Experiment shows medical doctors to be glorified drug dealers, easily manipulated by drug companies

http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here’s some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors’ offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

I've been saying this for years, as have many others in the natural
health community, but now this experiment clearly demonstrates it.
Medical doctors claim to be scientifically trained. They claim to be
rational people. They say that everything's a formula, so people are
only given prescriptions that are medically necessary. But when a
patient comes in and mentions the name of a drug, all that rationality
and all that so-called scientific thinking gets thrown out the window.
Over half the time, the doctor's just going to write out a
prescription for the exact drug that the patient named, whether or not
it is medically necessary.

In other words, the whole system of prescription drugs and using
doctors is a giant con. When pharmaceutical companies run these
advertisements directly to consumers, they know these consumers are
going to go to their doctor and name the drug, resulting in a sale of
that drug. And that's why direct-to-consumer advertising -- drug
advertising on television, magazines, and so on -- remains legal. It
was illegal, but the FDA legalized it in 1997 to generate profits for
the drug companies that the FDA seems sworn to protect. Since then,
the drug industry and prescriptions have boomed. Now we have more than
40 percent of the population on prescriptions, nearly all of which are
medically unnecessary.

Prescription drugs by themselves are a giant sham, because none of
them treat the underlying causes of ill health. They only mask the
symptoms of disease, or try to interfere with the body's basic
biochemistry. And the real story on these prescription drugs isn't
being told, because these pharmaceutical companies are funding
billions and billions of dollars each year in media advertising.
They're controlling the budgets of these media companies by running so
many ads. Because of this, the media companies out there don't want to
say anything bad about these prescription drugs. continues on page 2
-
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here's some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors' offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

Actually, you forgot to mention that the people were trained so that they
can play patients with depression. So all of the actors acted as if they had
depression. What the study found is that when the patients asked for a drug
by name, they got it. But they all had symptoms of the illness.

I don't think doctors prescribing drugs because patients known the brand
names is in any way appropriate. But, I do think the report you copies in
incorrect in the way it reports the findings.

Jeff

rest of copyrighted material deleted

This piece of stunning journalism from a man who calls himself the "Health
Ranger" and has a homepage with a picture of himself topless with stats
beneath it boasting his having 10.5% body fat... LOL.... so lame.

So what are the details of this "experiment"? What were the demographics?
What percentage of people diagnosed with depression were truly misdiagnosed
.... as determined by an second expert opinion? How many people were used in
the "experiment"? How many of these had problems with depression before
they went to their doctor? Were these people paid for their time? They
obviously had to request a particular medication by name ... were they
instructed to also give symptoms for depression? What are the sources of
the authors funding?

So on and so forth. There are reasons the scientific community relies on
peer reviewed literature/publications and why garbage like this is entirely
ignored - it lacks anything resembling credibility.

Yet you, Ms. Rose, go around citing the works of a self made body builder to
slander doctors insinuating, as his article states, that doctors are
"glorified drug dealers". I wonder how many rectums a non-glorified drug
dealer has manually disimpacted...


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here's some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors' offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

I've been saying this for years, as have many others in the natural
health community, but now this experiment clearly demonstrates it.
Medical doctors claim to be scientifically trained. They claim to be
rational people. They say that everything's a formula, so people are
only given prescriptions that are medically necessary. But when a
patient comes in and mentions the name of a drug, all that rationality
and all that so-called scientific thinking gets thrown out the window.
Over half the time, the doctor's just going to write out a
prescription for the exact drug that the patient named, whether or not
it is medically necessary.

In other words, the whole system of prescription drugs and using
doctors is a giant con. When pharmaceutical companies run these
advertisements directly to consumers, they know these consumers are
going to go to their doctor and name the drug, resulting in a sale of
that drug. And that's why direct-to-consumer advertising -- drug
advertising on television, magazines, and so on -- remains legal. It
was illegal, but the FDA legalized it in 1997 to generate profits for
the drug companies that the FDA seems sworn to protect. Since then,
the drug industry and prescriptions have boomed. Now we have more than
40 percent of the population on prescriptions, nearly all of which are
medically unnecessary.

Prescription drugs by themselves are a giant sham, because none of
them treat the underlying causes of ill health. They only mask the
symptoms of disease, or try to interfere with the body's basic
biochemistry. And the real story on these prescription drugs isn't
being told, because these pharmaceutical companies are funding
billions and billions of dollars each year in media advertising.
They're controlling the budgets of these media companies by running so
many ads. Because of this, the media companies out there don't want to
say anything bad about these prescription drugs. continues on page 2
-
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here's some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors' offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

Actually, you forgot to mention that the people were trained so that they
can play patients with depression. So all of the actors acted as if they
had depression. What the study found is that when the patients asked for a
drug by name, they got it. But they all had symptoms of the illness.

I don't think doctors prescribing drugs because patients known the brand
names is in any way appropriate. But, I do think the report you copies in
incorrect in the way it reports the findings.

Jeff

As someone who commonly treats erectile dysfunction, for the group of
patients that the viagra-like drugs is effective, I typically prescribe
viagra as my first line of treatment. No particular reason and each company
will give you reasons why their medication should be first line - each with
data to support it. I guess viagra is just more ingrained since it came out
first. Regardless, if an ED patient I was about to prescribe viagra to
requested Cialis or Levitra, I'd happily honor their request. Now if they
wanted an implant, I'd have to decline, but if a patient prefers one
medication to another of similar efficacy, there is simply no harm or foul
play in honoring your patients' preferences.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:IRyHe.231773$nG6.175840@attbi_s22...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here's some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors' offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

Actually, you forgot to mention that the people were trained so that they
can play patients with depression. So all of the actors acted as if they
had depression. What the study found is that when the patients asked for
a drug by name, they got it. But they all had symptoms of the illness.

I don't think doctors prescribing drugs because patients known the brand
names is in any way appropriate. But, I do think the report you copies in
incorrect in the way it reports the findings.

Jeff

As someone who commonly treats erectile dysfunction, for the group of
patients that the viagra-like drugs is effective, I typically prescribe
viagra as my first line of treatment. No particular reason and each
company will give you reasons why their medication should be first line -
each with data to support it. I guess viagra is just more ingrained since
it came out first. Regardless, if an ED patient I was about to prescribe
viagra to requested Cialis or Levitra, I'd happily honor their request.
Now if they wanted an implant, I'd have to decline, but if a patient
prefers one medication to another of similar efficacy, there is simply no
harm or foul play in honoring your patients' preferences.

There is an advantage in using older drugs that have been on the market for
more time. It is more likely that we will have a good handle on the side
effects and effectiveness of the older drugs than the new drugs. Plus, the
newer drugs are usually more expensive.

Plus, you will be more familiar with the side effects and use of drugs that
you prescribe often.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
k.net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:IRyHe.231773$nG6.175840@attbi_s22...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html

Here's some fascinating news in the world of medicine that really
shows the drug racket -- the huge prescription drug scam taking place
in this country today. Researchers sent a group of people, who said
they saw the drug Paxil in a TV advertisement, into doctors' offices.
Many of these patients didn't even show signs of depression, but when
they named the drug, 50 percent were diagnosed as having depression,
and 55 percent were given a prescription for the exact prescription
drug they named.
In fact, it turns out that when people named Paxil, they were more
than five times as likely to be given a prescription for it than
someone who didn't name it. This simple experiment demonstrates how
many doctors are puppets of the pharmaceutical industry; they're
glorified drug dealers.

Actually, you forgot to mention that the people were trained so that
they can play patients with depression. So all of the actors acted as if
they had depression. What the study found is that when the patients
asked for a drug by name, they got it. But they all had symptoms of the
illness.

Actually, IIena didn't forget to mention anything, actually, she didn't
write it, she just posted it.

I don't think doctors prescribing drugs because patients known the brand
names is in any way appropriate. But, I do think the report you copies
in incorrect in the way it reports the findings.

Jeff

Big surprise.



As someone who commonly treats erectile dysfunction, for the group of
patients that the viagra-like drugs is effective, I typically prescribe
viagra as my first line of treatment. No particular reason and each
company will give you reasons why their medication should be first line -
each with data to support it. I guess viagra is just more ingrained
since it came out first. Regardless, if an ED patient I was about to
prescribe viagra to requested Cialis or Levitra, I'd happily honor their
request. Now if they wanted an implant, I'd have to decline, but if a
patient prefers one medication to another of similar efficacy, there is
simply no harm or foul play in honoring your patients' preferences.

