tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.comments2023-02-07T00:13:54.857-08:00of trees, birds and other thingsJarrodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-18104479152806704172019-08-31T05:48:37.132-07:002019-08-31T05:48:37.132-07:00Thanks for sharing the info, keep up the good work...Thanks for sharing the info, keep up the good work going.... I really enjoyed exploring your site. good resource...<br /><a href="https://healthtree.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Gluten Free Products</a><br />atif xhaikhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02930570824595079707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-66976998472246681882016-06-16T12:00:23.341-07:002016-06-16T12:00:23.341-07:00Thank you very much for your perfect job. It was v...Thank you very much for your perfect job. It was very interesting for me to read your article. Your posts <a href="http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/nature-vs-conventional-medicine-take-your-side" rel="nofollow">http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/nature-vs-conventional-medicine-take-your-side</a> are very interesting and nice. I advise you to continue your job. Keep it up!smithendy@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09226609303174199878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-54201580082794993462012-09-02T13:23:29.785-07:002012-09-02T13:23:29.785-07:00Anonymous, the way that your faith influences your...Anonymous, the way that your faith influences your stance on this issue was exactly what part of my post was about. You suggestion that I am only writing about what I "think an audience wants to hear" and that I am a slave is ironic. You are so much more of a slave than I. I am free to express how I feel based on logic without fear of punishment from some benevolent god.<br /><br />Paul has already addressed your point about animal sexual behaviour, but just to reiterate: homosexual behaviour in animals demonstrates that it is not unnatural. It also alludes to 'gayness' not being a choice. If you want to believe it is immoral that is your choice but don't try and impose your beliefs on others. There is no logical argument that can define homosexuality as immoral, only 'arguments' from your religion.<br /><br />You say that marriage is so much more than "open expression of love and commitment to another person" but you don't say how so. I can only imagine you are referring to the way your chosen religion portrays marriage. As Paul points out "marriage has many separate origins in many cultures and is not something owned by any particular group or viewpoint." We live in a multicultural secular country, thus the laws should reflect that and ensure the protection of our citizen's rights. Your religiously charged bigotry has no place in deciding our laws.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-53482050777549595532012-09-01T17:34:34.033-07:002012-09-01T17:34:34.033-07:00The argument, "Anonymous", is that homos...The argument, "Anonymous", is that homosexuality is a natural biological phenomenon, and should not be considered a choice (e.g. the ridiculous rugby analogy that has been doing the rounds). <br /><br />We absolutely do live in a society that values morality. You shouldn't confuse people disagreeing with you with a lack of morality. A majority of New Zealanders support same-sex marriage, and you are simply in the vocal minority who do not. <br /><br />You claim: <i>"You're probaly ignoring that tugging feeling you refer to as "instinct" [...] Too many debates are structured on what people think an audience wants to hear. You want to be a slave to that, thats your prerogative." </i><br /><br />Wow. This is quite the accusation. No wonder you write anonymously. Your words betray a mindblowing level of ignorance of the other side of this debate. As such, you really should be ashamed to put your name to such words.<br /><br />If you were going to be open-minded about this, you would consider the possibility that people genuinely do care about human rights for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. You don't get to impose a religious point of view on our secular society. <br /><br />In any case, despite what you appear to believe, marriage has many separate origins in many cultures and is not something owned by any particular group or viewpoint. Therefore it is not yours to define.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-56461624399374038672012-09-01T02:25:18.330-07:002012-09-01T02:25:18.330-07:00My point is that your stance of "if animals d...My point is that your stance of "if animals do it, it must be ok" makes a mockery of your argument. An open expression of love and commitment to another person? It's far more than that, but over the last 100 years marriage has become so diluted with man-made laws that its become difficult for so many to take it seriously. Go ahead, thin it out some more.<br /><br />The reason for my being vague is that I stand firm in my Faith. You're captive to an Age where the loosely thrown around term "rights", negate wisdom...a wisdom that has been passed down through numerous generations. <br /><br />You're probaly ignoring that tugging feeling you refer to as "instinct"...I choose not to ignore it. I didn't post this to debate religion or force some doctrine down your throat but rather tell you that a child, every child, needs to grow up in a society that teaches them to put a value on morals. Taking that away from them is like taking away their freedom.<br /><br />Too many debates are structured on what people think an audience wants to hear. You want to be a slave to that, thats your prerogative.