle of the typical carnivore -- such as an unbalanced diet, or a higher tendency of health-conscious people to do other things that reduce the risk of heart disease.

When was the last time you saw a vegan come home from work to plunk himself down in front of the TV before lighting up a cigarette, cracking open a six-pack of beer, and munching on a bag of potato chips for dessert?

While I'll agree that the typical American doesn't eat a balanced diet, if that's the strength of his evidence, John Robbins is hardly a source to be taken seriously.

True.

> Second, research has shown that you do not need nearly as much protein in your diet as you have been led to believe. Most of the research in this field has been funded by the meat and dairy industries (see "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins for some excellent sources).

You mean

Virtually all the advocates of "alternative" medicine share this view. In Reclaiming our Health, John Robbins, a New Age devotee, vegan, and animal rights activist, states that "many conditions, including most forms of cancer, viral infections, allergic and autoimmune disorders, and most chronic degenerative diseases . . . are more effectively handled with alternative approaches." This is statement is startling, but he provides no evidence to back it up.

I look forward to the Quackwatch review of Reclaiming Our Health.

(Before you accuse the maintainer of quackwatch.com as being some kind of protein industry co-conspirator, he's just as hard on the low-carbohydrate diets (e.g. Atkins Diet) as he is on other forms of quackery.

> Third, meat is unhealthy when consumed in normal portions. It contains large amounts of saturated fat and is high in cholestoral. The rate of heart disease is 3-5 times higher in meat eaters than in strict vegetarians (vegans).

But you just finished telling us that most meat-eaters don't eat balanced diets! So even if there were such a thing as a "normal portion" (odd, I'd define "normal portion" as "that portion of meat which makes a balanced diet - it's rather tautological, no?), you've just finished telling us that the typical carnivore overconsumes it anyways. So of course they're not going to have a normal heart disease profile.

Perhaps the risk of heart disease among meat-eaters is higher, not due to something inherent in meat, (a normal portion of which causes ventricular fibrillations!), but due to other factors in the lifestyle of the typical carnivore -- such as an unbalanced diet, or a higher tendency of health-conscious people to do other things that reduce the risk of heart disease.

When was the last time you saw a vegan come home from work to plunk himself down in front of the TV before lighting up a cigarette, cracking open a six-pack of beer, and munching on a bag of potato chips for dessert?

While I'll agree that the typical American doesn't eat a balanced diet, if that's the strength of his evidence, John Robbins is hardly a source to be taken seriously.

Check out this article on Quackwatch. It contains a detailed discussion of the studies that have been done on this and many of the research papers cited are available on line and linked to.

Check out this article on Quackwatch. It contains a detailed discussion of the studies that have been done on this and many of the research papers cited are available on line and linked to.

EMF and health
Multiple chemical sensitivity

EMF and health
Multiple chemical sensitivity

EMF and health
Multiple chemical sensitivity

Yahoo! Let's play Spot The Quack!

Quacksign #23: They claim they are being persecuted by orthodox medicine and that their work is being suppressed because it's controversial.

That is, nebulous accusations of general government fuckuppery do not imply that chelation is effective, or that MMR shots cause autism.

> he interference by high-level politicians and civil-servants is why we have had an epidemic of BSE and vCJD which successive governments covered up for many years.

Quacksign #23/24 again: Raises specific, but irrelevant (as regards the efficacy of chelation therapy) cases of government fuckuppery in an effort to tar all "government-approved" medicine with the same brush.

> The UK managed to create a completely new incurable brain-destroying disease, [ ... ]

Quacksign #24: A Vast Conspiracy, no doubt, to ...create?!? Yes, he said create CJD. Umm, but what does this have to do with chelation therapy? Or MMR?

> Basically, don't believe any medical research which comes from the UK government and don't eat any beef products from the UK (it's still dangerous).

More #24. Attempt to direct our fear of CJD into a mistrust of all medical research as somehow "tainted" by the Evil Conspiracy.

Guess I'd better get myself some snake oil now, because my doctor is part of the Conspiracy!

> On the vaccine issue specifically [ ... ] If there is an overall cost-saving for a treatment as there is with MMR (1 single shot vs 3 separate shots at different times) then the pressure will be to use that, and if a few children die or get autism well that's just bad luck for them because the government does not pay compensation and you cannot sue them.