There is an advantage in using older drugs that have been on the market
for more time. It is more likely that we will have a good handle on the
side effects and effectiveness of the older drugs than the new drugs.
Plus, the newer drugs are usually more expensive.

Plus, you will be more familiar with the side effects and use of drugs
that you prescribe often.

Jeff

Now back to the subject:

I've been saying this for years, as have many others in the natural health
community, but now this experiment clearly demonstrates it. Medical doctors
claim to be scientifically trained. They claim to be rational people. They
say that everything's a formula, so people are only given prescriptions that
are medically necessary. But when a patient comes in and mentions the name
of a drug, all that rationality and all that so-called scientific thinking
gets thrown out the window. Over half the time, the doctor's just going to
write out a prescription for the exact drug that the patient named, whether
or not it is medically necessary.

In other words, the whole system of prescription drugs and using doctors is
a giant con. When pharmaceutical companies run these advertisements directly
to consumers, they know these consumers are going to go to their doctor and
name the drug, resulting in a sale of that drug. And that's why
direct-to-consumer advertising -- drug advertising on television, magazines,
and so on -- remains legal. It was illegal, but the FDA legalized it in 1997
to generate profits for the drug companies that the FDA seems sworn to
protect. Since then, the drug industry and prescriptions have boomed. Now we
have more than 40 percent of the population on prescriptions, nearly all of
which are medically unnecessary.

Prescription drugs by themselves are a giant sham, because none of them
treat the underlying causes of ill health. They only mask the symptoms of
disease, or try to interfere with the body's basic biochemistry. And the
real story on these prescription drugs isn't being told, because these
pharmaceutical companies are funding billions and billions of dollars each
year in media advertising. They're controlling the budgets of these media
companies by running so many ads. Because of this, the media companies out
there don't want to say anything bad about these prescription drugs

And so the message out there continues to be, "Take more drugs! Look, here's
a miracle drug for cancer; here's a miracle drug for erectile dysfunction;
here's a miracle drug for sinus congestion, high cholesterol, or high blood
pressure..." They just name one thing after another. They run the ads, the
patients hear the drug name, they run into their doctors' offices to request
the drug, and they get a prescription. What a con!

And it's a brilliant con, because it involves so many different parties. The
FDA makes sure these ads remain legal, and that the drug companies generate
all sorts of profits. The FDA even makes sure dangerous drugs stay on the
market even when they're killing people. And there are doctors who are
trained at medical schools infiltrated by the drug companies. When doctors
train for four years, they basically study some anatomy and physiology and
then, of course, drugs, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. They learn how
to diagnose diseases and think of them all as being chemical disorders that
can be treated through pharmacology and prescription drugs. The drug
companies practically run many of these medical schools.


Glorified drug dealers
And now, experiments like this one reveal most general practitioner doctors
as the glorified drug dealers that they are. They just write prescriptions
for anyone who walks through the door. And that's really sad, because I know
that's not the intention of many of these doctors, but the difficult and
fascinating thing is that even doctors don't realize when they're being
influenced. Patients certainly don't realize it. Consumers are heavily
influenced by TV advertising, yet if you survey 1,000 consumers and ask them
if they're being influenced, over 900 will say, "No, we're not being
influenced at all". They'll say, "I make my own rational decisions about
what to buy or what not to buy, based on my own information. I don't pay
attention to ads." And yet, study after study shows that ads actually work.
Patients buy the products advertised and request prescriptions for
advertised pharmaceuticals in their doctors' offices. Stated flatly,
patients aren't aware that they're being influenced and neither are doctors.

Drug companies exploit this seduction, this form of influence, to create
demand for products in the minds of consumers, and then to make sure these
consumers go to their doctors' offices and request those products, thus
generating sales.


How the drug machine really operates
And of course the pharmacists are all involved in this; they're just filling
out the orders. They're like the little machine grinders in this whole
system, this whole con of organized medicine. Somebody's actually got to
fill the bottles and dispense the pills, and that's what the pharmacists do.
And somebody's got to write their prescriptions, that's what the doctors do.
Somebody's got to act like they're providing an education on health, and
that's what the medical schools do. Somebody's got to provide the so-called
scientific evidence that provides some sort of justification for all of
this, and that's what the medical journals do, and of course, they're
largely funded by the drug companies. Finally, someone has to give all this
the stamp of government approval, and that's what the FDA does

So this whole sham, this whole drug racket, has many different players, most
of whom are highly-paid professionals and smart people. Wouldn't it be great
if they actually did something productive for society, rather than writing
dangerous, highly toxic prescriptions out to people... rather than impairing
the long-term health of our population to generate billions of dollars in
profits for the pharmaceutical companies? Wouldn't it be great if all these
smart people did something useful? Instead, they're just part of the drug
racket, part of the system of organized medicine that masquerades as
"scientific medicine."


Where's the science in scientific medicine?
I find the circular logic involved in all this fascinating, because we've
again shown how the prescribing behavior of doctors is not rational. When a
patient names a drug, all that training, rationality, and scientific thought
just gets thrown out the window in favor of circular logic. For example, the
organized medical community claims that all drugs approved by the FDA are
scientifically sound. It's science-based medicine, because articles about
those drugs have been published in the journals. And who edits those
journals? Who are the gatekeepers who decide which articles get published
and which ones don't? They are the doctors who are often on the payroll of
drug companies. The drug companies fund the advertisements for the journals.
And many of the FDA bureaucrats benefit financially, as they own stock
options in these pharmaceutical companies.

Of course, the medical schools also rake in all sorts of money from doctors.
So, what passes as organized or scientific medicine is actually whatever
they say it is. It has no real scientific basis. Most of these studies are
distorted anyway. You've seen how the drug companies will run twelve
different studies on their drug, six of which will come up with positive
results and six with negative. They bury the six that are bad and just show
the six that are good. Those are the studies they forward to the FDA and
say, "Look! Our drug is proven!" And the FDA will say, "It sure is! Let's
rubber stamp this drug for approval!"

And then the drug companies say, "Let's start bribing doctors and giving
them free trips, vacations, and lunches and let's send them checks for
$10,000 as a 'consulting fee.'" "Let's get those doctors to prescribe all of
these drugs." And that's how the system works. It's all circular reasoning.
There is no real science happening. The whole thing is a giant charade.

To top it off, the real healing efforts in alternative medicine are
routinely discredited by organized medicine. These healers are using herbal
medicine with over 2,500 years of proven clinical use and millions of hours
of clinical experience. I'm talking about traditional Chinese medicine,
Western herbs, Ayurvedic medicine, acupuncture, massage therapy, homeopathy
and other modalities in the alternative medicine realm. Organized medicine
says "Those aren't proven -- only our stuff is proven. Your stuff is not
proven." But of course, all their stuff is the circular reasoning I was
talking about. They dismiss everything outside of the corrupt system that
generates profits for them.

Organized medicine is a lot like a cult
You see, scientific medicine is whatever the high priests of organized
medicine deem it to be. This is why I've often described organized medicine
as a cult; it is not science. True scientists ask nature what's going on.
They try to find out how the universe really works. A true scientist is a
humble person, a humble student, and a curious servant of nature. A true
scientist runs experiments, or asks questions and tries to get nature to
provide some answers.

But modern doctors, medical researchers, drug company executives, and FDA
bureaucrats think they've conquered nature. They have egos so big it's
amazing they can walk through doors. They think they are better than nature.
They think they can overtake the nature of your body, overriding the
chemistry. They think they can run your immune system, or that they can
declare war on your body, attacking it with chemotherapy, radiation and
other highly toxic therapies. They think they're smarter than nature.

They think they can take a plant out of nature, synthesize a molecule, and
make it better. And then they can patent it and own the intellectual
property, suing anybody else who tries to create the same molecule, even
though nature has been creating the natural version of that molecule for
eons. This is what the people in organized medicine think. They think
they're the smartest people in the universe -- smarter than Mother Nature,
smarter than God. And in fact, they're going to play God with your body
using weird, freaky gene therapy experiments. They're putting human genes
into plants now, trying to clone everything under the sun. They think they
are God.


