If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
PeterB wrote:
Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint. What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based" medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs (frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs that are safe for public use. Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself that you are overflowing and post it here. Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Parsons wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:32:12 -0400, george_of_the_bush wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:02:55 -0700, Joe Parsons wrote: Straw man. This has nothing to do with whether doctors typically prescribe natural supplements. And now your argument seems to have shifted to doctors not prescribing *food supplements*--which, unless I've really missed something, was never an assertion made by George or anyone. And I'm wondering what I should make of the medical doctor with my HMO who told me to take Tums Ultra as a calcium supplement for mild hypertension. Should I have gotten some prescription variety of Tums? Joe Parsons (returning to my regular life now) I hope the family is well, Joe, and you too. You are quite correct that I only stepped into this thread when a silly blanket statement was made about doctors not recommending alternatives to patients. I know this isn't Real Life TM but seeing your name here is like seeing an old friend. Evrything is good, George. No. 1 daughter is doing excellently after the transplant. She's working for me, and starting to hit her stride. Glad to hear it. It has been a tough few years. Aloha from North Carolina, I was wondering where you'd gone to! How's the surfing over there? If George is anywhere near Cape Hatteras...I would say "very interesting". |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint. What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based" medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=drug%20testing" onmouseover="window.status='drug testing'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"drug testing/a, which they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs (frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs that are safe for public use. Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself that you are overflowing and post it here. Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on? Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one?? Personal attacks are so lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post. How do you earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure? PeterB |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
00doc wrote: PeterB wrote: Remember, I was talking about what doctors do typically, and typically doctors don't recommend alternatives to prescription medication. That depends on the supplement. When there is one that is proved to work for a given situation they typically do. Care to name them? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: cathyb wrote: PeterB wrote: snipwe can determine whether you are discrediting an entire industry based on the actions of a few bad apples, which would suggest you are biased against the dietary supplements industry. snip PeterB Read that again Peter, and replace 'dietary supplements' with 'pharmeceutical'. Your hypocrisy is outstanding--particularly since you'd just brought up Vioxx. You aren't making your case any stronger with that comment. Vioxx is a valid example of internal management failure at both FDA AND Merck; you are in the minority for thinking otherwise. Of course it is. It's a 'bad apple'. I have criticised it strongly on other threads. You can't score points by acknowledging what everyone already knows. It's just another lame Pharma Blogging tactic designed to get people's trust. But it ain't working. Isn't it about time Rich came to your rescue? I mean, this is getting sad. Funny, though. But not quite as funny as the fact that you can't see your own use of the 'bad apple' to denigrate real medicine. Thanks again Unfortunately, the "bad apple" in the pharmaceutical industry is not an isolated incident. It's a systemic problem pointing to a cozy relationship between former drug executives working at FDA pretending to regulate this wayward industry. Only a brutal overhaul will change things. PeterB |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: george_of_the_bush wrote: On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote: p fogg wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message legroups.com... Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of evidence? If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up. No, dingbat, it is your burden, since you made the claim, to prove that medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients. At my last physical, last month, my internist suggested that I use more olive oil as my lipids were very low, and I was too low on "good cholesterol". No one has been talking about dietary habits, mountain fresh air, or even walks in the park. Sorry you are lost in the conversation. This happens a lot with Pharma Bloggers... |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
george_of_the_bush wrote: On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote: p fogg wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of evidence? See my respone to Probert. Pharmaceutical products are pharmacy-dispensed and their makers provide copious amounts of promotional material so that doctors will dispense them. Your comment is like saying that if Volvo makes a good car, why don't Ford dealerships sell them? Free enterprise does not mean a "free give-away." Drs. don't get paid more for writing prescriptions. They get a lot of junk and BS from drug reps. Drug reps are mostly more trouble than they are worth. They waste valuable time and usually are ignorant. No one said doctors write prescriptions because they are beholden to drug reps. I said they write prescriptions because they are given marketing and promotional material by the drug companies, however it doesn't stop there. "Training sessions" tied to vacation packages are also offered to doctors, and their loyalty is effectively "bought" in this manner. Doctors, of course, are wont to provide medication to patients in need, and naturally they prescribe those drugs most aggressively promoted to their practices. Unfortunately, doctors can only rely on the limited toxicology profiles provided by the drug companies, usually a 3month study, as a measure of safety for what they are prescribing. Scary stuff. PeterB |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"PeterB" wrote in message ups.com... No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients. This is a silly argument in the first place. Of course doctors do not routinely prescribe nutritional supplements, because unless the patient has presented with a condition that has resulted from a nutritional deficiency, which is going to happen relatively seldom in day-to-day practice, supplements are not going to be appropriate therapy. The problem is not the doctors' prescribing habits, but your silly idea that supplements are medications and that a system of general healthcare could be based on them. -- --Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: george_of_the_bush wrote: On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote: p fogg wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message oglegroups.com... Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of evidence? If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up. No, dingbat, it is your burden, since you made the claim, to prove that medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of any kind. No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients. So you claim it is "common knowledge". Thus, you are stating a positive. Therefore, it is YOUR burden to prove it is "common knowledge". However, I am positive you will weasel. At my last physical, last month, my internist suggested that I use more olive oil as my lipids were very low, and I was too low on "good cholesterol". No one has been talking about dietary habits, mountain fresh air, or even walks in the park. Sorry you are lost in the conversation. This happens a lot with Pharma Bloggers... No, moron, I was making a point that your limited intellect could not grasp, as demonstrated by your response. Now, explain why *P*eter*b* has the same initials as *P*harma *B*logger, whatever that is. I know..it is far easier to think in label format than to try real thought. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint. What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based" medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=drug%20testing" onmouseover="window.status='drug testing'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"drug testing/a, which they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs (frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs that are safe for public use. Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself that you are overflowing and post it here. Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on? Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one?? Nah...I did not even break a sweat.... Personal attacks are so lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post. True, that is why it is not lame, i.e., because your post is not substantive, unless you call bull**** substantive. How do you earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure? Nope. Work. Owning a business. Employing people. Generating tax revenue. PeterB Now, what do you do? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Greegor Cruisin' Again? or Parents storm Chic. HS protesting no security, violence | Kane | General | 0 | February 12th 04 04:36 AM |
Greegor Cruisin' Again? or Parents storm Chic. HS protesting no security, violence | Kane | Solutions | 0 | February 12th 04 04:36 AM |