More of the Conspiracy. But absolutely. no. evidence that the MMR shot causes autism.

Just the same ubstantiated allegation, this time with a different Conspiracy - the one by the Commie Pinko Bureacuratic Socialists that kill children with dangerous vaccines to save taxpayer dollars.

I suppose that's a step up from the US version of the Conspiracy, in which Evil Capitalists in Big Pharma kill kids with dangerous vaccines to make money for their shareholders, but it still doesn't explain to my why I should believe that there's any link between MMR shots and autism.

Score: 2 out of 25, (Or on This Top-10 list, 2/10).

Synopsis: basically a rant about "Don't trust any medical research funded by the Evil Government Who Created CJD! They 0wn J00!"

Rating: Tinfoil Hat.

Recommendations for Improvement: How 'bout use the word "toxins" a few times, and provide a picture of a cute kid rocking back and forth and drooling on a T-shirt that reads "The Conspiracy Vaccinated Me Against MMR and All I Got Was Autism ism ism ism ism...." and a bit about how chelation will also save you from the mercury in your dental fillings? That'd at least get your score up into the 5-6 range.

Yahoo! Let's play Spot The Quack!

Quacksign #23: They claim they are being persecuted by orthodox medicine and that their work is being suppressed because it's controversial.

That is, nebulous accusations of general government fuckuppery do not imply that chelation is effective, or that MMR shots cause autism.

> he interference by high-level politicians and civil-servants is why we have had an epidemic of BSE and vCJD which successive governments covered up for many years.

Quacksign #23/24 again: Raises specific, but irrelevant (as regards the efficacy of chelation therapy) cases of government fuckuppery in an effort to tar all "government-approved" medicine with the same brush.

> The UK managed to create a completely new incurable brain-destroying disease, [ ... ]

Quacksign #24: A Vast Conspiracy, no doubt, to ...create?!? Yes, he said create CJD. Umm, but what does this have to do with chelation therapy? Or MMR?

> Basically, don't believe any medical research which comes from the UK government and don't eat any beef products from the UK (it's still dangerous).

More #24. Attempt to direct our fear of CJD into a mistrust of all medical research as somehow "tainted" by the Evil Conspiracy.

Guess I'd better get myself some snake oil now, because my doctor is part of the Conspiracy!

> On the vaccine issue specifically [ ... ] If there is an overall cost-saving for a treatment as there is with MMR (1 single shot vs 3 separate shots at different times) then the pressure will be to use that, and if a few children die or get autism well that's just bad luck for them because the government does not pay compensation and you cannot sue them.

More of the Conspiracy. But absolutely. no. evidence that the MMR shot causes autism.

Just the same ubstantiated allegation, this time with a different Conspiracy - the one by the Commie Pinko Bureacuratic Socialists that kill children with dangerous vaccines to save taxpayer dollars.

I suppose that's a step up from the US version of the Conspiracy, in which Evil Capitalists in Big Pharma kill kids with dangerous vaccines to make money for their shareholders, but it still doesn't explain to my why I should believe that there's any link between MMR shots and autism.

Score: 2 out of 25, (Or on This Top-10 list, 2/10).

Synopsis: basically a rant about "Don't trust any medical research funded by the Evil Government Who Created CJD! They 0wn J00!"

Rating: Tinfoil Hat.

Recommendations for Improvement: How 'bout use the word "toxins" a few times, and provide a picture of a cute kid rocking back and forth and drooling on a T-shirt that reads "The Conspiracy Vaccinated Me Against MMR and All I Got Was Autism ism ism ism ism...." and a bit about how chelation will also save you from the mercury in your dental fillings? That'd at least get your score up into the 5-6 range.

You mean chelation therapy: Unproven Claims and Unsound Theories?

> Might like to also ask why thimerosal, which is a mercury compound, is only now being banned from childhood vaccines.

Might also want to realize that autism, as it's typically diagnosed in early childhood, if it's gonna show up, is likely to show up shortly after vaccination. Nothing to do with the vaccination, of course, just dumb luck and a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc scaremongering from the quacks.