Real scientists are humble
Now a real scientist, as I said, is a humble servant of nature. A true
scientist is curious and wants to find out how things work, and a true
scientist, by the way, does not have a predefined set of filters in place
that automatically reject new ideas. When Burzynski developed the
antineoplastons for cancer therapies, a new therapy for actually curing
cancer, organized medicine, if it had been scientific, should have welcomed
his work with open arms. They should have said, "Thank God! Someone has come
along with a cure for cancer. Thank God someone has some new theories." But
no; they vilified him.

They turned him into a criminal. The FDA pursued him, sued him, oppressed
him, and ostracized him from medicine. They've tried to suppress his work.
Why? He had real solutions. If they have a cure for cancer, what would that
mean for all the anti-cancer drugs out there? Think how many people would
lose their jobs if there were a cure for cancer.

Some people would say that our national economy depends on cancer, and it
depends on having all these chronic diseases. Gotta have diabetes;
otherwise, what's going to happen to all these people employed in the
medical community? What about all these nurses, pharmacists, doctors,
researchers, people in the nonprofits, publishers, and drug company
executives? What will they do for jobs if all these diseases are cured?

Some people would say it would be a national security issue, because if you
cure these diseases, then suddenly the economy changes. Suddenly you've got
a lot of people out of work. And so, I believe the organized medical system
doesn't want cures for these diseases. In fact, they have gone out of their
way to vilify these cures, to filter them out or to discredit them. They
don't want cures for these diseases; they want drugs to manage them. They
want a patient who has to buy a pill today, tomorrow, and every day, for the
rest of his life, because that generates profits. They don't want something
to cure that patient, sending him away healthy and happy and never in need
of more drugs, surgeries, or imaging tests. Just like crack dealers, they
want somebody who's addicted to their drugs. They want somebody who's going
to smoke that crack every day for the rest of their lives.

Pharmaceutical companies are the same way. They want somebody who's stuck on
their drugs, who depends on them. That's why you often read about "disease
management" in organized medicine's literature. "Disease management" is even
used in reference to chronic stress, which is a big killer. It depletes
antioxidants, raises blood pressure, is bad for your cardiovascular health,
and even promotes cancer. But when those in organized medicine talk about
stress, they often use the term "stress management." Let's manage your
stress, so that you can have a little bit of stress each and every day. And
you still depend on us to manage it.

I prefer to teach people how to ELIMINATE stress, to be stress free. Same
thing with diseases. Doctors say there's no cure for diabetes. I say
hogwash! There are many cures for diabetes. Adult-onset type 2 diabetes is
one of the easiest diseases to reverse, and I mean completely reverse,
through diet, nutrition, and lifestyle changes. You don't need a single drug
to treat that disease. Cancer is much the same way. It is one of the easiest
diseases to reverse, as long as it hasn't got so advanced that the patient's
own immune system is completely shot. Your body has already reversed cancer
1,000 times or more in your lifetime; your immune system gets rid of cancer
cells all the time. If you're diagnosed with cancer, it's because your
immune system failed. If that happens, curing your cancer really just
involves reminding your immune system how to do its job and giving it the
nutritional tools that it needs to heal itself.


Why doctors hate the internet
So the overall theme to all of this is of course that organized medicine is
a giant scam. The defenders of that system are really frustrated today,
because experiments like this reveal that doctors just prescribe whatever
patients name. Patients will get prescriptions for whatever drugs they
mention. Doctors hate the internet, too, by the way. They think that
patients who get information online are dangerous, because people shouldn't
educate themselves. Doctors think all online health information should be
censored, approved by the FDA. They think that you shouldn't be able to talk
about health, disease treatment, or drugs online. It's dangerous for people
to have too much information, don't you know. A little bit of book burning
would go right along with that.

But the whole system is a sham, and, by the way, it is failing. It is on its
way out. Organized medicine will soon be history, because patients are
realizing that it doesn't work. They are figuring out that taking a lot of
prescription drugs multiplies their risk of death, and they are also
realizing that prescription drugs don't really help them in any significant
way. Yes, they might mask symptoms on a temporary basis, but they don't make
anyone fundamentally healthier over the long term. In fact, people are
discovering that they feel terrible when they take these drugs. They feel
more fatigued; they start having brain fog; their muscles hurt; then they
have side effects to treat with more prescription drugs. It's just a
cascading set of symptoms and drugs, which is good for profits in the
pharmaceutical industry, but doesn't help people.


The FDA and crimes against humanity
People are also realizing that the FDA is highly corrupt. The FDA actually
sat down, looked at Vioxx and the Cox-2 class of drugs, all of these
arthritis painkillers, and said, "We realize they've killed about 60,000
people in this country alone, but they're still safe." Imagine that! The FDA
essentially sat down and said, "You know what? Not enough people are dead
yet to pull this drug off the market." And they actually said, "Let's give
the drug makers the okay to put these Cox-2 inhibitors back on the market."
Meanwhile, people are dying of heart attacks and strokes in huge numbers,
but the FDA says, "No, not enough. Not enough people dead yet."

I guess the body count has to really get huge before the FDA says
something's dangerous. I don't know; 60,000 people sounds like a lot of
people dead to me, especially since the Bush administration started a second
war in Iraq over the deaths of far fewer people than that. Where's the war
on Big Pharma and the FDA who are collectively killing 100,000+ Americans
each year?

I often compare this atrocity to the Vietnam War. We lost about 50,000
Americans in it. This means that one class of prescription drugs all by
itself has killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War. And yet, the
FDA says, "Oh, it's safe. It's safe!" Well, apparently it's more dangerous
than being shot at on the battlefield. But that's safe enough for the FDA.


How many Americans have to die?
I often wonder what the threshold is here. Do we have to have a chemical
holocaust in this country before the FDA wants to do something to protect
people? I mean, how many people have to die before we ban drug advertising
on television. How many people? The body count keeps adding up each and
every day, but the machine keeps on running, and all of organized medicine's
defenders keep on defending it. They say, "Oh yeah. Come on in. Get your
drugs. We'll write them out for you. Go to your pharmacist, and get them
prescribed for you. Keep taking them every day. What, do you have a pain?
Here's another drug. Do you feel down? Oh! We've got a drug for that too.
That's right. Oh, you feel nervous in front of people? Have trouble speaking
in public? We have a drug for that, and bring in your kids too! We have
drugs for them. They have trouble learning or concentrating? Are they too
playful? We can 'tone down' that creativity and learning ability. We can
keep them under control. Oh, yeah! Bring your husband in too; we have stuff
for him. Stuff for his prostate, and give him a little bit of Viagra. We
have prescriptions for everything!"

Smart people are ditching conventional medicine
Who uses prescription drugs today? I'll tell you who. People who don't know
any better. In contrast, people who are informed about health --
intelligent, well-educated, smart people -- are turning to natural medicine,
natural health. They're focusing on their foods and on avoiding the toxins
in the food supply. They're avoiding dangerous personal care products,
artificial fragrances, deodorants containing aluminum, and shampoos with
unnatural ingredients.

They are engaging in physical exercise, body movement, cardiovascular
training, strength training, tai chi, Pilates, martial arts, and swimming -
you name it. And they're exercising their brains by turning off the
television and engaging in creative activities. Even game playing with
friends is good for your brain. Crossword puzzles are a great exercise.
These are the things that well-educated people are doing.

This is what the healthy people in our society have figured out works. It's
all about the foods; it's all about the exercise. It's getting natural
sunlight on your skin, drinking fresh water, and avoiding all those consumer
products the corporations want you to buy. They want you to buy the soft
drinks, the snack chips, the homogenized milk products, all those sweets and
candies, drugs, cosmetics, personal care products, perfumes and colognes,
air fresheners, carpet cleaners, and dryer sheets. Boy, they want you to buy
that stuff! But none of that stuff makes you healthy; in fact, most of it
gives you disease.


