Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

September 19, 2008

" scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to this sort of

alarmist rhetoric.

In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable scientific

journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember the old days?

-gts (list owner)

> From: stardora@... <stardora@...>

> Subject: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

> Undisclosed-Recipient@...

> Cc: " AAR " <AntiAgingResearch >, Longevity

> Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 2:56 PM

> SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

>

> by Tips, JD

> December 2, 2007

> NewsWithViews.com

>

> http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott.htm

>

> I was recently struck by a thought that in this new

> " Age of Terrorism " we -

> you and I - have been subjected to a form of terrorism that

> can best be

> described as " scientific terrorism. "

>

> Of course, if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent people

> and shoots them, or

> blows himself up in a crowded area and takes innocent

> lives, then he has

> clearly committed a terrorist act. The definition of

> terrorism itself is, I

> know, at once vaguer and more involved than that; however,

> it is enough for

> my purpose here to describe it in this way because such

> terrorists will

> have, if successful, deprived those individuals of their

> health and even

> lives.

>

> With Diplomas, Not Guns

>

> Consider, then, those persons who don't use guns but

> instead diplomas,

> impressive titles, and computers to deprive us of our

> health and even our

> lives. For most people, these kinds of terrorists are hard

> to spot. They

> often wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees after their

> names to choke

> an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly

> knowledgeable tones about

> science and health. And they can kill you just as dead as

> any trigger-happy

> terrorist hefting a box-cutter or an AK-47.

>

> So where do we find these scientific terrorists?

> Unfortunately, they usually

> occupy positions of power and authority - in the medical

> community, in

> universities, and in government circles. And from these

> lofty bastions of

> dominion, they issue pronouncements that they expect most

> people to believe

> and act upon, starry-eyed and without looking beyond the

> superficial

> credentials and appearances. Regrettably, most people do.

>

> For years, these Scientific Terrorists have been telling

> you:

>

> a.. To take drugs when they are either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> b.. To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> c.. To undergo radiation treatment when either

> unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> d.. To undergo hospitalization when either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> e.. That pesticide and herbicide residues in your foods

> will not hurt you

> or your children;

> f.. That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste of

> money and result

> in nothing more than expensive urine;

> g.. That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and a

> waste of money;

> h.. That expensive and costly regulations are necessary

> to protect your

> health; and

> i.. That you are incapable of making

> " complicated " health and safety

> decisions affecting you and your family's health, which

> decisions are better

> left in the hands of the educated elite.

> j..

> The Butcher's Bill

>

> But, as we know, these experts - who are supposedly so

> smart and capable -

> almost always get " it " wrong. And, worse, when

> they get it wrong, they do a

> spectacular job of it too. Although the data varies

> depending upon the

> source, just look at what the butcher's bill comes to:

>

> a.. 106,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $12 billion,

> from adverse drug

> reactions;

> b.. 98,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $2 billion, from

> medical errors;

> c.. 115,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $55 billion,

> from bedsores;

> d.. 88,000 deaths annually from infections, at a cost of

> $5 billion,

> caused by medical intervention;

> e.. 37,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $122 billion,

> from unnecessary

> medical procedures;

> f.. 32,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $9 billion, from

> surgery-related

> medical intervention

> The above figures do not include those outpatient deaths

> from medical

> intervention (some 199,000 annually at a cost of $77

> billion), or the

> astounding figures from Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 study

> of medical and

> drug-error rates (3 million deaths annually, he reports!)

> (Leape LL, " Error

> in Medicine, " JAMA, 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7).

>

> On the more conservative end of the spectrum, even an

> expert panel from the

> Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of Sciences)

> found that

> medical errors kill from 44,000 to 98,000 Americans each

> year. (British

> Medical Journal, 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519.

>

> Medical errors in the United States alone cause more deaths

> annually than

> car crashes, AIDS, or breast and prostate cancer. This is

> equal to a

> 300-person jumbo jet crashing every single day of the year,

> day after day

> after day.

>

> And They Are Still At It

>

> These terrorists, though, are not just content with

> subjecting us to their

> brand of medieval medicine. They also seemingly want to

> make sure that we

> are vulnerable to diseases and medical problems, which in

> turn will require

> increased use of their medicines and hospitals. Why do I

> say this? Because

> every time that any of us use effective preventative

> measures to protect

> ourselves, they try to suppress them - through the media,

> through doctors,

> and, above all, through their coercive enforcement tool -

> the government.

>

> And what are examples of this? Just consider the attempts

> of some

> " institutions " to limit the potency of dietary

> supplements, which are

> scientifically-proven disease preventatives. At the Codex

> level and in the

> European Union, the German Risk Assessment Institute (BfR)

> has put forth

> what it considers to be the maximum permitted upper levels

> of safe

> consumption of vitamin-and-mineral supplements. They

> caution, for instance,

> that no niacin supplements above 17 milligrams should be

> sold to consumers.

> Nor should Vitamin C tablets exceed 225 milligrams. For

> mineral supplements

> the BfR is equally strict: zinc tablets should not exceed

> 10 milligrams, nor

> should selenium capsules go above 70 milligrams each.

>

> Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists

> showing not only the

> safety of such supplements but their efficacy, there can

> only be two reasons

> why they are trying to suppress these alternative means:

> Either they are (1)

> completely clueless, or (2) they are trying to keep us

> sick, or worse, kill

> us.

>

> Of course, there are well-intentioned individuals in every

> such group. But

> for those who are engaging in these activities knowingly

> and with, as they

> say in law school, deliberate aforethought, these persons

> are terrorists in

> every sense of the word. And there is a very special place

> in hell reserved

> for them, I'm sure.

>

> Fortunately, there are many of us working together to stop

> this form of

> scientific terrorism. The National Health Federation has

> been on its own

> anti-terrorist mission for years now throughout the World,

> but especially in

> the United States and at Codex. They may have the advantage

> of more money,

> but we have the advantage of something more important: We

> actually fight for

> Freedom, and for Life itself.

>

> To better understand the Codex Alimentarius Commission and

> the global food

> standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read

> Codex

> Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is a

> collection of

> articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> first-hand knowledge of

> Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and

> health freedom.

> Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can be

> purchased here.

>

> Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

>

> E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum

> laude, from the

> University of California at Los Angeles in 1976, studied at

> the Sorbonne

> (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris Doctorate

> degree from the

> University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt

> Hall) in 1980, where

> he was the Managing Editor of the California Law Review. A

> California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in

> food-and-drug law and

> trademark law, but also engages in business litigation,

> general business

> law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international

> clientele.

>

> Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel for the

> National Health

> Federation, the World's oldest health-freedom

> organization for consumers,

> and is now its president. He also writes a regular column

> for

> NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called Legal

> Tips, a column he

> started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying much of

> his time with

> health-freedom issues involving the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and its

> and other attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in

> health matters.

>

> To understand better the Codex Alimentarius Commission and

> the global food

> standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read

> Codex

> Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is a

> collection of

> articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> first-hand knowledge of

> Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and

> health freedom.

> Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can be

> purchased here.

>

> Website: National Health Federation

>

> E-Mail: sct@...

>

September 19, 2008

If you are the list owner, and you don't want anymore posts, thats fine. I'm

just passing along things I fine interesting. Let me know.

SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

> Undisclosed-Recipient@...

> Cc: " AAR " <AntiAgingResearch >, Longevity

> Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 2:56 PM

> SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

>

> by Tips, JD

> December 2, 2007

> NewsWithViews.com

>

> http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott.htm

>

> I was recently struck by a thought that in this new

> " Age of Terrorism " we -

> you and I - have been subjected to a form of terrorism that

> can best be

> described as " scientific terrorism. "

>

> Of course, if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent people

> and shoots them, or

> blows himself up in a crowded area and takes innocent

> lives, then he has

> clearly committed a terrorist act. The definition of

> terrorism itself is, I

> know, at once vaguer and more involved than that; however,

> it is enough for

> my purpose here to describe it in this way because such

> terrorists will

> have, if successful, deprived those individuals of their

> health and even

> lives.