<br /><br />I follow a Book that sings to my soul...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-62824620163080477632012-08-31T12:55:46.130-07:002012-08-31T12:55:46.130-07:00The origin of marriage in irrelevant. Likewise for...The origin of marriage in irrelevant. Likewise for your point "we debated this more than 4500 years ago". What is relevant is what it means to us today. There are many things that were done 4500 years ago (and more recently for that matter) that are longer acceptable. Several issues come to mind: slavery, interracial marriage and female vote etc. There is no bias in letting all humans have the same rights. The bias position is the one taken by Colin Craig and co who want to impose their set of religious values on others. You have said nothing of substance and have been rather vague. What is your point?Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-12958344133891266902012-08-31T11:14:46.591-07:002012-08-31T11:14:46.591-07:00The institution of marriage is now the subject of ...The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?<br /><br />I reckon we debated this more than 4500 years ago and got it right. <br /><br />Open debate is healthy, but it should never be biased towards neither subject or audience. When man chooses his own earthly wisdom he always gets it wrong. Thats been proven time and time again<br /><br />I'm not sure cuz, think you need to do some more homework....but then I'm not running for a seat :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-87142049327278994132012-08-20T16:35:24.277-07:002012-08-20T16:35:24.277-07:00Testing what we think we know:
BY 1990, many doct...Testing what we think we know:<br /><br />BY 1990, many doctors were recommending hormone replacement therapy to healthy middle-aged women and P.S.A. screening for prostate cancer to older men. Both interventions had become standard medical practice. <br /><br />But in 2002, a randomized trial showed that preventive hormone replacement caused more problems (more heart disease and breast cancer) than it solved (fewer hip fractures and colon cancer). Then, in 2009, trials showed that P.S.A. screening led to many unnecessary surgeries and had a dubious effect on prostate cancer deaths. <br /><br />How would you have felt — after over a decade of following your doctor’s advice — to learn that high-quality randomized trials of these standard practices had only just been completed? And that they showed that both did more harm than good? Justifiably furious, I’d say. Because these practices affected millions of Americans, they are locked in a tight competition for the greatest medical error on record. <br /><br />The problem goes far beyond these two. The truth is that for a large part of medical practice, we don’t know what works. But we pay for it anyway. Our annual per capita health care expenditure is now over $8,000. Many countries pay half that — and enjoy similar, often better, outcomes. Isn’t it time to learn which practices, in fact, improve our health, and which ones don’t? <br /><br />To find out, we need more medical research. But not just any kind of medical research. Medical research is dominated by research on the new: new tests, new treatments, new disorders and new fads. But above all, it’s about new markets. <br /><br />We don’t need to find more things to spend money on; we need to figure out what’s being done now that is not working. That’s why we have to start directing more money toward evaluating standard practices — all the tests and treatments that doctors are already providing. <br /><br />There are many places to start. Mammograms are increasingly finding a microscopic abnormality called D.C.I.S., or ductal carcinoma in situ. Currently we treat it as if it were invasive breast cancer, with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Some doctors think this is necessary, others don’t. The question is relevant to more than 60,000 women each year. Don’t you think we should know the answer? <br /><br />Or how about this one: How should we screen for colon cancer? The standard approach, fecal occult blood testing, is simple and cheap. But more and more Americans are opting for colonoscopy — over four million per year in Medicare alone. It’s neither simple nor cheap. In terms of the technology and personnel involved, it’s more like going to the operating room. (I know, I’ve had one.) Which is better? We don’t know. <br /><br />Let me be clear, answering questions like these is not easy. <br /><br />Read the full article from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/testing-standard-medical-practices.html?_r=1&smid=fb-shareEasyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-14171270089658835522012-08-05T19:09:05.167-07:002012-08-05T19:09:05.167-07:00Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth:...Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth: study<br />(AFP) � 2 days ago <br />PARIS � Cancer-busting chemotherapy can cause damage to healthy cells which triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment, a study said Sunday.<br /><br />Researchers in the United States made the "completely unexpected" finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.<br /><br />They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.<br /><br />Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.<br /><br />The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.<br /><br />"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.<br /><br />The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.<br /><br />"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.<br /><br />In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.<br /><br />Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.