Only uneducated people will rely on prescription drugs
Soon, organized medicine will be relegated only to those extremely
uneducated people in society. It's going to be the low-income, low-education
people who turn to organized medicine. This is the same crowd, by the way,
that smokes a lot of cigarettes and buys a lot of brand name foods. People
with low wages tend to have a lot of chronic diseases, and are the ones who
are stuck in the system of organized medicine. Unfortunately, and I often
mention this, these are the people that we need to help the most. It's
difficult to do that, as it's hard to educate people who often aren't really
open to new ideas. They just want to know if they're covered by health
insurance, and that's it. They don't really want to learn about what to eat
and what not to eat.


The dark history of modern medicine
But the future of medicine is in disease prevention, healing modalities, and
energetic medicine -- phototherapy, electromedicine, vibrational nutrition,
homeopathy, and so on. The future of medicine is in true healing. And I
believe that in the future, people will look back at the time period we're
in right now and be amazed. They'll say, "How could these people have just
poisoned the entire population with chemicals, and even advertised them on
TV!? How could people even call themselves doctors when all they did was
write prescription drugs for people? They're just drug dealers. How dare
they even call themselves doctors? And how could the medical schools not
even teach nutrition? How could it be?!" Foods and nutrition (see related
ebook on nutrition) are the foundation of health, yet doctors are being
given virtually no education whatsoever in this area.

I tell you, future historians will look back at this time and they will
think we were absolutely nuts. They will think we were crazy. They will
think we were off our rockers to poison the entire population through our
food supply, and then try to mask the symptoms of that through more poison
called "prescription drugs." The whole system is absurd.

So I say the game is up. The whole system is a fraud. We now know it, thanks
to the internet, to some really creative studies coming out, to the
statistics, and to people like Dr. David Graham -- the FDA's chief drug
safety scientist who has been willing to stand up and tell the truth about
these dangerous Cox-2 inhibitors. Thanks to people like that, we now know
the truth. We know the FDA is corrupt. We know the drug companies are out to
exploit every American citizen just to make a profit, no matter how many
people are killed. We know that doctors are just glorified drug dealers, and
we know that medical schools are nothing but pre-training for glorified drug
dealing. It's all a sad joke!


Why would you want to be an old-school anyway?
People like Dr. Andrew Weil are trying to make changes out there. He's more
effective in the medical community than a guy like me, as I just tend to
anger all the doctors. But he actually works with them, because he's an MD;
he can help doctors transition from old school medicine to new school
medicine. I really admire his work. He's doing a fantastic job, and he can
speak the language of general practitioners. He knows how to talk to MDs in
their language. I don't, and I don't try to. I think MDs are irrelevant
because naturopathic physicians are the future. I think MDs should go out
and change their careers. Go to Bastyr University and get a real education
in health. MDs, you're on the way out.

We need a nation where the smartest people -- the professionals, the
pharmacists, the doctors, the researchers, and so on -- actually engage in
things that help people, not things that hurt people. I mean, it should be
common sense, right? Shouldn't our smartest people be thinking about ways to
actually help people be healthier instead of just keeping them diseased and
on drugs for the rest of their lives? I think so.


Join the natural health community
If you're reading this, chances are that you already know most of this.
You're already taking care of your health in a way that far exceeds what
most people are doing. You have probably already experienced some of the
benefits of natural health, or maybe you've experienced some of the negative
side effects of prescription drugs and are ready to make a change now. Well,
I say, "Welcome to the light side of the force!" Things are good over here.
We are healthier. We're happier. We have good, solid self-esteem without
huge egos. We feel comfortable about who we are, and we can help heal others
around us by sharing information about what really works. We know when to
say no to the drug companies, the doctors, or the pharmaceutical companies.
We know how to be skeptical consumers

So I encourage you to keep investigating, and keep investing in yourself.
Keep learning more about health, nutrition, and wellness. And don't follow
your doctor's advice if he or she says all of this is useless and discourage
you from learning on your own. Fire that doctor and find yourself a new one.
Work with a doctor who encourages you to educate yourself. Work with a
doctor who takes the time to sit down and talk to you about lifestyle
changes that can make a difference. Work with a doctor who can help you get
off of prescription drugs to return to normal, healthy body function. And
there are many doctors out there like that.

Again, I don't mean to paint every doctor into the same corner; just because
they have the initials MD after their names, it doesn't mean they're
complete idiots when it comes to health. Many doctors actually do understand
health, and in fact, most of the people I admire out there, those who are
the real pioneers in natural health, started out as MDs. Some of the best
authors are MDs.

So examine doctors with caution. Make sure they know something beyond
medical school because medical school's a joke. It's what they learned
outside of medical school that really matters. And it's also how they're
willing to work with you. Are they willing to communicate? Do they listen to
you? Did they ask you good questions? Do they really have compassion for
you, and do they really seem to have an interest in your health outcome,
rather than just getting you out of the office so they can see the next
patient? You have a choice, and I encourage you to exercise that choice.

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:xYzHe.210343$x96.1331@attbi_s72...
(...)

Now back to the subject:

I've been saying this for years, as have many others in the natural health
community, but now this experiment clearly demonstrates it. Medical
doctors claim to be scientifically trained. They claim to be rational
people. They say that everything's a formula, so people are only given
prescriptions that are medically necessary. But when a patient comes in
and mentions the name of a drug, all that rationality and all that
so-called scientific thinking gets thrown out the window. Over half the
time, the doctor's just going to write out a prescription for the exact
drug that the patient named, whether or not it is medically necessary.

Wrong. The article didn't mention it, but these people were actors who were
trained to act as if they have symptoms of depression. They didn't come in
with say an ucler or colon cancer and suggest that they get Paxil. I am not
suggesting that the behavior of the doctors was approrpiate, but they were
prescribing an appropriate medication for the condition that the patients
had.

In other words, the whole system of prescription drugs and using doctors
is a giant con.

No, it isn't. In fact, one could argue that the patients/actors were conning
the doctors.

When pharmaceutical companies run these advertisements directly to
consumers, they know these consumers are going to go to their doctor and
name the drug, resulting in a sale of that drug. And that's why
direct-to-consumer advertising -- drug advertising on television,
magazines, and so on -- remains legal. It was illegal, but the FDA
legalized it in 1997 to generate profits for the drug companies that the
FDA seems sworn to protect. Since then, the drug industry and
prescriptions have boomed. Now we have more than 40 percent of the
population on prescriptions, nearly all of which are medically
unnecessary.

Please provide that that show that "nearly all of the prescriptions are
medically unnecessary."

I totally agree that for the majority of drugs, direct to consumer
advertising (DCA) should not be allowed for prescription drugs. Personally,
I think I would allow DCA only for limited drugs, like toenail infections,
erectile dysfunction and hair regrowth (Rogaine). For most drugs, I would
not allow DCA.

Prescription drugs by themselves are a giant sham, because none of them
treat the underlying causes of ill health.

Really. Ever hear of antibiotics? Or are you suggesting that infections are
not caused by antibiotics?

They only mask the symptoms of disease, or try to interfere with the
body's basic biochemistry.

Doh! The body's basic biochemestry is what underlies many diseases.

And the real story on these prescription drugs isn't being told, because
these pharmaceutical companies are funding billions and billions of
dollars each year in media advertising. They're controlling the budgets of
these media companies by running so many ads. Because of this, the media
companies out there don't want to say anything bad about these
prescription drugs

The real story is that the drugs do work and help many people each year.
Clearly, there are some conflicts of interest that should be dealth with.

And so the message out there continues to be, "Take more drugs! Look,
here's a miracle drug for cancer; here's a miracle drug for erectile
dysfunction; here's a miracle drug for sinus congestion, high cholesterol,
or high blood pressure..."

Actually, the message seems to me to be: "Eat healthy, get excercise, take
care of yourself."

Certainly, there are drugs that help with the problems you mention, but I
don't remember any of them advertised as miracle drugs.

They just name one thing after another. They run the ads, the patients
hear the drug name, they run into their doctors' offices to request the
drug, and they get a prescription. What a con!

Except that the drugs have been shown to work. Again, I don't think that the
way they are advertised is appropriate, however.

And it's a brilliant con, because it involves so many different parties.
The FDA makes sure these ads remain legal, and that the drug companies
generate all sorts of profits. The FDA even makes sure dangerous drugs
stay on the market even when they're killing people. And there are doctors
who are trained at medical schools infiltrated by the drug companies. When
doctors train for four years, they basically study some anatomy and
physiology and then, of course, drugs, surgery, radiation, and
chemotherapy.