>

> With Diplomas, Not Guns

>

> Consider, then, those persons who don't use guns but

> instead diplomas,

> impressive titles, and computers to deprive us of our

> health and even our

> lives. For most people, these kinds of terrorists are hard

> to spot. They

> often wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees after their

> names to choke

> an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly

> knowledgeable tones about

> science and health. And they can kill you just as dead as

> any trigger-happy

> terrorist hefting a box-cutter or an AK-47.

>

> So where do we find these scientific terrorists?

> Unfortunately, they usually

> occupy positions of power and authority - in the medical

> community, in

> universities, and in government circles. And from these

> lofty bastions of

> dominion, they issue pronouncements that they expect most

> people to believe

> and act upon, starry-eyed and without looking beyond the

> superficial

> credentials and appearances. Regrettably, most people do.

>

> For years, these Scientific Terrorists have been telling

> you:

>

> a.. To take drugs when they are either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> b.. To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> c.. To undergo radiation treatment when either

> unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> d.. To undergo hospitalization when either unnecessary or

> contraindicated;

> e.. That pesticide and herbicide residues in your foods

> will not hurt you

> or your children;

> f.. That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste of

> money and result

> in nothing more than expensive urine;

> g.. That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and a

> waste of money;

> h.. That expensive and costly regulations are necessary

> to protect your

> health; and

> i.. That you are incapable of making

> " complicated " health and safety

> decisions affecting you and your family's health, which

> decisions are better

> left in the hands of the educated elite.

> j..

> The Butcher's Bill

>

> But, as we know, these experts - who are supposedly so

> smart and capable -

> almost always get " it " wrong. And, worse, when

> they get it wrong, they do a

> spectacular job of it too. Although the data varies

> depending upon the

> source, just look at what the butcher's bill comes to:

>

> a.. 106,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $12 billion,

> from adverse drug

> reactions;

> b.. 98,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $2 billion, from

> medical errors;

> c.. 115,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $55 billion,

> from bedsores;

> d.. 88,000 deaths annually from infections, at a cost of

> $5 billion,

> caused by medical intervention;

> e.. 37,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $122 billion,

> from unnecessary

> medical procedures;

> f.. 32,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $9 billion, from

> surgery-related

> medical intervention

> The above figures do not include those outpatient deaths

> from medical

> intervention (some 199,000 annually at a cost of $77

> billion), or the

> astounding figures from Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 study

> of medical and

> drug-error rates (3 million deaths annually, he reports!)

> (Leape LL, " Error

> in Medicine, " JAMA, 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7).

>

> On the more conservative end of the spectrum, even an

> expert panel from the

> Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of Sciences)

> found that

> medical errors kill from 44,000 to 98,000 Americans each

> year. (British

> Medical Journal, 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519.

>

> Medical errors in the United States alone cause more deaths

> annually than

> car crashes, AIDS, or breast and prostate cancer. This is

> equal to a

> 300-person jumbo jet crashing every single day of the year,

> day after day

> after day.

>

> And They Are Still At It

>

> These terrorists, though, are not just content with

> subjecting us to their

> brand of medieval medicine. They also seemingly want to

> make sure that we

> are vulnerable to diseases and medical problems, which in

> turn will require

> increased use of their medicines and hospitals. Why do I

> say this? Because

> every time that any of us use effective preventative

> measures to protect

> ourselves, they try to suppress them - through the media,

> through doctors,

> and, above all, through their coercive enforcement tool -

> the government.

>

> And what are examples of this? Just consider the attempts

> of some

> " institutions " to limit the potency of dietary

> supplements, which are

> scientifically-proven disease preventatives. At the Codex

> level and in the

> European Union, the German Risk Assessment Institute (BfR)

> has put forth

> what it considers to be the maximum permitted upper levels

> of safe

> consumption of vitamin-and-mineral supplements. They

> caution, for instance,

> that no niacin supplements above 17 milligrams should be

> sold to consumers.

> Nor should Vitamin C tablets exceed 225 milligrams. For

> mineral supplements

> the BfR is equally strict: zinc tablets should not exceed

> 10 milligrams, nor

> should selenium capsules go above 70 milligrams each.

>

> Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists

> showing not only the

> safety of such supplements but their efficacy, there can

> only be two reasons

> why they are trying to suppress these alternative means:

> Either they are (1)

> completely clueless, or (2) they are trying to keep us

> sick, or worse, kill

> us.

>

> Of course, there are well-intentioned individuals in every

> such group. But

> for those who are engaging in these activities knowingly

> and with, as they

> say in law school, deliberate aforethought, these persons

> are terrorists in

> every sense of the word. And there is a very special place

> in hell reserved

> for them, I'm sure.

>

> Fortunately, there are many of us working together to stop

> this form of

> scientific terrorism. The National Health Federation has

> been on its own

> anti-terrorist mission for years now throughout the World,

> but especially in

> the United States and at Codex. They may have the advantage

> of more money,

> but we have the advantage of something more important: We

> actually fight for

> Freedom, and for Life itself.

>

> To better understand the Codex Alimentarius Commission and

> the global food

> standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read

> Codex

> Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is a

> collection of

> articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> first-hand knowledge of

> Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and

> health freedom.

> Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can be

> purchased here.

>

> Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

>

> E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum

> laude, from the

> University of California at Los Angeles in 1976, studied at

> the Sorbonne

> (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris Doctorate

> degree from the

> University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt

> Hall) in 1980, where

> he was the Managing Editor of the California Law Review. A

> California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in

> food-and-drug law and

> trademark law, but also engages in business litigation,

> general business

> law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international

> clientele.

>

> Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel for the

> National Health

> Federation, the World's oldest health-freedom

> organization for consumers,

> and is now its president. He also writes a regular column

> for

> NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called Legal

> Tips, a column he

> started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying much of

> his time with

> health-freedom issues involving the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and its

> and other attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in

> health matters.

>

> To understand better the Codex Alimentarius Commission and

> the global food

> standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read

> Codex

> Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is a

> collection of

> articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> first-hand knowledge of

> Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and

> health freedom.

> Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can be

> purchased here.

>

> Website: National Health Federation

>

> E-Mail: sct@...

>

September 19, 2008

Actually, this pier review baloney started only recently. Tesla

managed to get AC electricity and his several hundred patents without

peer review.

Cold Fusion has been laughed at for over ten years because the " Peer

Review " magazines came out against it. Even though it has been

replicated by high school students, mainstream magazines continue to

rail against it, claiming that it cannot happen.

Cancer has been claimed to be incurable, in many forms, because

mainstream science fails to recognize the obvious and publish what works

rather than what they are paid to attempt and publish in peer reviewed

journals.

The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

Nevertheless, I agree that article that you refer to is basically garbage.

Gordon Swab wrote:

> " scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

>

> I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to

> this sort of alarmist rhetoric.

>

> In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember

> the old days?

>

> -gts (list owner)

>

> -

>

September 19, 2008

The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

I not only agree with this, but would add that I believe that allopathic

" mainstream " medicine actually tries, through coercive measures, to suppress

any therapies that threaten it's dominance and financial position. Anyone

interested in longevity should know this. Just about any

life-extension/longevity therapies (except expensive proprietary

pharmaceuticals and/or surgery) are opposed by these would-be monopolists.

That being the case, how is one to expose them without articles that attempt

to do this?

Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

Actually, this pier review baloney started only recently. Tesla

managed to get AC electricity and his several hundred patents without

peer review.

Cold Fusion has been laughed at for over ten years because the " Peer

Review " magazines came out against it. Even though it has been

replicated by high school students, mainstream magazines continue to

rail against it, claiming that it cannot happen.

Cancer has been claimed to be incurable, in many forms, because

mainstream science fails to recognize the obvious and publish what works

rather than what they are paid to attempt and publish in peer reviewed

journals.

The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

Nevertheless, I agree that article that you refer to is basically garbage.

Gordon Swab wrote:

> " scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

>

> I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to

> this sort of alarmist rhetoric.

>

> In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember

> the old days?