<br /><br />"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics," wrote the team.<br /><br />The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.<br /><br />The result paves the way for research into new, improved treatment, said Nelson.<br /><br />"For example, an antibody to WNT16B, given with chemotherapy, may improve responses (kill more tumour cells)," he said in an email exchange.<br /><br />"Alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy."<br /><br />Copyright � 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. <br /><br />Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gFc7yPJHmW-aZnlAT7k6qrAKYt3w?docId=CNG.945b2a3907990e6013ce343d3f70dfe5.101#Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-8500747828172557742012-08-01T17:23:08.143-07:002012-08-01T17:23:08.143-07:00And the evidence against Big Pharma mounts: "...And the evidence against Big Pharma mounts: "<br />Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation's pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.<br /><br />The picture that's emerging is one of a criminal drug industry that has turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science that would prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those doctors and "skeptics" who defended Big Pharma and vaccines eat their words."<br /><br />Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html#ixzz22LMwvZSVEasyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-91564064441418396342012-07-25T16:28:51.804-07:002012-07-25T16:28:51.804-07:00Why some people don't trust Science, and those...Why some people don't trust Science, and those who use/misuse science:<br /><br />Secret files expose thalidomide cover-up<br /><br />The company behind a drug that disfigured thousands of newborn babies worldwide ignored and covered up warnings about its damaging effects, a report says.<br /><br />Hundreds of Australian babies were among those harmed by the German-made sedative and morning sickness treatment thalidomide.<br /><br />Never-before-published excerpts of files from thalidomide maker Grunenthal obtained by Fairfax explicitly warn about the drug's potential to harm foetuses, Fairfax says.<br /><br />The company has always maintained the thalidomide tragedy was unforeseeable and it had acted in accordance with the scientific knowledge and prevailing standards of the 1950s.<br /><br />Advertisement Fairfax says the Grunenthal files expose a 50-year cover-up.<br /><br />The effects of taking thalidomide during pregnancy included newborns with severe physical deformities.<br /><br />The Grunenthal files reveal German medical professionals had been telling the pharmaceutical giant of their concerns about the link between thalidomide and children's deformities for up to two years before the drug was banned in 1961.<br /><br />One company file shows eight Grunenthal employees or their family members had deformed children between 1959 and 1961.<br /><br />The company told doctors there was no information suggesting the drug was unsafe, Fairfax says.<br /><br />Grunenthal continues to deny any culpability as it fights a compensation claim lodged by 130 thalidomide victims in Australia and New Zealand.<br /><br />Source: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/secret-files-expose-thalidomide-coverup-20120726-22s8t.htmlEasyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-20911943747549281802012-06-12T23:16:03.863-07:002012-06-12T23:16:03.863-07:00Jarrod, the above post was to illustrate the error...Jarrod, the above post was to illustrate the error of PMcB posting on March 18:<br />"...Cancer is a complex disease (of course) but the best-supported theory of its cause is the accumulation of DNA mutations in the cells of your body..." and "...Because the cancer is genetically derived, it is localised to the particular cells that bear the triggering mutations. This is why cancers can be removed. <br /><br />Genetic therapies that target cells that produce tell-tale metabolites that indicate cancer are advancing, which is exciting. And there have been some useful breakthroughs in the early detection of cancer. However, the nature of cancer is what makes it effectively inevitable. We cannot currently escape the somatic mutations that are cancer's precursors. We can only learn better what to do when they occur and cancer results."<br /><br />It illustrates that some/many/all? cancer has preventable causes, including this example of cancers attributable to infections. There are far better ways to prevent infection than to vacinate against it (also cheaper = not so profitable for those who benefit from the business of medicine). <br /><br />PMcB also makes these errors "...it is localised to the particular cells that bear the triggering mutations. This is why cancers can be removed." - I can only WHAT? to this statement having been exposed to many non-localised and localised cancers that CANNOT be removed; and later "...We cannot currently escape the somatic mutations that are cancer's precursors." - if this is try, why use the vaccines?<br /><br />As regards this comment of yours "...You have argued against science-based medicine but now present evidence of a strong positive health effect of science-based medicine. Do you see any contradiction?" I suggest you have not comprehended my post of March 25 (an extract):<br />Yes, science has modified the food, but corporations and governments are making the $$. Merck isn't science - Merck is one of the corporations that is sometimes mis-applying, sometimes misusing and sometimes ignoring science in the interests of making more $$. <br /><br />Paul, I thought I had made it clear when I said earlier (March 24): "I agree with you and I am not saying that science is the problem; but how it is used." and later in that same post: "But I am also saying that this branch of science (medical research and the spplication of that knowledge) is captive to 'big pharma' through the suppression of useful findings that cannot be patented and commercialised, and the misuse of other knowledge..."