Gee, let see: Doctors prescribe drugs, and save lives with radiation,
chemotherapy and surgery. I hope doctors get lots of training in these
areas.

They learn how to diagnose diseases and think of them all as being
chemical disorders that can be treated through pharmacology and
prescription drugs.

Whether you know or not, biochemstry underlies everything we do.
Biochemistry underlies how our muscles, cells, hearts, brains, sperm (well
at least in about 1/2 of us), kidneys, etc., work. And the pharmacology is
not the only way doctors treat illness. They try to get to get patients to
eat less, eat healthier and get excercise, too.

The drug companies practically run many of these medical schools.

What a lie. While I don't disagree that there are some conflicts of interest
between drug companies and medical school, drug companies don't run or even
come close at any US medical school.


Glorified drug dealers
And now, experiments like this one reveal most general practitioner
doctors as the glorified drug dealers that they are. They just write
prescriptions for anyone who walks through the door.

Only if the patients have the appropraite signs and symptoms of the illness.

And that's really sad, because I know that's not the intention of many of
these doctors, but the difficult and fascinating thing is that even
doctors don't realize when they're being influenced.

While I agree that doctors don't understand how much they are being
influenced, the vast majority of prescriptions are appropriate, IMHO.

Patients certainly don't realize it. Consumers are heavily influenced by
TV advertising, yet if you survey 1,000 consumers and ask them if they're
being influenced, over 900 will say, "No, we're not being influenced at
all". They'll say, "I make my own rational decisions about what to buy or
what not to buy, based on my own information. I don't pay attention to
ads." And yet, study after study shows that ads actually work. Patients
buy the products advertised and request prescriptions for advertised
pharmaceuticals in their doctors' offices. Stated flatly, patients aren't
aware that they're being influenced and neither are doctors.

This is true for everything from laundry detergent, toilet paper, soup to
cars, trucks and TVs. And this is true for con-med (conjecture-based
medicine, aka alternative medicine).

Drug companies exploit this seduction, this form of influence, to create
demand for products in the minds of consumers, and then to make sure these
consumers go to their doctors' offices and request those products, thus
generating sales.

Why we allow this this to happen in the first place is beyond me. Yet,
doctors rarely give prescriptions for illnesses that they don't the patients
have.

How the drug machine really operates
And of course the pharmacists are all involved in this; they're just
filling out the orders. They're like the little machine grinders in this
whole system, this whole con of organized medicine. Somebody's actually
got to fill the bottles and dispense the pills, and that's what the
pharmacists do. And somebody's got to write their prescriptions, that's
what the doctors do. Somebody's got to act like they're providing an
education on health, and that's what the medical schools do.

Not to mention educations on anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, cell
biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, pediatrics, ob/gyn, immunizations,
internal medicine, surgery, etc.

Somebody's got to provide the so-called scientific evidence that provides
some sort of justification for all of this, and that's what the medical
journals do, and of course, they're largely funded by the drug companies.
Finally, someone has to give all this the stamp of government approval,
and that's what the FDA does

Yet, the medical schools have to meet strict standards and medical doctors
have to pass difficult test (from the National Board of Medical Examiners -
3 tests that last 2 days).

So this whole sham, this whole drug racket, has many different players,
most of whom are highly-paid professionals and smart people. Wouldn't it
be great if they actually did something productive for society, rather
than writing dangerous, highly toxic prescriptions out to people...

You mean like saving the lives of about 1/2 the people who get cancer, and
aroudn 70-75 % of the kids who get cancer? Providing outstanding care to
burn and truama patients? Allow kids and adults with broken bones to get
healed? Improving the lives of patients with strokes and heart attacks?
Enabling patients with diabetes to live longer and healthier? Prevent
millions of infections each year with immunizations and thousands of deaths?

rather than impairing the long-term health of our population to generate
billions of dollars in profits for the pharmaceutical companies?

I have already listed how doctors benefit patients. Of course, this also
benefits pharmaceutical companies: Dead patients don't use drugs.

Wouldn't it be great if all these smart people did something useful?

They save lives. I hope this is useful.

Instead, they're just part of the drug racket, part of the system of
organized medicine that masquerades as "scientific medicine."

I don't know what you mean by organized medicine, but the treatments are
based on good science. I do agree that drug companies have way too much
influence. However, the basics of medicine are sound.

Where's the science in scientific medicine?

Try reading the journals.

I find the circular logic involved in all this fascinating, because we've
again shown how the prescribing behavior of doctors is not rational.

I would say that the prescribing behavior of doctors is not perfect and
overly influenced by drug companies.

When a patient names a drug, all that training, rationality, and
scientific thought just gets thrown out the window in favor of circular
logic. For example, the organized medical community claims that all drugs
approved by the FDA are scientifically sound. It's science-based medicine,
because articles about those drugs have been published in the journals.
And who edits those journals? Who are the gatekeepers who decide which
articles get published and which ones don't? They are the doctors who are
often on the payroll of drug companies.

Not always. In fact, reviewers are usually required to list any potential
conflicts of interest.

Your theory doesn't hold up.

The drug companies fund the advertisements for the journals.
And many of the FDA bureaucrats benefit financially, as they own stock
options in these pharmaceutical companies.

Really? Please back your claims.

Of course, the medical schools also rake in all sorts of money from
doctors. So, what passes as organized or scientific medicine is actually
whatever they say it is.

Not really. The basis of medicine has been established by science for a long
time. Money doesn't change that. No one is going to say the heart doesn't
pump blood without good evidence.

It has no real scientific basis. Most of these studies are distorted
anyway. You've seen how the drug companies will run twelve different
studies on their drug, six of which will come up with positive results and
six with negative. They bury the six that are bad and just show the six
that are good. Those are the studies they forward to the FDA and say,
"Look! Our drug is proven!" And the FDA will say, "It sure is! Let's
rubber stamp this drug for approval!"

The FDA doesn't rubber stamp drugs. They review the evidence quite
carefully. Unfortunately, they don't always get all the data.

And then the drug companies say, "Let's start bribing doctors and giving
them free trips, vacations, and lunches and let's send them checks for
$10,000 as a 'consulting fee.'" "Let's get those doctors to prescribe all
of these drugs." And that's how the system works. It's all circular
reasoning. There is no real science happening. The whole thing is a giant
charade.

There are limits on what drug companies can give to doctors (not strict
enough).

To top it off, the real healing efforts in alternative medicine are
routinely discredited by organized medicine.

Because con-med (conjecture-bases medicine aka alternative medicine) rarely
has any basis in science.

These healers are using herbal medicine with over 2,500 years of proven
clinical use and millions of hours of clinical experience.

And how about the peer-reviewed evidence that it works. Clinical use is not
proof that something works. They used blood letting for centuries, but it
doesn't work.

I'm talking about traditional Chinese medicine, Western herbs, Ayurvedic
medicine, acupuncture, massage therapy, homeopathy and other modalities in
the alternative medicine realm. Organized medicine says "Those aren't
proven -- only our stuff is proven. Your stuff is not proven." But of
course, all their stuff is the circular reasoning I was talking about.

OK, provide the proof that con-med works.

They dismiss everything outside of the corrupt system that generates
profits for them.

No, they dismiss everything without scientific evidence.

rest off drivel deleted

Jeff

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:xYzHe.210343$x96.1331@attbi_s72...

Long raving rant with no basis in reality snipped.

Mr. LadyLollipop - you seem to have an extremely warped view on the medical
field.

You wrote, "Over half the time, the doctor's just going to
write out a prescription for the exact drug that the patient named, whether
or not it is medically necessary."

The article that started this debate did not show that. What it showed was
that when patients complained of a set symptoms consistent with depression,
were subsequently diagnosed with depression, and offered treatment, that 55%
of these people who requested paxil got it. There are many ways to treat
depression. If approaching it pharmacologically, Paxil is a wonderful first
line choice. Safe and effective with a well known side effect profile.