>

> -gts (list owner)

>

> -

>

September 19, 2008

The only thing about peer-reviewing is to keep cures and good medicine away

from patients for as long as possible - you wouldn't mind if they had some

more good symptomatic relief in some cases

2008/9/20 <stardora@...>

> The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

> have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

>

> I not only agree with this, but would add that I believe that allopathic

> " mainstream " medicine actually tries, through coercive measures, to

> suppress

> any therapies that threaten it's dominance and financial position. Anyone

> interested in longevity should know this. Just about any

> life-extension/longevity therapies (except expensive proprietary

> pharmaceuticals and/or surgery) are opposed by these would-be monopolists.

>

> That being the case, how is one to expose them without articles that

> attempt

> to do this?

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

> Actually, this pier review baloney started only recently. Tesla

> managed to get AC electricity and his several hundred patents without

> peer review.

>

> Cold Fusion has been laughed at for over ten years because the " Peer

> Review " magazines came out against it. Even though it has been

> replicated by high school students, mainstream magazines continue to

> rail against it, claiming that it cannot happen.

>

> Cancer has been claimed to be incurable, in many forms, because

> mainstream science fails to recognize the obvious and publish what works

> rather than what they are paid to attempt and publish in peer reviewed

> journals.

>

> The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

> have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

>

> Nevertheless, I agree that article that you refer to is basically garbage.

>

> Gordon Swab wrote:

>

> > " scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

> >

> > I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to

> > this sort of alarmist rhetoric.

> >

> > In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> > scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember

> > the old days?

> >

> > -gts (list owner)

> >

> > -

> >

>

September 19, 2008

stardora@... wrote:

>

> If you are the list owner, and you don't want anymore posts, thats fine.

> I'm

> just passing along things I fine interesting. Let me know.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

> " scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

>

> I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to this

> sort of alarmist rhetoric.

>

> In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember the

> old days?

You mean the good-old-boy days when only good-old-boys could publish?

Steve

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

September 20, 2008

Electing a person to high office who understands this... like Ron

would do a lot to correct this... no doubt.

In the meantime, the internet is doing a great job of sorting these

things out. As our young population ages, they will grow into

understanding these things and electing people who agree with what we

are saying.

stardora@... wrote:

> The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

> have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

>

> I not only agree with this, but would add that I believe that allopathic

> " mainstream " medicine actually tries, through coercive measures, to

> suppress

> any therapies that threaten it's dominance and financial position. Anyone

> interested in longevity should know this. Just about any

> life-extension/longevity therapies (except expensive proprietary

> pharmaceuticals and/or surgery) are opposed by these would-be monopolists.

>

> That being the case, how is one to expose them without articles that

> attempt

> to do this?

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

> Actually, this pier review baloney started only recently. Tesla

> managed to get AC electricity and his several hundred patents without

> peer review.

>

> Cold Fusion has been laughed at for over ten years because the " Peer

> Review " magazines came out against it. Even though it has been

> replicated by high school students, mainstream magazines continue to

> rail against it, claiming that it cannot happen.

>

> Cancer has been claimed to be incurable, in many forms, because

> mainstream science fails to recognize the obvious and publish what works

> rather than what they are paid to attempt and publish in peer reviewed

> journals.

>

> The peer review process has become a sham and it is a big part of why we

> have medicine via pharmaceutical industry rather than what actually works.

>

> Nevertheless, I agree that article that you refer to is basically garbage.

>

> Gordon Swab wrote:

>

> > " scientific terrorism " ? Come on, this list deserves better than that.

> >

> > I don't usually intervene here, but I have a mind to put a stop to

> > this sort of alarmist rhetoric.

> >

> > In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> > scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember

> > the old days?

> >

> > -gts (list owner)

> >

> > -

> >

>

September 20, 2008

Hi, Gordon. I still enjoy the pub med studies, and read them with

related discussions on other groups.

Possibly, others in this group are like me - I don't have time to post

the studies, and I do not have the bio chemistry education for a decent

analysis. I feel fortunate that there are still groups who like to post

& discuss the science from pub med studies.

Gordon Swobe wrote:

>

> In the old days we talked about peer-reviewed studies in respectable

> scientific journals, and tossed everything else. Anyone here remember

> the old days?

>

> -gts (list owner)

>

September 21, 2008

stardora,

> If you are the list owner, and you don't want anymore

> posts, thats fine. I'm just passing along things I fine interesting.

> Let me know.

I don't mean to stop you or anyone from discussing subjects of interest. It just

seems silly and wrong to me that anyone should call modern medical doctors

" terrorists " .

Most doctors and health scientists are fine people who mean well, but the author

you cite writes:

" ..such terrorists will have, if successful, deprived those individuals of

their health and even lives. "

That amounts to an accusation of conspiracy to commit murder. Do you really

think these people want to kill you?

-gts

>

> SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

> [pharmaceuticals]

> > Undisclosed-Recipient@...

> > Cc: " AAR "

> <AntiAgingResearch >,

> Longevity

> > Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 2:56 PM

> > SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

> >

> > by Tips, JD

> > December 2, 2007

> > NewsWithViews.com

> >

> > http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott.htm

> >

> > I was recently struck by a thought that in this new

> > " Age of Terrorism " we -

> > you and I - have been subjected to a form of

> terrorism that

> > can best be

> > described as " scientific terrorism. "

> >

> > Of course, if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent

> people

> > and shoots them, or

> > blows himself up in a crowded area and takes

> innocent

> > lives, then he has

> > clearly committed a terrorist act. The definition of

> > terrorism itself is, I

> > know, at once vaguer and more involved than that;

> however,

> > it is enough for

> > my purpose here to describe it in this way because

> such

> > terrorists will

> > have, if successful, deprived those individuals of

> their

> > health and even

> > lives.

> >

> > With Diplomas, Not Guns

> >

> > Consider, then, those persons who don't use guns

> but

> > instead diplomas,

> > impressive titles, and computers to deprive us of

> our

> > health and even our

> > lives. For most people, these kinds of terrorists

> are hard

> > to spot. They

> > often wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees

> after their

> > names to choke

> > an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly

> > knowledgeable tones about

> > science and health. And they can kill you just as

> dead as

> > any trigger-happy

> > terrorist hefting a box-cutter or an AK-47.

> >

> > So where do we find these scientific terrorists?

> > Unfortunately, they usually

> > occupy positions of power and authority - in the

> medical

> > community, in

> > universities, and in government circles. And from

> these

> > lofty bastions of

> > dominion, they issue pronouncements that they expect

> most

> > people to believe

> > and act upon, starry-eyed and without looking beyond

> the

> > superficial

> > credentials and appearances. Regrettably, most

> people do.

> >

> > For years, these Scientific Terrorists have been

> telling

> > you:

> >

> > a.. To take drugs when they are either unnecessary

> or

> > contraindicated;

> > b.. To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > c.. To undergo radiation treatment when either

> > unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > d.. To undergo hospitalization when either

> unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > e.. That pesticide and herbicide residues in your

> foods

> > will not hurt you

> > or your children;

> > f.. That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste

> of

> > money and result

> > in nothing more than expensive urine;

> > g.. That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and

> a

> > waste of money;

> > h.. That expensive and costly regulations are

> necessary

> > to protect your

> > health; and

> > i.. That you are incapable of making

> > " complicated " health and safety

> > decisions affecting you and your family's

> health, which

> > decisions are better

> > left in the hands of the educated elite.

> > j..

> > The Butcher's Bill

> >

> > But, as we know, these experts - who are supposedly

> so

> > smart and capable -

> > almost always get " it " wrong. And, worse,

> when

> > they get it wrong, they do a

> > spectacular job of it too. Although the data varies

> > depending upon the

> > source, just look at what the butcher's bill

> comes to:

> >

> > a.. 106,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $12

> billion,

> > from adverse drug

> > reactions;

> > b.. 98,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $2 billion,

> from

> > medical errors;

> > c.. 115,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $55

> billion,

> > from bedsores;

> > d.. 88,000 deaths annually from infections, at a

> cost of

> > $5 billion,

> > caused by medical intervention;

> > e.. 37,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $122

> billion,

> > from unnecessary

> > medical procedures;

> > f.. 32,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $9 billion,

> from

> > surgery-related

> > medical intervention

> > The above figures do not include those outpatient

> deaths

> > from medical

> > intervention (some 199,000 annually at a cost of $77

> > billion), or the

> > astounding figures from Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997

> study

> > of medical and

> > drug-error rates (3 million deaths annually, he

> reports!)