<br /><br />I think the above phrasing is simple, unequivocal and easy to understand.<br /><br />I also think these extracts show my position is not anti-science. I don't think any of these comments are anti-science (work out for yourself what they are 'anti'):<br /><br />March 4: "...But we only have to look at arguably the biggest money spinner of all for drug companies..."<br /><br />March 12: "But back to drug companies, and the BUSINESS of cancer. Firstly, some very personal examples..."<br /><br />March 12: "The bottom line to me is: Drug companies make far more money keeping people alive and treating symptoms than they do by curing them..."<br /><br />and later on April 6.<br /><br />No, I don't a contradiction as I am arguing against the misuse and misapplication of science.Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-37514388409054072602012-06-05T21:10:00.696-07:002012-06-05T21:10:00.696-07:00I have two comments to make on Based on "your...I have two comments to make on Based on "your" comment.<br /><br />1. While some cases of cancer are caused by infection (16.1%), it is still a relatively small proportion. That means that most cancers are the likely result of cumulative mutations that directly, or indirectly, influence cell growth and/or death.<br /><br />2. The report from WHO and the study it links to demonsrates that science-based medicine (e.g. vaccinations) can and does reduce infection related cancers. This is clearly evident in the significant difference between rates of such cancers in developed (0.4 million cases)and developing countries (1.6 million cases).<br /><br />I fail to see what your point is re the OP. You have argued against science-based medicine but now present evidence of a strong positive health effect of science-based medicine. Do you see any contradiction?Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-33731775789968987112012-05-31T21:01:04.672-07:002012-05-31T21:01:04.672-07:00Back to the causes of cancer, for a moment:
INFEC...Back to the causes of cancer, for a moment:<br /><br />INFECTIONS CAUSE ONE IN SIX OF LL CANCERS WORLDWIDE: IARC<br />A<br />Worldwide, 2 million (16.1%) of the total 12.7 million new cancer cases in 2008 are attributable to infections. This fraction is higher in less developed countries (22.9%) than in more developed countries (7.4%) and varies 10-fold by region from 3.3% in Australia and New Zealand to 32.7% in sub-Saharan Africa, according to a landmark study of infection-related cancers published today in The Lancet Oncology1.<br />“Many infection-related cancers are preventable, particularly those associated with Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B and C viruses and human papillomaviruses,” the authors say. “Together, these four main infections are estimated to be responsible for 1.9 million cases, mainly gastric, liver, and cervical cancers,” they add.<br />Cervical cancer accounted for about half of the infection-related burden of cancer in women, and in men liver and gastric cancers accounted for more than 80%.<br />Of the 7.5 million deaths from cancer worldwide in 20082, an estimated 1.5 million were from cancers due to infections.<br /><br />Sourced from http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/TLO-INF-May2012-Eng.pdfEasyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-29925662138211902542012-04-23T21:36:02.625-07:002012-04-23T21:36:02.625-07:00Another example of drugs previously administered a...Another example of drugs previously administered as being safe, and having passed the required testing regimes, but now found to have a link to cancer in children:<br /><br />"Fertility drugs can more than double the chances of children born to mothers who struggle to get pregnant developing leukaemia, a study has shown.<br /><br />Children were 2.6 times more likely to become ill with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), the most common type of childhood leukaemia, if their mothers had been treated with ovary-stimulating drugs.<br /><br />They had a 2.3-fold increased risk of suffering the rarer form of the disease, acute myeloid leukaemia (AML).<br /><br />Children conceived naturally after their mothers tried for more than a year to get pregnant had a 50 per cent greater-than-normal likelihood of developing ALL.<br /><br />But no heightened risk of childhood leukaemia was associated either with in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or artificial insemination.<br /><br />The French scientists cannot yet fully explain their findings, the first to show a specific link between use of fertility drugs and childhood leukaemia.<br /><br />Study leader Dr Jeremie Rudant, from the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health at the French research institute INSERM in Villejuif, Paris, said: "It has always been hypothesised that assisted reproductive technologies may be involved in the onset of childhood cancer as they involve repeated treatment at the time of conception and or manipulation of the sperm and egg. And it is now established that a majority of acute leukaemia have a pre-natal (pre-birth) origin.<br /><br />"The findings indicate that more research is now needed to investigate more closely the link between specific types of fertility drugs and what role the underlying causes of infertility may play in the potential development of childhood leukaemia."