Nothing was said about giving medications whether or not they were medically
necessary. Now, one could argue - and I would in the appropriate forum -
that throwing a medication at a patient should not be the first option for
treatment of depression. Behavioral therapy or simple counseling is a
non-pharmacologica means that is also quite effective. However, in the
current example, we have patients requesting a medication. Whether we in
the medical field like it or not, the power of suggestion is amazingly
powerful. Placebo rates go from an oft quoted 33% up to about 70% or so in
some studies. With that in mind, prescribing Paxil to a depressed patient
who comes to your office who agrees he or she is depressed (which they do by
definition if they're requesting an anti-depressant) gives you not only the
well established pharmacologic benefit of Paxil but what is likely to be a
more powerful placebo effect because they already believe Paxil will help
them.

Now such an approach is probably far more thought than you would normally
spend on any one aspect of this debate. This was readily apparent as you
fired off a long post with soundbites on a host of topics but not bothering
to scratch the surface on any particular one. Your post was as meaningless
as presidential advertisements at election time. All stun factor no
substance. You throw out completely arbitrary numbers, "if you survey a
1000 consumers and ask them if they're being influenced, over 900 will say
no".... This is called fiction. It *could* be 900 ... but it could be 200
or 50 or 500. You simply have no idea.

But of course you don't. You didn't even understand the lame "experiment"
with this Paxil thing that got you started on this rant in the first place.

By glossing over these topics in such a superficial manner, you demean the
importance of the underlying issues - such as what role should big pharma be
allowed to have or not have in direct consumer advertising or other such
marketing campaigns.

When a "pro-lifer" shoot and kills someone to "make a point", he belittles
everything he and his group stood for. Congratulations for doing the
equivalent against physicians. You make retorts very easy and your
radicalism polarizes people away from your extremist views.

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:xYzHe.210343$x96.1331@attbi_s72...
(...)

Now back to the subject:

I've been saying this for years, as have many others in the natural
health community, but now this experiment clearly demonstrates it.
Medical doctors claim to be scientifically trained. They claim to be
rational people. They say that everything's a formula, so people are only
given prescriptions that are medically necessary. But when a patient
comes in and mentions the name of a drug, all that rationality and all
that so-called scientific thinking gets thrown out the window. Over half
the time, the doctor's just going to write out a prescription for the
exact drug that the patient named, whether or not it is medically
necessary.

Wrong. The article didn't mention it,

Not wrong, the articel DID mention that.

http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html


but these people were actors who were trained to act as if they have
symptoms of depression.
They didn't come in
with say an ucler or colon cancer and suggest that they get Paxil. I am
not suggesting that the behavior of the doctors was approrpiate, but they
were prescribing an appropriate medication for the condition that the
patients had.

In other words, the whole system of prescription drugs and using doctors
is a giant con.

No, it isn't. In fact, one could argue that the patients/actors were
conning the doctors.

When pharmaceutical companies run these advertisements directly to
consumers, they know these consumers are going to go to their doctor and
name the drug, resulting in a sale of that drug. And that's why
direct-to-consumer advertising -- drug advertising on television,
magazines, and so on -- remains legal. It was illegal, but the FDA
legalized it in 1997 to generate profits for the drug companies that the
FDA seems sworn to protect. Since then, the drug industry and
prescriptions have boomed. Now we have more than 40 percent of the
population on prescriptions, nearly all of which are medically
unnecessary.

Please provide that that show that "nearly all of the prescriptions are
medically unnecessary."

I totally agree that for the majority of drugs, direct to consumer
advertising (DCA) should not be allowed for prescription drugs.
Personally, I think I would allow DCA only for limited drugs, like toenail
infections, erectile dysfunction and hair regrowth (Rogaine). For most
drugs, I would not allow DCA.

Prescription drugs by themselves are a giant sham, because none of them
treat the underlying causes of ill health.

Really. Ever hear of antibiotics? Or are you suggesting that infections
are not caused by antibiotics?

They only mask the symptoms of disease, or try to interfere with the
body's basic biochemistry.

Doh! The body's basic biochemestry is what underlies many diseases.

And the real story on these prescription drugs isn't being told, because
these pharmaceutical companies are funding billions and billions of
dollars each year in media advertising. They're controlling the budgets
of these media companies by running so many ads. Because of this, the
media companies out there don't want to say anything bad about these
prescription drugs

The real story is that the drugs do work and help many people each year.
Clearly, there are some conflicts of interest that should be dealth with.

The real sorty is:

And the real story on these prescription drugs isn't being told, because
these pharmaceutical companies are funding billions and billions of
dollars each year in media advertising. They're controlling the budgets
of these media companies by running so many ads. Because of this, the
media companies out there don't want to say anything bad about these
prescription drugs

That is a FACT!



And so the message out there continues to be, "Take more drugs! Look,
here's a miracle drug for cancer; here's a miracle drug for erectile
dysfunction; here's a miracle drug for sinus congestion, high
cholesterol, or high blood pressure..."

Actually, the message seems to me to be: "Eat healthy, get excercise, take
care of yourself."

LOL!!

Call a doc's office, the first message you get is, if you need a refill,
press 1. It is NOT "Eat healthy, get excercise, take
care of yourself."


Certainly, there are drugs that help with the problems you mention, but I
don't remember any of them advertised as miracle drugs.

They just name one thing after another. They run the ads, the patients
hear the drug name, they run into their doctors' offices to request the
drug, and they get a prescription. What a con!

Except that the drugs have been shown to work. Again, I don't think that
the way they are advertised is appropriate, however.

And it's a brilliant con, because it involves so many different parties.
The FDA makes sure these ads remain legal, and that the drug companies
generate all sorts of profits. The FDA even makes sure dangerous drugs
stay on the market even when they're killing people. And there are
doctors who are trained at medical schools infiltrated by the drug
companies. When doctors train for four years, they basically study some
anatomy and physiology and then, of course, drugs, surgery, radiation,
and chemotherapy.

Gee, let see: Doctors prescribe drugs, and save lives with radiation,
chemotherapy and surgery. I hope doctors get lots of training in these
areas.

Gee, let's see, I have a friend with cancer. Her cancer has not retuned, but
guess what? The chemo has destroyed her health to the point she is on a
feeding tube.



They learn how to diagnose diseases and think of them all as being
chemical disorders that can be treated through pharmacology and
prescription drugs.

Whether you know or not, biochemstry underlies everything we do.
Biochemistry underlies how our muscles, cells, hearts, brains, sperm (well
at least in about 1/2 of us), kidneys, etc., work. And the pharmacology is
not the only way doctors treat illness. They try to get to get patients to
eat less, eat healthier and get excercise, too.

The drug companies practically run many of these medical schools.

What a lie. While I don't disagree that there are some conflicts of
interest between drug companies and medical school, drug companies don't
run or even come close at any US medical school.

Do prove it.


Glorified drug dealers
And now, experiments like this one reveal most general practitioner
doctors as the glorified drug dealers that they are. They just write
prescriptions for anyone who walks through the door.

Only if the patients have the appropraite signs and symptoms of the
illness.

Wrong as proven above.

And that's really sad, because I know that's not the intention of many of
these doctors, but the difficult and fascinating thing is that even
doctors don't realize when they're being influenced.

While I agree that doctors don't understand how much they are being
influenced, the vast majority of prescriptions are appropriate, IMHO.

Big surprise.

Your opinion, is based on what *organized medicine* has put forth.



Patients certainly don't realize it. Consumers are heavily influenced by
TV advertising, yet if you survey 1,000 consumers and ask them if they're
being influenced, over 900 will say, "No, we're not being influenced at
all". They'll say, "I make my own rational decisions about what to buy or
what not to buy, based on my own information. I don't pay attention to
ads." And yet, study after study shows that ads actually work. Patients
buy the products advertised and request prescriptions for advertised
pharmaceuticals in their doctors' offices. Stated flatly, patients aren't
aware that they're being influenced and neither are doctors.

This is true for everything from laundry detergent, toilet paper, soup to
cars, trucks and TVs. And this is true for con-med (conjecture-based
medicine, aka alternative medicine).

We aren't talking about *everything*

Drug companies exploit this seduction, this form of influence, to create
demand for products in the minds of consumers, and then to make sure
these consumers go to their doctors' offices and request those products,
thus generating sales.

Why we allow this this to happen in the first place is beyond me. Yet,
doctors rarely give prescriptions for illnesses that they don't the
patients have.