> > (Leape LL, " Error

> > in Medicine, " JAMA, 1994 Dec

> 21;272(23):1851-7).

> >

> > On the more conservative end of the spectrum, even

> an

> > expert panel from the

> > Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of

> Sciences)

> > found that

> > medical errors kill from 44,000 to 98,000 Americans

> each

> > year. (British

> > Medical Journal, 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519.

> >

> > Medical errors in the United States alone cause more

> deaths

> > annually than

> > car crashes, AIDS, or breast and prostate cancer.

> This is

> > equal to a

> > 300-person jumbo jet crashing every single day of

> the year,

> > day after day

> > after day.

> >

> > And They Are Still At It

> >

> > These terrorists, though, are not just content with

> > subjecting us to their

> > brand of medieval medicine. They also seemingly want

> to

> > make sure that we

> > are vulnerable to diseases and medical problems,

> which in

> > turn will require

> > increased use of their medicines and hospitals. Why

> do I

> > say this? Because

> > every time that any of us use effective preventative

> > measures to protect

> > ourselves, they try to suppress them - through the

> media,

> > through doctors,

> > and, above all, through their coercive enforcement

> tool -

> > the government.

> >

> > And what are examples of this? Just consider the

> attempts

> > of some

> > " institutions " to limit the potency of

> dietary

> > supplements, which are

> > scientifically-proven disease preventatives. At the

> Codex

> > level and in the

> > European Union, the German Risk Assessment Institute

> (BfR)

> > has put forth

> > what it considers to be the maximum permitted upper

> levels

> > of safe

> > consumption of vitamin-and-mineral supplements. They

> > caution, for instance,

> > that no niacin supplements above 17 milligrams

> should be

> > sold to consumers.

> > Nor should Vitamin C tablets exceed 225 milligrams.

> For

> > mineral supplements

> > the BfR is equally strict: zinc tablets should not

> exceed

> > 10 milligrams, nor

> > should selenium capsules go above 70 milligrams

> each.

> >

> > Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that

> exists

> > showing not only the

> > safety of such supplements but their efficacy, there

> can

> > only be two reasons

> > why they are trying to suppress these alternative

> means:

> > Either they are (1)

> > completely clueless, or (2) they are trying to keep

> us

> > sick, or worse, kill

> > us.

> >

> > Of course, there are well-intentioned individuals in

> every

> > such group. But

> > for those who are engaging in these activities

> knowingly

> > and with, as they

> > say in law school, deliberate aforethought, these

> persons

> > are terrorists in

> > every sense of the word. And there is a very special

> place

> > in hell reserved

> > for them, I'm sure.

> >

> > Fortunately, there are many of us working together

> to stop

> > this form of

> > scientific terrorism. The National Health Federation

> has

> > been on its own

> > anti-terrorist mission for years now throughout the

> World,

> > but especially in

> > the United States and at Codex. They may have the

> advantage

> > of more money,

> > but we have the advantage of something more

> important: We

> > actually fight for

> > Freedom, and for Life itself.

> >

> > To better understand the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and

> > the global food

> > standards and guidelines that it is creating, you

> must read

> > Codex

> > Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is

> a

> > collection of

> > articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> > first-hand knowledge of

> > Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health

> and

> > health freedom.

> > Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can

> be

> > purchased here.

> >

> > Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

> >

> > E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for

> sale

> >

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree,

> magna cum

> > laude, from the

> > University of California at Los Angeles in 1976,

> studied at

> > the Sorbonne

> > (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris

> Doctorate

> > degree from the

> > University of California, Berkeley School of Law

> (Boalt

> > Hall) in 1980, where

> > he was the Managing Editor of the California Law

> Review. A

> > California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in

> > food-and-drug law and

> > trademark law, but also engages in business

> litigation,

> > general business

> > law, and nonprofit organizations, with an

> international

> > clientele.

> >

> > Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel

> for the

> > National Health

> > Federation, the World's oldest health-freedom

> > organization for consumers,

> > and is now its president. He also writes a regular

> column

> > for

> > NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called

> Legal

> > Tips, a column he

> > started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying

> much of

> > his time with

> > health-freedom issues involving the Codex

> Alimentarius

> > Commission and its

> > and other attempts to limit individual freedom of

> choice in

> > health matters.

> >

> > To understand better the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and

> > the global food

> > standards and guidelines that it is creating, you

> must read

> > Codex

> > Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is

> a

> > collection of

> > articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> > first-hand knowledge of

> > Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health

> and

> > health freedom.

> > Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can

> be

> > purchased here.

> >

> > Website: National Health Federation

> >

> > E-Mail: sct@...

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related

> > subjects but under no circumstances should any

> information

> > published here be considered a substitute for

> personal

> > medical advice from a qualified physician. -the

> owner

> > Groups Links

> >

>

September 21, 2008

No, it is the pharma companies (and their massive bucks) and the medical

societies they control (which set policy), and the law and politics they

influence, that are the operators here. Allopathic medicine doesn't want to

lose the billions of dollars they now collect, even though they rarley

'cure' anything. It is more about imeliorating symptoms rather than an

increase of health and vitality. And they are ruthless when it comes to

suppressing alternative therapies and doctors that threaten their hegemony.

My desire is to get the word out so people can understand the score, and

give them a notion that other venues (like naturopathy, orthomolecular,

chelation etc) can have effective treatment protocols that can actually cure

the 'incureable' (at least under the allopathic model), with few or none of

the damage and negative side effects that the current allopathic paradigm

has.

I have no desire to disrupt your group, and will desist, if you wish. I'm

just trying, in my mind anyway, to do a good deed by getting the word out.

SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

> [pharmaceuticals]

> > Undisclosed-Recipient@...

> > Cc: " AAR "

> <AntiAgingResearch >,

> Longevity

> > Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 2:56 PM

> > SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

> >

> > by Tips, JD

> > December 2, 2007

> > NewsWithViews.com

> >

> > http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott.htm

> >

> > I was recently struck by a thought that in this new

> > " Age of Terrorism " we -

> > you and I - have been subjected to a form of

> terrorism that

> > can best be

> > described as " scientific terrorism. "

> >

> > Of course, if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent

> people

> > and shoots them, or

> > blows himself up in a crowded area and takes

> innocent

> > lives, then he has

> > clearly committed a terrorist act. The definition of

> > terrorism itself is, I

> > know, at once vaguer and more involved than that;

> however,

> > it is enough for

> > my purpose here to describe it in this way because

> such

> > terrorists will

> > have, if successful, deprived those individuals of

> their

> > health and even

> > lives.

> >

> > With Diplomas, Not Guns

> >

> > Consider, then, those persons who don't use guns

> but

> > instead diplomas,

> > impressive titles, and computers to deprive us of

> our

> > health and even our

> > lives. For most people, these kinds of terrorists

> are hard

> > to spot. They

> > often wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees

> after their

> > names to choke

> > an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly

> > knowledgeable tones about

> > science and health. And they can kill you just as

> dead as

> > any trigger-happy

> > terrorist hefting a box-cutter or an AK-47.

> >

> > So where do we find these scientific terrorists?

> > Unfortunately, they usually

> > occupy positions of power and authority - in the

> medical

> > community, in

> > universities, and in government circles. And from

> these

> > lofty bastions of

> > dominion, they issue pronouncements that they expect

> most

> > people to believe

> > and act upon, starry-eyed and without looking beyond

> the

> > superficial

> > credentials and appearances. Regrettably, most

> people do.