<br /><br />Dr Rudant presented the results at the Childhood Cancer 2012 conference in London, hosted by the charity Children with Cancer UK."<br /><br />But until someone researched the increased rate of childhood illness and corrolated it with apparently 'safe' other factors, scientists could (wrongly) claim that there is no cause for alarm. I am thankful there are scientists who will study correlations like this, specially in childhood diseases.<br /><br />http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8456433Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-29557645365298549572012-04-19T22:59:17.034-07:002012-04-19T22:59:17.034-07:00Jarrod, here is a current news report, and an extr...Jarrod, here is a current news report, and an extract. If you read the comments made by readers you will probably get another insight into why so many people distrust conventional medicine.<br /><br />"NEARLY 100 years after antibiotics were discovered, a study has found most Australians are confused about when they should take them and how they work.<br /><br />And this ignorance could be putting our health at risk, doctors say, with deadly superbugs on the increase because of our inappropriate use of the drugs.<br /><br />A study by the National Prescribing Service found four out of five Australians expect to be given antibiotics for ear, nose, throat or chest infections.<br /><br />The chief executive of the service, Lynn Weekes, said many such infections were viral, so antibiotics did not help them, or they would resolve independently anyway....<br /><br />In the past, antibiotic-resistant bugs were mostly seen in hospitals, but they was now spreading through the community. One particularly virulent strain, ST93-MRSA-IV, had been picked up in Queensland in 2003 but now accounted for more than half of NSW golden staph superbugs."<br /><br />Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/health/why-antibiotics-can-be-health-risk-20120419-1xa34.htmlEasyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-53667954329347031432012-04-11T18:24:32.106-07:002012-04-11T18:24:32.106-07:00Jarrod, in your original post you said: "The ...Jarrod, in your original post you said: "The most common reasons seem to stem from a distrust of conventional medicine (said medicine, see video below). Unfortunately this distrust is most likely a result of a lack of understanding of the scientific method and how it is applied to clinical science."<br /><br />No, this distrust is because of an understanding that big pharma are more interested in profits ahead of people, treatment ahead of cures. This obscures the scientific methods and clinical science. Every week there is new evidence, such as this being reported today:<br /><br />AN Arkansas judge fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than $US1.1 billion ($1.07 billion) today for downplaying and concealing risks associated with the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal. <br />Circuit Judge Tim Fox ruled that Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc and its parent company must pay $US5000 for each of 240,000 Risperdal prescriptions the state health coverage program paid for during a three-and-a-half year period, accounting for the bulk of the penalty.<br />A jury on Tuesday found the companies liable.<br />Arkansas sued the companies alleging they misled doctors about Risperdal's side effects.<br />State attorney General Dustin McDaniel said in an emailed statement that the ruling "sends a clear signal that big drug companies like Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals cannot lie to the (US Food and Drug Administration), patients and doctors."<br />Janssen said in an emailed statement that evidence showed it acted responsibly, and it pledged to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court if Judge Fox denies a motion for a new trial.<br />Risperdal, introduced in 1994, is a "second-generation" antipsychotic drug that earned Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars in sales before generic versions became available several years ago.<br />The US Food and Drug Administration in 2004 forced the company to revise the drug's labelling to reflect increased risk of strokes and death in elderly dementia patients, seizures, major weight gain, onset of diabetes and potentially fatal high blood sugar.<br />Dozens of states have since filed lawsuits making claims similar to those in Arkansas.<br />A South Carolina judge upheld a $US327 million civil penalty against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen in December. Texas reached a $US158 million settlement with the companies in January.<br /><br />Source: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/johnson-johnson-fined-11bn-in-risperdal-case/story-e6freonx-1226324609466<br /><br />NOTE specially these words: "...sends a clear signal that big drug companies like Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals cannot lie to the (US Food and Drug Administration), patients and doctors."Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-68418228616917385092012-04-09T19:08:03.947-07:002012-04-09T19:08:03.947-07:00OK - I'll try spell it out in simpler terms, a...OK - I'll try spell it out in simpler terms, and use an example where I know the details of intimately, and had personal discussions with all the people and conventional medicine practitioners involved:<br /><br />In my post of March 12 I summarised a personal experience with a Breast Cancer diagnosed relative. Even though the conventional medicine recommended route after surgery to remove the tumour (chemo and radiation treatment) had a proven benefit in only 4% of cases (the oncologists own words), he strongly recommended this course of treatment (at a cost to the health system of between $50k and $150k, depending on suplementary drug regime to counter side effects, including heart damage, possible skin irritation, hair loss, chemo brain, and other effect).