How the drug machine really operates
And of course the pharmacists are all involved in this; they're just
filling out the orders. They're like the little machine grinders in this
whole system, this whole con of organized medicine. Somebody's actually
got to fill the bottles and dispense the pills, and that's what the
pharmacists do. And somebody's got to write their prescriptions, that's
what the doctors do. Somebody's got to act like they're providing an
education on health, and that's what the medical schools do.

Not to mention educations on anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, cell
biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, pediatrics, ob/gyn, immunizations,
internal medicine, surgery, etc.

Somebody's got to provide the so-called scientific evidence that provides
some sort of justification for all of this, and that's what the medical
journals do, and of course, they're largely funded by the drug companies.
Finally, someone has to give all this the stamp of government approval,
and that's what the FDA does

Yet, the medical schools have to meet strict standards and medical doctors
have to pass difficult test (from the National Board of Medical
Examiners - 3 tests that last 2 days).

Irrelevant.

The problems is:

they're largely funded by the drug companies.
Finally, someone has to give all this the stamp of government approval,
and that's what the FDA does

So this whole sham, this whole drug racket, has many different players,
most of whom are highly-paid professionals and smart people. Wouldn't it
be great if they actually did something productive for society, rather
than writing dangerous, highly toxic prescriptions out to people...

You mean like saving the lives of about 1/2 the people who get cancer, and
aroudn 70-75 % of the kids who get cancer? Providing outstanding care to
burn and truama patients? Allow kids and adults with broken bones to get
healed? Improving the lives of patients with strokes and heart attacks?
Enabling patients with diabetes to live longer and healthier? Prevent
millions of infections each year with immunizations and thousands of
deaths?

rather than impairing the long-term health of our population to generate
billions of dollars in profits for the pharmaceutical companies?

I have already listed how doctors benefit patients. Of course, this also
benefits pharmaceutical companies: Dead patients don't use drugs.

Wouldn't it be great if all these smart people did something useful?

They save lives. I hope this is useful.

Instead, they're just part of the drug racket, part of the system of
organized medicine that masquerades as "scientific medicine."

I don't know what you mean by organized medicine,

Ah, ah, that won't fly, I didn't write it.

YOU should know by now.

The article covers that, and I have coved it.


but the treatments are
based on good science.

Are they?

Just exactly how much of conventional medicine has been proven?

Now don't forget to answer.

I do agree that drug companies have way too much
influence. However, the basics of medicine are sound.

Just exactly how much of conventional medicine has been proven?

Now don't forget to answer.


Where's the science in scientific medicine?

Try reading the journals.

Written by whom??

I find the circular logic involved in all this fascinating, because we've
again shown how the prescribing behavior of doctors is not rational.

I would say that the prescribing behavior of doctors is not perfect and
overly influenced by drug companies.

When a patient names a drug, all that training, rationality, and
scientific thought just gets thrown out the window in favor of circular
logic. For example, the organized medical community claims that all drugs
approved by the FDA are scientifically sound. It's science-based
medicine, because articles about those drugs have been published in the
journals. And who edits those journals? Who are the gatekeepers who
decide which articles get published and which ones don't? They are the
doctors who are often on the payroll of drug companies.

Not always. In fact, reviewers are usually required to list any potential
conflicts of interest.

Oh really?

They sure do miss a lot.

That is a proven FACT.

Your theory doesn't hold up.

Whose theory??

Hold up to what?

The drug companies fund the advertisements for the journals.
And many of the FDA bureaucrats benefit financially, as they own stock
options in these pharmaceutical companies.

Really? Please back your claims.

Whose claims??

Drug companis most certainly do advertise in journals.

And many of the FDA bureaucrats benefit financially, as they own stock
options in these pharmaceutical companies.

That is a PROVEN FACT!

Where have you been, Jeff???

http://www.mises.org/story/1805

Graham's study was eventually published in The Lancet in late January
2005,[21] but amazingly, about three weeks later on February 18 an FDA
advisory panel recommended returning Vioxx to the market. What should
particularly haunt the panel was a vote in favor of Bextra,[22] despite the
panel's concern about limited long-term data on its safety.[23]

Then, lo and behold, on April 7, 2005-less than a month after the favorable
advisory vote-Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market at FDA request, citing
not only heart attack, stroke, and sudden-cardiac death risks, but also
potentially fatal skin reactions. It turns out that ten members of the FDA
panel who voted February 18, 2005 for both Vioxx and Bextra not only had
ties to their makers, but their votes were crucial for securing the
favorable votes on the panel for both drugs.[24]



Of course, the medical schools also rake in all sorts of money from
doctors. So, what passes as organized or scientific medicine is actually
whatever they say it is.

Not really. The basis of medicine has been established by science for a
long time.

What basis???

Just exactly how much of conventional medicine has been proven?

Now don't forget to answer.


Money doesn't change that. No one is going to say the heart doesn't
pump blood without good evidence.

It has no real scientific basis. Most of these studies are distorted
anyway. You've seen how the drug companies will run twelve different
studies on their drug, six of which will come up with positive results
and six with negative. They bury the six that are bad and just show the
six that are good. Those are the studies they forward to the FDA and say,
"Look! Our drug is proven!" And the FDA will say, "It sure is! Let's
rubber stamp this drug for approval!"

The FDA doesn't rubber stamp drugs. They review the evidence quite
carefully. Unfortunately, they don't always get all the data.

Why not??

Why are they not doing they job?

Quite carefully, you say??

Why aren't they tellling the public the *truth*?

It was you who was sure glad they were doing their job, when in fact, they
were caught covering up the fact that the drug they had approved was
CAUSING suicides among teenagers, while advertised todo the opposite.


And then the drug companies say, "Let's start bribing doctors and giving
them free trips, vacations, and lunches and let's send them checks for
$10,000 as a 'consulting fee.'" "Let's get those doctors to prescribe all
of these drugs." And that's how the system works. It's all circular
reasoning. There is no real science happening. The whole thing is a giant
charade.

There are limits on what drug companies can give to doctors (not strict
enough).

There are?

Do explain these limits.

To top it off, the real healing efforts in alternative medicine are
routinely discredited by organized medicine.

Because con-med (conjecture-bases medicine aka alternative medicine)
rarely has any basis in science.

I wonder why??


These healers are using herbal medicine with over 2,500 years of proven
clinical use and millions of hours of clinical experience.

And how about the peer-reviewed evidence that it works.

We've been over peer-reviewed.

Clinical use is not proof that something works

Yes, it is.

.. They used blood letting for centuries, but it doesn't work.

Because a treatment has not been proven in a controlled trial does not mean
it does not work or does not have scientific backing.

"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.


I'm talking about traditional Chinese medicine, Western herbs, Ayurvedic
medicine, acupuncture, massage therapy, homeopathy and other modalities
in the alternative medicine realm. Organized medicine says "Those aren't
proven -- only our stuff is proven. Your stuff is not proven." But of
course, all their stuff is the circular reasoning I was talking about.

OK, provide the proof that con-med works.

Stop with the name calling.



They dismiss everything outside of the corrupt system that generates
profits for them.

No, they dismiss everything without scientific evidence.

NO, They dismiss everything outside of the corrupt system that generates
profits for them.

YOU are an example.

rest off drivel deleted

Jeff

Rest of excellent article truth telling article restored.:

(Jeff was eager to snip right at the point where it explained what
*organized medicine* is, imagine that *;*)

Organized medicine is a lot like a cult
You see, scientific medicine is whatever the high priests of organized
medicine deem it to be. This is why I've often described organized medicine
as a cult; it is not science. True scientists ask nature what's going on.
They try to find out how the universe really works. A true scientist is a
humble person, a humble student, and a curious servant of nature. A true
scientist runs experiments, or asks questions and tries to get nature to
provide some answers.

But modern doctors, medical researchers, drug company executives, and FDA
bureaucrats think they've conquered nature. They have egos so big it's
amazing they can walk through doors. They think they are better than nature.
They think they can overtake the nature of your body, overriding the
chemistry. They think they can run your immune system, or that they can
declare war on your body, attacking it with chemotherapy, radiation and
other highly toxic therapies. They think they're smarter than nature.