> >

> > For years, these Scientific Terrorists have been

> telling

> > you:

> >

> > a.. To take drugs when they are either unnecessary

> or

> > contraindicated;

> > b.. To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > c.. To undergo radiation treatment when either

> > unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > d.. To undergo hospitalization when either

> unnecessary or

> > contraindicated;

> > e.. That pesticide and herbicide residues in your

> foods

> > will not hurt you

> > or your children;

> > f.. That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste

> of

> > money and result

> > in nothing more than expensive urine;

> > g.. That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and

> a

> > waste of money;

> > h.. That expensive and costly regulations are

> necessary

> > to protect your

> > health; and

> > i.. That you are incapable of making

> > " complicated " health and safety

> > decisions affecting you and your family's

> health, which

> > decisions are better

> > left in the hands of the educated elite.

> > j..

> > The Butcher's Bill

> >

> > But, as we know, these experts - who are supposedly

> so

> > smart and capable -

> > almost always get " it " wrong. And, worse,

> when

> > they get it wrong, they do a

> > spectacular job of it too. Although the data varies

> > depending upon the

> > source, just look at what the butcher's bill

> comes to:

> >

> > a.. 106,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $12

> billion,

> > from adverse drug

> > reactions;

> > b.. 98,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $2 billion,

> from

> > medical errors;

> > c.. 115,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $55

> billion,

> > from bedsores;

> > d.. 88,000 deaths annually from infections, at a

> cost of

> > $5 billion,

> > caused by medical intervention;

> > e.. 37,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $122

> billion,

> > from unnecessary

> > medical procedures;

> > f.. 32,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $9 billion,

> from

> > surgery-related

> > medical intervention

> > The above figures do not include those outpatient

> deaths

> > from medical

> > intervention (some 199,000 annually at a cost of $77

> > billion), or the

> > astounding figures from Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997

> study

> > of medical and

> > drug-error rates (3 million deaths annually, he

> reports!)

> > (Leape LL, " Error

> > in Medicine, " JAMA, 1994 Dec

> 21;272(23):1851-7).

> >

> > On the more conservative end of the spectrum, even

> an

> > expert panel from the

> > Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of

> Sciences)

> > found that

> > medical errors kill from 44,000 to 98,000 Americans

> each

> > year. (British

> > Medical Journal, 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519.

> >

> > Medical errors in the United States alone cause more

> deaths

> > annually than

> > car crashes, AIDS, or breast and prostate cancer.

> This is

> > equal to a

> > 300-person jumbo jet crashing every single day of

> the year,

> > day after day

> > after day.

> >

> > And They Are Still At It

> >

> > These terrorists, though, are not just content with

> > subjecting us to their

> > brand of medieval medicine. They also seemingly want

> to

> > make sure that we

> > are vulnerable to diseases and medical problems,

> which in

> > turn will require

> > increased use of their medicines and hospitals. Why

> do I

> > say this? Because

> > every time that any of us use effective preventative

> > measures to protect

> > ourselves, they try to suppress them - through the

> media,

> > through doctors,

> > and, above all, through their coercive enforcement

> tool -

> > the government.

> >

> > And what are examples of this? Just consider the

> attempts

> > of some

> > " institutions " to limit the potency of

> dietary

> > supplements, which are

> > scientifically-proven disease preventatives. At the

> Codex

> > level and in the

> > European Union, the German Risk Assessment Institute

> (BfR)

> > has put forth

> > what it considers to be the maximum permitted upper

> levels

> > of safe

> > consumption of vitamin-and-mineral supplements. They

> > caution, for instance,

> > that no niacin supplements above 17 milligrams

> should be

> > sold to consumers.

> > Nor should Vitamin C tablets exceed 225 milligrams.

> For

> > mineral supplements

> > the BfR is equally strict: zinc tablets should not

> exceed

> > 10 milligrams, nor

> > should selenium capsules go above 70 milligrams

> each.

> >

> > Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that

> exists

> > showing not only the

> > safety of such supplements but their efficacy, there

> can

> > only be two reasons

> > why they are trying to suppress these alternative

> means:

> > Either they are (1)

> > completely clueless, or (2) they are trying to keep

> us

> > sick, or worse, kill

> > us.

> >

> > Of course, there are well-intentioned individuals in

> every

> > such group. But

> > for those who are engaging in these activities

> knowingly

> > and with, as they

> > say in law school, deliberate aforethought, these

> persons

> > are terrorists in

> > every sense of the word. And there is a very special

> place

> > in hell reserved

> > for them, I'm sure.

> >

> > Fortunately, there are many of us working together

> to stop

> > this form of

> > scientific terrorism. The National Health Federation

> has

> > been on its own

> > anti-terrorist mission for years now throughout the

> World,

> > but especially in

> > the United States and at Codex. They may have the

> advantage

> > of more money,

> > but we have the advantage of something more

> important: We

> > actually fight for

> > Freedom, and for Life itself.

> >

> > To better understand the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and

> > the global food

> > standards and guidelines that it is creating, you

> must read

> > Codex

> > Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is

> a

> > collection of

> > articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> > first-hand knowledge of

> > Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health

> and

> > health freedom.

> > Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can

> be

> > purchased here.

> >

> > Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

> >

> > E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for

> sale

> >

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree,

> magna cum

> > laude, from the

> > University of California at Los Angeles in 1976,

> studied at

> > the Sorbonne

> > (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris

> Doctorate

> > degree from the

> > University of California, Berkeley School of Law

> (Boalt

> > Hall) in 1980, where

> > he was the Managing Editor of the California Law

> Review. A

> > California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in

> > food-and-drug law and

> > trademark law, but also engages in business

> litigation,

> > general business

> > law, and nonprofit organizations, with an

> international

> > clientele.

> >

> > Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel

> for the

> > National Health

> > Federation, the World's oldest health-freedom

> > organization for consumers,

> > and is now its president. He also writes a regular

> column

> > for

> > NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called

> Legal

> > Tips, a column he

> > started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying

> much of

> > his time with

> > health-freedom issues involving the Codex

> Alimentarius

> > Commission and its

> > and other attempts to limit individual freedom of

> choice in

> > health matters.

> >

> > To understand better the Codex Alimentarius

> Commission and

> > the global food

> > standards and guidelines that it is creating, you

> must read

> > Codex

> > Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism. This book is

> a

> > collection of

> > articles by those few health-freedom activists with

> > first-hand knowledge of

> > Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health

> and

> > health freedom.

> > Compiled by Tips, this easy-to-read book can

> be

> > purchased here.

> >

> > Website: National Health Federation

> >

> > E-Mail: sct@...

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related

> > subjects but under no circumstances should any

> information

> > published here be considered a substitute for

> personal

> > medical advice from a qualified physician. -the

> owner

> > Groups Links

> >

>

September 22, 2008

I thought I would just give my opinion on the topic you are discussing as I

think it is an interesting one.

Stardora, it is great to have a post from you about what you think. You are one

of the most prolific posters on this forum, but I didn't really know what your

view point was until now. It was good to hear it and to an extent I agree with

it.

Like you and most of the people on this forum, I would love to see supplements

investigated with the same rigour that drugs are tested and think that we are

likely to be missing out on many interventions that could be extremely

beneficial through not doing so. Consequently, I would love to see changes in

the pharma system.

As I understand it, there is plenty wrong with the US health system and

it needs to change to motivate medical practitioners to provide

appropriate, high quality, evidence-based healthcare. For what I

thought was a good, yet depressing article on the US health system, please

see below my post for a recent article from the New Scientist.

However, I don't see very much wrong with science and evidence-based medicine, I

think it is the best system we have for assessing the tools available for

providing health and longevity and it should be valued and promoted as such.

Just because the administrative systems that apply the provision of science and

medicine to society need improvement, does not mean that scientists and doctors

are evil terrorists.

I think that the article that you have posted on this occasion

starts by confusing the shortcomings of the US health and pharma system

with science and evidence based medicine. It then descends into

sensationalised, content free invective about hell

awaiting evil medical terrorists. I am pro free speech and have no

problem with people either writing or posting articles that they find

interesting. I too found it interesting, but I only think it should be

taken seriously for the following reasons:

Firstly, because it attempts to promote a climate of fear around healthcare.

Sick

people not getting a timely diagnosis and early, appropriate treatment because

they

are scared to go to the doctor is already a big problem. I would

question whether promoting this kind of literature or to letting it pass

unchallenged is appropriate.