<br /><br />So, evidence-based benefit in only 4% of cases, and this benefit is only "that it extends the disease-free period". Yet he downplayed the negatives, including the side effects mentioned above.<br /><br />This example is consistent with experiences that others share with regards to health issues that people experience in the second half of life<br /><br />In my view, anyone who embarks on a 'conventional medicine' course as advised by practitioners of conventional medicine just because it is 'evidence based' claimed 'that it works' (NOW - my addition) either has little or no intelligence; and conventional medicine insults our intelligence by expecting that we believe them (as 'we' did with Thalidomide, Avandia, Vioxx, etc - as mentioned previously - hence the NOW I added earlier - so many 'safe' treatments now have negative effects in the future).<br /><br />My reference re drug costs and how much Australia pays uneccesarily to the benefit of Big Pharma - this parallels many western countries with government-funded health care (maybe even NZ). I suggest that intelligent thinking would question why this is so rather than accept 'that they know best'. And it does further the discussion re evidence based medicine, as there are proven cases of big pharma manipulating results, both as regards efficacy of their products and safety of their products (ask any Thalidomide-affected family; or Pradax-affected family in NZ; families affected by Seroquel-induced suicides/suicide risk). This manipulation of results keeps their profit-stream flowing, with the complicity of the government control agencies they effectively control.Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-9659775161531538672012-04-09T15:08:51.978-07:002012-04-09T15:08:51.978-07:00Sorry but that is not an obvious link, or a link o...Sorry but that is not an obvious link, or a link of any sort. The original post was about how natural health products are sold with particular claims about what effects they have without any formal evidence that the products are indeed effective. "[T]rust in conventional medicine" is not blind if we have evidence that it works. How much Australians pay for drugs vs. the rest of the world has nothing to do with that. If you have a bone to pick with your government about the price you are paying for drugs take it up with them in an Australian forum. It does not further the discussion about evidence based medicine to comment on that here. Moreover, what do you care if you have a distrust of drugs? Just drink a herbal tea, that should be just as effective.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-47094251851540373582012-04-06T03:43:47.126-07:002012-04-06T03:43:47.126-07:00Jarrod - the relevance is this: People are every d...Jarrod - the relevance is this: People are every day paying $millions for prescribed medicines that are either overpriced and/or not necessary and/or prove to actually be harmful over time. This blind trust in conventional medicine, and the proposition that we should trustingly accept it, is, in my view, "Insulting intelligence, or just not having any."<br /><br />My post just tries to show how blindingly trusting sheeple are, trusting that governments and medical science/big pharma will 'do the right thing by them', when actually both governments and medical science/big pharma are quite happy that we pay excessively for conventional medicine (taxpayers pay tax, which subsidises the cost of over-priced and over-prescribed medicines).<br /><br />Hence my opening comment in that post: "Borrowing from the bloggers title "Insulting Intelligence, or just not having any" and adding the "business" of medicine into the mix, as well as the incompetence of government that approves and pays for medicines, this is both an intellectual and economic insult to us"<br /><br />Apologies for not making the link obvious, and I hope this clarifies.Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-48532214967416231502012-04-04T01:48:42.483-07:002012-04-04T01:48:42.483-07:00@EE you say "Relevant to food, nutrition and ...@EE you say "Relevant to food, nutrition and cancer prevention/treatment". You following comment is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to evidence. They have shown (although importantly in the second case not with significance) that certain dietary choices can reduce your chance of breast cancer. They have provided evidence so I see no conflict with my thesis. <br /><br />I see no relevance in your following comment in relation to the OP. What is your point in relation to the OP? If it has none why post it?Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10025728452163302500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-28874684883877130052012-04-03T20:06:51.021-07:002012-04-03T20:06:51.021-07:00Borrowing from the bloggers title "Insulting ...Borrowing from the bloggers title "Insulting Intelligence, or just not having any" and adding the "business" of medicine into the mix, as well as the incompetence of government that approves and pays for medicines, this is both an intellectual and economic insult to us:<br /><br />PBS paying '10 times market price of drugs' by: Sue Dunlevy From: The Australian April 03, 2012 12:00AM <br /><br />THE government could save about $1 billion a year if it better managed the nation's medicine subsidy scheme, a Melbourne University academic says.