Misconceptions about Immunization: #9 - Vaccicnes Cause Autism

Props once again to Stephen Barrett for the debunking.

You mean chelation therapy: Unproven Claims and Unsound Theories?

> Might like to also ask why thimerosal, which is a mercury compound, is only now being banned from childhood vaccines.

Might also want to realize that autism, as it's typically diagnosed in early childhood, if it's gonna show up, is likely to show up shortly after vaccination. Nothing to do with the vaccination, of course, just dumb luck and a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc scaremongering from the quacks.

Misconceptions about Immunization: #9 - Vaccicnes Cause Autism

Props once again to Stephen Barrett for the debunking.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

OK, that's enough. You can probably find more yourself. Bottom line: Lots of people would love to believe it works, but despite many years of investigation, the evidence that it works is scant. One would think that if acupuncture was as effective as its proponents claim, the evidence would fall solidly in favor of acupuncture. The fact that it does not ought to tell you something.

Blaming the Western Diet for all that ails you sets off my quackometer ;-)

> I've changed my diet, and my tendonitis has gone down considerably. Typing less would eliminate the problem, but hey...
> > http://www.drweil.com/database/display/0,1412,72,0 0.html

You mean this Dr. Andrew Weil, as featured on Quackwatch.

Stephen Barret (operator of Quackwatch) on Weil in an interview is particularly caustic:

Barrett: His advice is an unsortable mixture of sense and nonsense. For example, he says in one of his books that bloodroot, a caustic herb which burns your skin, can kill skin-cancer cells without injuring the surrounding normal cells. That's absurd. It burns everything it touches. It can't tell the difference. On his Web site, which is owned by Time magazine, he has a questionnaire you fill out, and he'll tell you what ten vitamin and herbal products to take. And there's no foundation for such recommendations. Then you click on a link, mid you'll go to an online "store" to buy them. The "Ask Dr. Weil" Web site is brought to you by The Vitamin Shoppe, a company paying over a million dollars for the privilege of placing its link next to Weil's stupid advice.

Color me skeptical.

(I don't dispute that your symptoms went away after you changed your diet. I do dispute that this implies a causal relationship between your dietary change and your tendonitis relief.)

Me? I had RSI in my right hand from wanking far too often. I tried my left hand, but it wasn't the same. So I got a g/f who'd give me head six times a day while I reconditioned the muscles in my right hand by repeatedly lifting 12-oz weights (usually Guinness, but sometimes Murphy's Stout), and the pain went away after a few weeks. Alcohol consumption and blowjobs are the obvious cure for RSI. (Just don't tell her I'm cured!)

Blaming the Western Diet for all that ails you sets off my quackometer ;-)

> I've changed my diet, and my tendonitis has gone down considerably. Typing less would eliminate the problem, but hey...
> > http://www.drweil.com/database/display/0,1412,72,0 0.html

You mean this Dr. Andrew Weil, as featured on Quackwatch.

Stephen Barret (operator of Quackwatch) on Weil in an interview is particularly caustic:

Barrett: His advice is an unsortable mixture of sense and nonsense. For example, he says in one of his books that bloodroot, a caustic herb which burns your skin, can kill skin-cancer cells without injuring the surrounding normal cells. That's absurd. It burns everything it touches. It can't tell the difference. On his Web site, which is owned by Time magazine, he has a questionnaire you fill out, and he'll tell you what ten vitamin and herbal products to take. And there's no foundation for such recommendations. Then you click on a link, mid you'll go to an online "store" to buy them. The "Ask Dr. Weil" Web site is brought to you by The Vitamin Shoppe, a company paying over a million dollars for the privilege of placing its link next to Weil's stupid advice.

Color me skeptical.

(I don't dispute that your symptoms went away after you changed your diet. I do dispute that this implies a causal relationship between your dietary change and your tendonitis relief.)

Me? I had RSI in my right hand from wanking far too often. I tried my left hand, but it wasn't the same. So I got a g/f who'd give me head six times a day while I reconditioned the muscles in my right hand by repeatedly lifting 12-oz weights (usually Guinness, but sometimes Murphy's Stout), and the pain went away after a few weeks. Alcohol consumption and blowjobs are the obvious cure for RSI. (Just don't tell her I'm cured!)