Secondly, it disparages the role of science and evidence based medicine in

delivering health and longevity. If we are seeking health and longevity, for

ourselves and others, we cannot afford ignore the use of these methods and we

need to promote them as good principles to work by. It we listen to this

article, we will be fighting aging blindfolded and with both hands tied behind

our backs.

Like Gordon, my personal preference would be to see this forum stick to high

quality scientific journalism and scientific studies. I am well aware that

there are many others on this forum whose opinions should also be taken into

account and I would be happy to hear them.

Best Regards,

Alistair

Condition Critical, The Medical Crisis America

17th Sept 2008

Aldhous

IN FEBRUARY this year, an elderly woman showed up in the emergency

room at the University of California, San Francisco, struggling to

breathe - not an unusual symptom for a patient with a weak heart. But

her underlying condition was not the only problem. She was also being

troubled by a cardiac defibrillator and pacemaker, costing tens of

thousands of dollars, that had been implanted into her chest at another

hospital just days before.

" She

was a very frail old lady. It was a bulky device, and it was protruding

out of her chest and making her diaphragm jump every time the pacing

part went off, " recalls Rita Redberg,

the UCSF cardiologist to whom the patient was referred. Worse still, it

turned out that the woman wanted to die peacefully if her heart gave

out. So implanting a defibrillator, which automatically delivers an

electric shock to a stalling heart, was completely inappropriate.

" It's

a very painful thing to be shocked, " Redberg points out. " I said: 'Do

you realise that you will not be able to die quietly with this device?'

She said: 'No, they didn't tell me that.' We deactivated the device,

changed her medicines a bit, and told her to go and enjoy herself. "

The

case illustrates a key challenge facing any presidential candidate

promising to reform healthcare in the US. It is not simply that 75

million Americans have little or no access to medical coverage. Equally

damaging in the long term is the fact that through overuse and

misapplication the technical advances that are the hallmark of American

medicine are killing the system.

In

the land of the free market, novel medical devices and drugs are

adopted with an enthusiasm unmatched anywhere else in the world. Often

there is no evidence that they deliver better health outcomes than

conventional treatments. Even when there is good evidence for some

groups of patients, they may be used in others where the benefits are

unknown. In some cases, excessive medical care might actually be making

people sicker (see " Too much of a good thing " ).

â€œIn

the land of the free market, novel medical devices and drugs are

adopted with an enthusiasm unmatched anywhere else in the worldâ€

Though

these are serious problems, don't expect to hear too much over the next

few weeks about how McCain or Barack Obama will tackle them:

neither wants to be portrayed as rationing healthcare. In their

speeches, both candidates stress increased access. McCain favours tax

credits to encourage families to get insurance, while Obama proposes

mandatory coverage for children, a new public insurance plan and a

requirement for employers to provide health benefits for their workers.

Yet each will struggle to widen coverage if they cannot control costs.

" We need to do both at the same time, " says Brownlee, a specialist in

health policy with the New America Foundation, a non-partisan think tank in

Washington DC.

The

numbers reinforce her point. The US spends twice as much per head on

healthcare as many other developed nations, with no clear extra benefit

to show for it. The total bill, now over $2 trillion per year, is

rising rapidly (see graph). At

this rate, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the

US's health spending will balloon from 16 per cent of GDP in 2007 to 49

per cent in 2082. Meanwhile, ever more of its citizens will be unable

to afford medical care.

According

to the CBO, roughly half of the inflation in healthcare costs is being

driven by the adoption of new drugs and devices. What's needed,

Brownlee and others say, is far more research into the comparative

effectiveness of medical interventions. Expanded use of electronic

medical records and other information technology should also help,

curbing waste such as duplicated diagnostic tests while minimising

dangerous errors in drug prescribing.

There

will also have to be changes to the way doctors are paid. At present,

this usually operates on a " fee-for-service " basis, under which doctors

are paid for every procedure they administer, whether or not it is

appropriate. The surgeon who implanted the defibrillator deactivated by

Redberg's team, for instance, would have been paid a fee of around

$1600 by Medicare, the federal scheme that covers healthcare for the

elderly. Reimbursement by insurance companies follows a similar pattern.

With

such perverse incentives to deliver more care, regardless of its

benefits, it is little wonder that costs are spiralling out of control.

" There is excessive use of just about everything, " says Helen Darling,

president of the National Business Group on Health in Washington DC, which

represents many of America's leading companies. " It just gets worse and worse. "

At

least defibrillators save lives and provide value for money, if used

appropriately. That can't always be said for some technologies for

which patients are clamouring even though there is no good evidence to

support their use. Redberg feels these pressures at her cardiology

clinic. " Every week, patients come in requesting some specific test, "

she says. These days, most ask for CT angiography, an advanced 3D

imaging technique that can reveal narrowing of the arteries that supply

blood to the heart muscle. The stunning images the devices provide have

led to breathless media coverage, but there is no scientific evidence

that CT angiography leads to improved cardiac health. Because each scan

delivers as much radiation as several hundred X-rays, it also carries a

small risk of triggering cancer. So Redberg does her best to curb her

patients' enthusiasm - even though CT scanners are readily available at

UCSF. " It takes me at least 20 minutes to explain why they don't need a

test, and how they can actually help prevent a heart attack with

lifestyle changes, " she says.

Because

Redberg is a salaried member of UCSF's faculty, she can afford to take

this time. It's a different story for those working on a

fee-for-service basis in a cardiology practice that has paid $1 million

for a CT machine and could bill patients' insurance plans around $700

per scan: the pressure would be on to use the device as much as

possible.

McCain

and Obama acknowledge the need to control costs, and their plans

contain some similar proposals. But with both candidates stressing the

popular idea of widening insurance coverage, rather than the risky

strategy of persuading voters that reducing medical intervention could

improve their health, the details remain unclear. " Neither of them is

as explicit as I would like, " says Elliott Fisher, who heads the Center for

Health Policy Research at Dartmouth School of Medicine in Hanover, New

Hampshire.

Both

candidates back an expansion of health information technology, and

Obama has put a figure on this investment: $50 billion over five years.

His plan cites a Rand Corporation study suggesting that better use of

IT could cut $77 billion per year in wasteful spending. The CBO has

warned, however, that this estimate may be too optimistic.

Obama's

plan is also more explicit about the need to investigate the

comparative effectiveness of different treatments, and promises to set

up an independent institute to guide this research. Neither candidate's

plan reveals how much they will spend in this area, but health policy

specialists say that providing the information that will curb the

proliferation of inappropriate care will require a huge effort.

It

is not only the effectiveness of new drugs and devices that needs to be

rated, but also that of established medical procedures, for which there

is often little evidence. There is also a need, Fisher says, to examine

the effect on health outcomes and cost of subtle variations in the way

in which care is delivered, such as how long patients stay in intensive

care after surgery, or how many doctors they see. His team has shown

that these differences lead to wild variations between different

academic medical centres in the cost of delivering similar-quality care.

This

research won't come cheap: estimates vary from $4 billion a year to

more than $20 billion. Then there is the question of how the findings

will be implemented. One obvious model is the UK's National Institute

for Health and Clinical Excellence, which effectively decides whether

the National Health Service will pay for drugs and medical devices on

the basis of evidence of effectiveness and value for money. That

centralised approach won't work, however, in the diverse and largely

private-sector US system.

This

is why it will be crucial to change the payment system to reward

doctors who provide care that conforms to the best scientific evidence.

Here, McCain's plan makes the clearest statements, suggesting a move

from strict fee-for-service towards bundled payments for packages of

high-quality care.

â€œIt

will be crucial to change the system of paying doctors so that they are

rewarded for providing care that conforms to the best evidenceâ€

In

the face of powerful vested interests - including the companies that

produce medical devices and drugs - meaningful reform will be hard to

achieve. It will also require changes throughout the system. " There is

no silver bullet. It's going to be silver buckshot, " warns Brownlee.

Few

observers expect either candidate to reveal many more details about

their prescription to steer US healthcare towards a sustainable path.