<br /><br />Health economist Philip Clarke told The Australian yesterday the price of the nation's biggest-selling medicine, the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, plummeted by $8 a script when it gained a generic competitor on Sunday, but the government was still paying 10 times the market price. It could save $590 million in the next 18 months if it paid the $5-per-script price New Zealand pays, Professor Clarke said.<br /><br />On Sunday, the government cut the price it pays for 1000 different generic drugs, which will drop by as much as $15 a packet for patients. But Professor Clarke said these new lower prices were still up to 80 per cent higher than the market price.<br /><br />The price of the 40mg version of the anti-cholesterol pill simvastatin plummeted by 55 per cent and the taxpayer is now paying $22.68 a month for the drug -- 10 times more than the $2.83-per-script price one generic drug company, Ranbaxy, is charging chemists.<br /><br />The clot-busting medicine Plavix dropped from $51 per script to $36 at the weekend, but Professor Clarke said the price was about $4 a month in New Zealand. His argument was backed by Britain's Health Department, which does an annual survey comparing the prices of medicines in 13 developed countries. It found that Australia was paying 39 per cent more for medicines than Britain.<br /><br />In 2010, only two countries, Germany and the US, paid more for medicines than Australia, the survey found.<br /><br />The problem is that the government sets the price it pays for medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and these prices are well in excess of what the drug companies and medicine wholesalers charge.<br /><br />The Department of Health has been trying to rectify the problem using a price-disclosure process that captures data on the prices chemists pay for medicines.<br /><br />Medicines Australia chief Brendan Shaw said the medicines industry had delivered almost $2bn worth of savings to the government in price cuts at the weekend and could not wear further budget cuts.<br /><br />Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/pbs-paying-10-times-market-price-of-drugs/story-fn59nokw-1226316887643Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-27576671282475954012012-04-03T16:28:40.164-07:002012-04-03T16:28:40.164-07:00Relevant to food, nutrition and cancer prevention/...Relevant to food, nutrition and cancer prevention/treatment:<br /><br />A research result just published: <br />"A study by Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and Shanghai Center for Disease Control and Prevention investigators reveals that breast cancer survivors who eat more cruciferous vegetables may have improved survival. The study of women in China was presented by postdoctoral fellow Sarah J. Nechuta, Ph.D., M.P.H., at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting in Chicago, Ill.<br /><br />Sarah J. Nechuta, Ph.D., M.P.H., postdoctoral fellow, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center<br />“Breast cancer survivors can follow the general nutritional guidelines of eating vegetables daily and may consider increasing intake of cruciferous vegetables, such as greens, cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli, as part of a healthy diet,” said Nechuta."<br />Reference: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases.php?release=2395<br /><br />And one from last year: <br />"...Women who ate the most soy food, at more than 11.83 mg isoflavones per day, had a 27 percent reduced risk for breast cancer recurrence, compared to those with the lowest intake level (3.68 mg per day or lower). High soy food intake was also associated with a slightly reduced risk of mortality, although these results did not reach statistical significance. ..."<br /><br />Sarah Nechuta, postdoctoral research fellow at VICC, is first author of the study, which included investigators from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Mass., Moores UCSD Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, and the Shanghai Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China.<br /><br />The research was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which combines the resources of several National Cancer Institute-funded studies.<br />Source: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/04/soy-foods-breast-cancer-survivors/Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-86802226916890318662012-03-28T19:38:07.657-07:002012-03-28T19:38:07.657-07:00@P “Here's what I understand of cancer and its...@P “Here's what I understand of cancer and its inevitability. Let's see how much we agree.” “Cancer is a complex disease (of course)” – Agree<br /><br />“but the best-supported theory of its cause is the accumulation of DNA mutations in the cells of your body” – partially agree. This apparently ignores the metabolic issues, which is where we differ mostly. This possibly summarises our respective positions:<br /><br />“Until a couple of years ago, the usual introduction sentence to any undergraduate course on ‘mechanisms of carcinogenesis’ could have been: ‘cancer is a genetic disease driven by the sequential accumulation of mutations and epigenetic alterations in genes regulating growth control, apoptosis, replicative senescence, DNA repair and angiogenesis’. Today, there are many chances that the course would start by stating that ‘cancer is a metabolic disease’.