" People will say you're trying to ration healthcare and that is the end

of the discussion, " says Redberg. So voters may have to wait until

after the election to know whether the victor has the silver buckshot -

or if he is shooting blanks.

http://aging-management.com/ - Optimising Health for Longevity

Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

stardora,

> If you are the list owner, and you don't want anymore

> posts, thats fine. I'm just passing along things I fine interesting.

> Let me know.

I don't mean to stop you or anyone from discussing subjects of interest.

It just seems silly and wrong to me that anyone should call modern medical

doctors " terrorists " .

Most doctors and health scientists are fine people who mean well, but the

author you cite writes:

" ..such terrorists will have, if successful, deprived those individuals of

their health and even lives. "

That amounts to an accusation of conspiracy to commit murder. Do you

really think these people want to kill you?

-gts

September 22, 2008

You're not disrupting the group, stardora. Carry on.

But for the record: It is I think absurd to suggest that pharmaceutical

companies are terrorist organizations that have willful intent to kill people.

That sort of alarmist conspiracy theory might help sell books on alternative

medicine, and evidently it has helped convince you, but in my opinion it has no

place in an intelligent discussion about health.

If you think highly of naturopathy, for example, then I would encourage you to

post more empirical evidence to support your claims. That's how this discussion

list used to work: 1) make a claim, 2) defend your claim with credible

scientific studies.

-gts

September 22, 2008

I do post them when available, but large scale studies take large scale

money, and the only entities (besides the gov't) that are willing to do that

are pharma. And of course, the only thing they are going to pay for are

patentable drug studies, and ones that purport to show the inneffectiveness

of natural, unpatentable products. And I believe many of those are probably

rigged. The current system is largely a racket.

Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

You're not disrupting the group, stardora. Carry on.

But for the record: It is I think absurd to suggest that pharmaceutical

companies are terrorist organizations that have willful intent to kill

people.

That sort of alarmist conspiracy theory might help sell books on

alternative medicine, and evidently it has helped convince you, but in my

opinion it has no place in an intelligent discussion about health.

If you think highly of naturopathy, for example, then I would encourage

you to post more empirical evidence to support your claims. That's how this

discussion list used to work: 1) make a claim, 2) defend your claim with

credible scientific studies.

-gts

September 22, 2008

Two issues:

" stick to high quality scientific journalism and scientific studies. "

One of the problems is that many natural cures that I have discovered

independently will quite likely never be accepted for study by

mainstream medicine. The two BIG finds that have entirely changed my

life are, using Meghydrin to stop migraine headaches, and using MSM

in quantity for joint health. I lived with joint pain and migraines for

fifty years and now have neither. As a result, I have reported these

finds here on numerous occasions. Even Dr. Flanagan, the inventor or

MegaHydrin has never posted my discovery on his website, so I doubt

that you'll ever see a study on it. I always error in the direction of

empirical fact rather than scholarly study. What kind of " high quality "

do you want? One that works, or one that has been studied to death.

snip:

Secondly, it disparages the role of science and evidence based medicine

in delivering health and longevity. If we are seeking health and

longevity, for ourselves and others, we cannot afford ignore the use of

these methods and we need to promote them as good principles to work by.

It we listen to this article, we will be fighting aging blindfolded and

with both hands tied behind our backs.

Like Gordon, my personal preference would be to see this forum stick to

high quality scientific journalism and scientific studies. I am well

aware that there are many others on this forum whose opinions should

also be taken into account and I would be happy to hear them.

" There will also have to be changes to the way doctors are paid. "

As I understand it, in ancient China, doctors were given a maintenance

payment each month to keep a person well. If they got sick, they

stopped paying. This sounds like the perfect model to me.

snip, snip:

>

> There will also have to be changes to the way doctors are paid. At

> present, this usually operates on a " fee-for-service " basis, under

> which doctors are paid for every procedure they administer, whether or

> not it is

> appropriate. The surgeon who implanted the defibrillator deactivated by

> Redberg's team, for instance, would have been paid a fee of around

> $1600 by Medicare, the federal scheme that covers healthcare for the

> elderly. Reimbursement by insurance companies follows a similar pattern.

> With such perverse incentives to deliver more care, regardless of its

> benefits, it is little wonder that costs are spiralling out of control.

> " There is excessive use of just about everything, " says Helen Darling,

> president of the National Business Group on Health in Washington DC,

> which represents many of America's leading companies. " It just gets

> worse and worse. "

>

> Visit Your Group

>

<Longevity;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ29wb3Z0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG\

dycElkAzEzODc4MDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwODE0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTIyMj\

A4NDk4OQ-->

>

> Health

>

> Early Detection

>

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r2honh8/M=493064.12016303.12582636.9706571/D=grph\

ealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=Btz0H0LaX.o-/J=122208502070617\

2/A=5191946/R=0/SIG=12u9heqpd/*http://health./breastcancer-symptoms/bre\

ast-cancer-symptoms/healthwise--tv3621.html>

>

> Know the symptoms

>

> of breast cancer.

>

> Meditation and

>

> Lovingkindness

>

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r8cg30v/M=493064.12016231.12582634.9706571/D=grph\

ealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=B9z0H0LaX.o-/J=122208502070617\

2/A=5191951/R=0/SIG=11iiaadso/*http://new./giftoflovingkindness>

>

> A Group

>

> to share and learn.

>

> Biz Resources

>

> Y! Small Business

>

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r539hub/M=493064.12016255.12445662.8674578/D=grph\

ealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=CNz0H0LaX.o-/J=122208502070617\

2/A=4025321/R=0/SIG=12a352npd/*http://us.rd./evt=44092/*http://smallbus\

iness./r-index>

>

> Articles, tools,

>

> forms, and more.

>

> .

>

September 23, 2008

As this is directly on point, it's been cut and paste from microwave news as-is.

The last

paragraph summarizes if you don't care to read the entire epitaph.

Becker's research in electrically stimulated cellular regeneration culminated in

his 1998 US

Patent. You may view photo's (exactly as they appeared in the patent) of a

REGENERATED

adult fingertip (fingerprint, nail, nail-bed and tactile sensation INTACT) at;

http://www.earthpulsetechnologies.com/Becker.htm

Dr. O. Becker, 1923-2008

May 28… O. Becker, a towering figure in bioelectromagnetics, died

on May 14 due to complications from pneumonia. He was 84 and had been

ailing for some time. Becker, best known for his research on " currents of

injury " and the role they play in regeneration, made significant contributions

to many areas of electrobiology.

He was later drawn into public controversies

over health effects—Becker is credited as the first to use the term

" electromagnetic

pollution " —and in the end paid dearly for speaking out.

" Bob Becker's passing marks the end of an era in bioelectromagnetics,

that time when very few scientists believed that non-thermal electromagnetic

exposures were biologically significant, " said Abe Liboff, a physicist and the

co-editor of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. " All the work on applying

electromagnetic fields to bone repair is attributable to Becker's

reinterpretation

of Carlo Matteucci's discovery of currents of injury, " he said.

Andy Marino, a former graduate student of Becker's who spent 17 years

in his lab, recently recalled how his mentor described what prompted him to

embark on what would be his life's work:

Salamanders have the same bones and muscles and nerves as people. If

salamanders can grow new limbs, why not people? I think they can.

They lack only the signal to activate cells. I was only in medical school

when I thought about this, and I decided to spend my life trying to

study bioelectricity and perhaps answer that question.

Marino is now a professor at the LSU Medical Center in Shreveport.

In the 1960s, at the same time that Becker was investigating the electric

currents in bone with Andy Bassett, he also made some landmark observations

on the effects of magnetic fields on human behavior. These studies, now

all but forgotten, were years ahead of their time. For instance, in 1967,

writing

in Nature with Friedman and Bachman, Becker described

how modulated magnetic fields could affect reaction times—now a hot topic

among those studying cell phone radiation. Some years earlier, they found

that admissions in psychiatric hospitals were associated with geomagnetic

activity. Later, in a series of papers with , a medical doctor in

northern England, Becker and Marino linked exposures to power frequency

fields to depression and suicide.

In perhaps their best-known experiment on power-line EMFs, Becker

and Marino showed that mice which were exposed continuously for three

generations, yielded offspring that were stunted and were generally frailer.

" The results were truly startling, " Marino recalled. It took a decade for EPRI,

the electric utility industry research group, to repeat the multi-generation

study,

O. Becker, 1923-2008 (continued from p.1)

and the results vindicated Becker and Marino (see MWN, M/A

86).

Becker's involvement with high-voltage power lines and

the U.S. Navy's submarine communications system (Project Sanguine,

later Project Seafarer and still later Project ELF) proved

to be his undoing. He was forced into retirement at the too-young

age of 56. As Becker wrote in the preface to The Electric Wilderness,

a history of these struggles by Andy Marino and

Ray: " We faced a concerted and coordinated effort to suppress

the truth which emanated from the military establishment and

was simply aided and abetted by the greed of the utilities and the

tarnished testimony of scientists for hire. "

But even in apparent defeat, Becker made his mark and

changed the course of the EMF controversy. His and Marino's

fight over the 765kV power line planned by the NY Power Authority

led to the NY Power Line Project which sponsored the

research that repeated Wertheimer and Ed Leeper's childhood

leukemia study that forever changed the EMF landscape

(see January 23 post).

After his lab at the VA Hospital in Syracuse was closed,

Becker wrote The Body Electric with Selden. Published

in 1985, the book became a classic and is still in print today.

Anyone trying to understand the forces at work in this highly

politicized area of science should read his " Postscript: Political

Science. " Here's how it ends:

I want the general public to know that science isn't run

the way they read about it in the newspapers and magazines.

I want lay people to understand that they cannot

automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face

value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I

want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators,

to work to change the way research is administered. The

way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning

more and more about less and less, and science is becoming

our enemy instead of our friend.

>

> Two issues:

>

> " stick to high quality scientific journalism and scientific studies. "

>

> One of the problems is that many natural cures that I have discovered

> independently will quite likely never be accepted for study by

> mainstream medicine. The two BIG finds that have entirely changed my

> life are, using Meghydrin to stop migraine headaches, and using MSM

> in quantity for joint health. I lived with joint pain and migraines for

> fifty years and now have neither. As a result, I have reported these

> finds here on numerous occasions. Even Dr. Flanagan, the inventor or

> MegaHydrin has never posted my discovery on his website, so I doubt

> that you'll ever see a study on it. I always error in the direction of

> empirical fact rather than scholarly study. What kind of " high quality "

> do you want? One that works, or one that has been studied to death.

>

> snip:

>

> Secondly, it disparages the role of science and evidence based medicine

> in delivering health and longevity. If we are seeking health and

> longevity, for ourselves and others, we cannot afford ignore the use of

> these methods and we need to promote them as good principles to work by.

> It we listen to this article, we will be fighting aging blindfolded and

> with both hands tied behind our backs.

>

> Like Gordon, my personal preference would be to see this forum stick to

> high quality scientific journalism and scientific studies. I am well

> aware that there are many others on this forum whose opinions should

> also be taken into account and I would be happy to hear them.

>

> " There will also have to be changes to the way doctors are paid. "

>

> As I understand it, in ancient China, doctors were given a maintenance

> payment each month to keep a person well. If they got sick, they

> stopped paying. This sounds like the perfect model to me.

>

> snip, snip:

>

> >

> > There will also have to be changes to the way doctors are paid. At

> > present, this usually operates on a " fee-for-service " basis, under

> > which doctors are paid for every procedure they administer, whether or

> > not it is

> > appropriate. The surgeon who implanted the defibrillator deactivated by

> > Redberg's team, for instance, would have been paid a fee of around

> > $1600 by Medicare, the federal scheme that covers healthcare for the

> > elderly. Reimbursement by insurance companies follows a similar pattern.

> > With such perverse incentives to deliver more care, regardless of its

> > benefits, it is little wonder that costs are spiralling out of control.

> > " There is excessive use of just about everything, " says Helen Darling,

> > president of the National Business Group on Health in Washington DC,

> > which represents many of America's leading companies. " It just gets

> > worse and worse. "

> >

> > Visit Your Group

> >

<Longevity;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ29wb3Z0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE

0BGdycElkAzEzODc4MDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwODE0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc

3RpbWUDMTIyMjA4NDk4OQ-->

> >

> > Health

> >

> > Early Detection

> >

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r2honh8/M=493064.12016303.12582636.9706571/D

=grphealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=Btz0H0LaX.o-

/J=1222085020706172/A=5191946/R=0/SIG=12u9heqpd/*http://health./br

eastcancer-symptoms/breast-cancer-symptoms/healthwise--tv3621.html>

> >

> > Know the symptoms

> >

> > of breast cancer.

> >

> > Meditation and

> >

> > Lovingkindness

> >

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r8cg30v/M=493064.12016231.12582634.9706571/D

=grphealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=B9z0H0LaX.o-

/J=1222085020706172/A=5191951/R=0/SIG=11iiaadso/*http://new.

/giftoflovingkindness>

> >

> > A Group

> >

> > to share and learn.

> >

> > Biz Resources

> >

> > Y! Small Business

> >

<http://us.ard./SIG=13r539hub/M=493064.12016255.12445662.8674578/D

=grphealth/S=1705060814:NC/Y=/EXP=1222092220/L=/B=CNz0H0LaX.o-

/J=1222085020706172/A=4025321/R=0/SIG=12a352npd/*http://us.rd./evt

=44092/*http://smallbusiness./r-index>

> >

> > Articles, tools,

> >

> > forms, and more.

> >

> > .

> >

>

September 23, 2008

Many Doctors' Recommendations are Disasters

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/23/history-proves-man\

y-doctors-recommendations-are-disasters.aspx?source=nl

September 23, 2008

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your mail.

" The two BIG finds that have entirely changed my

life are, using Meghydrin to stop migraine headaches, and using MSM

in quantity for joint health. I lived with joint pain and migraines for

fifty years and now have neither. "

I am delighted that you are no longer sufferring from these.

" Even Dr. Flanagan, the inventor or

MegaHydrin has never posted my discovery on his website, so I doubt

that you'll ever see a study on it. "

Dr Flanagan seems to be a colourful character! Thank you for mentioning him. I

also had a look at Megahydrin and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. For

someone who " ... holds advanced degrees in nanotechnology, chemistry,

bio-sciences and medicine " , he seems very shy of supporting his claims with

references. He does appear to have published 4 studies, all of which are in

vitro. This isn't really enough to support his claims that this offering works

in humans. (I could only find one study on Silica Hydride in humans. It was

ineffective at increasing endurance in cyclists.) I also note that he seems

quite keen on Multi-Level Marketing and I am particularly eager to hear his

explanation of 'Crystal Energy' on his appearance on a recent radio show.

Could I invite you to try comparing Megahydrin to the assessment of resveratrol

I recently posted on another thread? How do you think they compare? Notice on

one that every

claim is supported with appropriate references and evidence that you can check

in PubMed. Notice that at the bottom of the page there is an HONcode seal.

Every page of this website has been checked by an external non governmental

organisation that validates health information on the net. Which do you feel

you can trust?

" I always error in the direction of empirical fact rather than scholarly study. "

Empirical facts are only empirical because they have been proved by an

experiment. Granted, not all studies are experiments, but all experiments are

studies. You appear to infer that your discovery that Megahydrin stops your

migraines is an empirical fact, although please feel free to correct me if I

have this wrong. As an experiment it is a little underpowered with a study

population of 1. I am not quite convinced that you have managed to remove

chance and bias from your results yet.

" What kind of " high quality " do you want? One that works, or one that has been

studied to death. "

This is an interesting and fair point. I think one of the best criticisms of

evidence based medicine is that lack of evidence and lack of benefit are not

necessarily the same thing. There has never been a randomised controlled trial

proving that parachutes decrease mortality in skydivers, but skydivers all seem

to be unanimous that parachutes have clear benefits without requiring empirical

proof and insist on wearing them. It is also worth noting that there are very

few volunteers for a control group and randomising the control group is an

unpopular suggestion.

To conclude, something that provides benefits and also has proof that it works

is higher quality evidence than something that appears to provide benefits but

doesn't have proof.

Yours in fun and awareness raising.