<br /><br />This is not to say that the previous, genetic version of cancer definition has suddenly become obsolete. Nor does it imply that cancer biology is just discovering the long-known associations between diet, metabolism and cancer risk. Rather, what is taking place is a progressive conceptual change that could be cheekily summarized as ‘molecular biology is re-discovering biochemistry’. As perfectly stated by Bayley and Devilee in this issue, ‘the long neglect of metabolism in favour of molecular and genetic approaches to cancer is now giving way to the realization that understanding of the primary cellular processes specific to tumour cells is essential to real progress’.”<br />From: Current Opinion in Oncology: January 2012 Volume 24 Issue 1 p56–57 CANCER BIOLOGY: Ed by Pierre Hainaut and Amelie Plymoth<br /><br />Your discussion about “These mutations can be accelerated through lifestyle choices…. Cancer has occurred.” I generally agree with, BUT the mutation rate for most genes is low making it unlikely that the numerous pathogenic mutations found in cancer cells would occur sporadically within a normal human lifespan. This creates a paradox – if mutations are such rare events then how is it possible that cancer cells express so many different and similar types and kinds of mutations, why are they increasing so rapidly in some population groups and far more slowly, if at all, in others? <br /><br />I believe that science would better serve humankind through researching these issues: <br /><br />1: what is causing the mutations? <br /><br />2: what is inhibiting the body’s natural ability “to regulate cell division”. <br /><br />3: what are the factors in population groups where cancers are less prevalent?<br /><br />You state “Genetic therapies that target cells that produce tell-tale metabolites that indicate cancer are advancing, which is exciting. And there have been some useful breakthroughs in the early detection of cancer.” <br /><br />How sad that we are subject to an ever increasing range of carcinogens in our environment, through the commercialisation of science (in everyday items like household cleaners, pesticides, paints and solvents) and at the same time decreasing nutritional value of our diets (through foods that last a long time but are nutritionally deficient, increased processing of food). <br /><br />So, our big disagreement.<br /><br />“However, the nature of cancer is what makes it effectively inevitable. We cannot currently escape the somatic mutations that are cancer's precursors. We can only learn better what to do when they occur and cancer results.” Your last 2 sentences are so sad to me – I take this to mean: it’s inevitable, it will happen, only then let’s learn.<br /><br />For me: “Emerging evidence, however, questions the genetic origin of cancer and suggests that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease.” (from Cancer as a metabolic disease. Thomas N Seyfried* and Laura M Shelton http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/7/1/7 )<br />And as such greater attention should be paid to the metabolic factors and influences, including prevention, and less on the symptomatic treatment, and ‘the business of cancer’.Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955837885572744820.post-38487547856927651482012-03-26T21:07:32.566-07:002012-03-26T21:07:32.566-07:00You might be interested in this decision reported ...You might be interested in this decision reported today: <br /><br />"THE US Supreme Court has thrown out a lower court ruling allowing human genes to be patented, a topic of enormous interest to cancer researchers, patients and drug makers.<br /><br />The court overturned patents belonging to Myriad Genetics Inc of Salt Lake City on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.<br /><br />Myriad's BRCA Analysis test looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer.<br /><br />The American Civil Liberties Union has been arguing that genes couldn't be patented, a position taken by a district court judge but overturned on appeal." Read more here: http://tools.goldcoast.com.au/stories/51367931.php<br /><br />But the above is not a great report on the topic, and this gives a far better overall picture (this was before the latest court ruling): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/despite-gene-patent-victory-myriad-genetics-faces-challenges.html?pagewanted=all<br /><br />"...The latest controversy concerns a supplemental test that Myriad is offering. <br /><br />In 2006, Professor King and colleagues published a paper showing that Myriad’s test, known as the Comprehensive BRACAnalysis, actually failed to detect a significant number of genetic alterations in the two genes. <br /><br />Myriad then developed a test for these alterations. But instead of incorporating it into its main product, it offered it as a supplemental test at a price of $700. Many insurers do not pay for it, and therefore many women do not get it...." Illustrating the hijacking of science in the interests of commercial gain.<br /><br />And there is a crossover between science and commerciality here, and I put forward that some of the founders of have switched from being scientists working to this end: "Our goal, at Myriad is to make a difference in patient’s lives and for the past twenty years, the Company’s strategy has been guided by this mission" to being focussed on the commercial outcomes.<br /><br />"The founders of Myriad are Mark Skolnick (Adjunct Professor in the Department of Medical Informatics at the University of Utah), Walter Gilbert (1980 Nobel Laureate in chemistry and Professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Harvard University) and Peter Meldrum (past President and CEO of Agridyne and current CEO and President of Myriad Genetics, Inc) and Kevin Kimberlin of Spencer Trask & Company" (sourced from Wikipedia)Easyriding Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03286953590908196387noreply@blogger.com