They think they can take a plant out of nature, synthesize a molecule, and
make it better. And then they can patent it and own the intellectual
property, suing anybody else who tries to create the same molecule, even
though nature has been creating the natural version of that molecule for
eons. This is what the people in organized medicine think. They think
they're the smartest people in the universe -- smarter than Mother Nature,
smarter than God. And in fact, they're going to play God with your body
using weird, freaky gene therapy experiments. They're putting human genes
into plants now, trying to clone everything under the sun. They think they
are God.


Real scientists are humble
Now a real scientist, as I said, is a humble servant of nature. A true
scientist is curious and wants to find out how things work, and a true
scientist, by the way, does not have a predefined set of filters in place
that automatically reject new ideas. When Burzynski developed the
antineoplastons for cancer therapies, a new therapy for actually curing
cancer, organized medicine, if it had been scientific, should have welcomed
his work with open arms. They should have said, "Thank God! Someone has come
along with a cure for cancer. Thank God someone has some new theories." But
no; they vilified him.

They turned him into a criminal. The FDA pursued him, sued him, oppressed
him, and ostracized him from medicine. They've tried to suppress his work.
Why? He had real solutions. If they have a cure for cancer, what would that
mean for all the anti-cancer drugs out there? Think how many people would
lose their jobs if there were a cure for cancer.

Some people would say that our national economy depends on cancer, and it
depends on having all these chronic diseases. Gotta have diabetes;
otherwise, what's going to happen to all these people employed in the
medical community? What about all these nurses, pharmacists, doctors,
researchers, people in the nonprofits, publishers, and drug company
executives? What will they do for jobs if all these diseases are cured?

Some people would say it would be a national security issue, because if you
cure these diseases, then suddenly the economy changes. Suddenly you've got
a lot of people out of work. And so, I believe the organized medical system
doesn't want cures for these diseases. In fact, they have gone out of their
way to vilify these cures, to filter them out or to discredit them. They
don't want cures for these diseases; they want drugs to manage them. They
want a patient who has to buy a pill today, tomorrow, and every day, for the
rest of his life, because that generates profits. They don't want something
to cure that patient, sending him away healthy and happy and never in need
of more drugs, surgeries, or imaging tests. Just like crack dealers, they
want somebody who's addicted to their drugs. They want somebody who's going
to smoke that crack every day for the rest of their lives.

Pharmaceutical companies are the same way. They want somebody who's stuck on
their drugs, who depends on them. That's why you often read about "disease
management" in organized medicine's literature. "Disease management" is even
used in reference to chronic stress, which is a big killer. It depletes
antioxidants, raises blood pressure, is bad for your cardiovascular health,
and even promotes cancer. But when those in organized medicine talk about
stress, they often use the term "stress management." Let's manage your
stress, so that you can have a little bit of stress each and every day. And
you still depend on us to manage it.

I prefer to teach people how to ELIMINATE stress, to be stress free. Same
thing with diseases. Doctors say there's no cure for diabetes. I say
hogwash! There are many cures for diabetes. Adult-onset type 2 diabetes is
one of the easiest diseases to reverse, and I mean completely reverse,
through diet, nutrition, and lifestyle changes. You don't need a single drug
to treat that disease. Cancer is much the same way. It is one of the easiest
diseases to reverse, as long as it hasn't got so advanced that the patient's
own immune system is completely shot. Your body has already reversed cancer
1,000 times or more in your lifetime; your immune system gets rid of cancer
cells all the time. If you're diagnosed with cancer, it's because your
immune system failed. If that happens, curing your cancer really just
involves reminding your immune system how to do its job and giving it the
nutritional tools that it needs to heal itself.


Why doctors hate the internet
So the overall theme to all of this is of course that organized medicine is
a giant scam. The defenders of that system are really frustrated today,
because experiments like this reveal that doctors just prescribe whatever
patients name. Patients will get prescriptions for whatever drugs they
mention. Doctors hate the internet, too, by the way. They think that
patients who get information online are dangerous, because people shouldn't
educate themselves. Doctors think all online health information should be
censored, approved by the FDA. They think that you shouldn't be able to talk
about health, disease treatment, or drugs online. It's dangerous for people
to have too much information, don't you know. A little bit of book burning
would go right along with that.

But the whole system is a sham, and, by the way, it is failing. It is on its
way out. Organized medicine will soon be history, because patients are
realizing that it doesn't work. They are figuring out that taking a lot of
prescription drugs multiplies their risk of death, and they are also
realizing that prescription drugs don't really help them in any significant
way. Yes, they might mask symptoms on a temporary basis, but they don't make
anyone fundamentally healthier over the long term. In fact, people are
discovering that they feel terrible when they take these drugs. They feel
more fatigued; they start having brain fog; their muscles hurt; then they
have side effects to treat with more prescription drugs. It's just a
cascading set of symptoms and drugs, which is good for profits in the
pharmaceutical industry, but doesn't help people.


The FDA and crimes against humanity
People are also realizing that the FDA is highly corrupt. The FDA actually
sat down, looked at Vioxx and the Cox-2 class of drugs, all of these
arthritis painkillers, and said, "We realize they've killed about 60,000
people in this country alone, but they're still safe." Imagine that! The FDA
essentially sat down and said, "You know what? Not enough people are dead
yet to pull this drug off the market." And they actually said, "Let's give
the drug makers the okay to put these Cox-2 inhibitors back on the market."
Meanwhile, people are dying of heart attacks and strokes in huge numbers,
but the FDA says, "No, not enough. Not enough people dead yet."

I guess the body count has to really get huge before the FDA says
something's dangerous. I don't know; 60,000 people sounds like a lot of
people dead to me, especially since the Bush administration started a second
war in Iraq over the deaths of far fewer people than that. Where's the war
on Big Pharma and the FDA who are collectively killing 100,000+ Americans
each year?

I often compare this atrocity to the Vietnam War. We lost about 50,000
Americans in it. This means that one class of prescription drugs all by
itself has killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War. And yet, the
FDA says, "Oh, it's safe. It's safe!" Well, apparently it's more dangerous
than being shot at on the battlefield. But that's safe enough for the FDA.


How many Americans have to die?
I often wonder what the threshold is here. Do we have to have a chemical
holocaust in this country before the FDA wants to do something to protect
people? I mean, how many people have to die before we ban drug advertising
on television. How many people? The body count keeps adding up each and
every day, but the machine keeps on running, and all of organized medicine's
defenders keep on defending it. They say, "Oh yeah. Come on in. Get your
drugs. We'll write them out for you. Go to your pharmacist, and get them
prescribed for you. Keep taking them every day. What, do you have a pain?
Here's another drug. Do you feel down? Oh! We've got a drug for that too.
That's right. Oh, you feel nervous in front of people? Have trouble speaking
in public? We have a drug for that, and bring in your kids too! We have
drugs for them. They have trouble learning or concentrating? Are they too
playful? We can 'tone down' that creativity and learning ability. We can
keep them under control. Oh, yeah! Bring your husband in too; we have stuff
for him. Stuff for his prostate, and give him a little bit of Viagra. We
have prescriptions for everything!"

Smart people are ditching conventional medicine
Who uses prescription drugs today? I'll tell you who. People who don't know
any better. In contrast, people who are informed about health --
intelligent, well-educated, smart people -- are turning to natural medicine,
natural health. They're focusing on their foods and on avoiding the toxins
in the food supply. They're avoiding dangerous personal care products,
artificial fragrances, deodorants containing aluminum, and shampoos with
unnatural ingredients.

They are engaging in physical exercise, body movement, cardiovascular
training, strength training, tai chi, Pilates, martial arts, and swimming -
you name it. And they're exercising their brains by turning off the
television and engaging in creative activities. Even game playing with
friends is good for your brain. Crossword puzzles are a great exercise.
These are the things that well-educated people are doing.

This is what the healthy people in our society have figured out works. It's
all about the foods; it's all about the exercise. It's getting natural
sunlight on your skin, drinking fresh water, and avoiding all those consumer
products the corporations want you to buy. They want you to buy the soft
drinks, the snack chips, the homogenized milk products, all those sweets and
candies, drugs, cosmetics, personal care products, perfumes and colognes,
air fresheners, carpet cleaners, and dryer sheets. Boy, they want you to buy
that stuff! But none of that stuff makes you healthy; in fact, most of it
gives you disease.


Only uneducated people will rely on prescription drugs
Soon, organized medicine will be relegated only to those extremely
uneducated people in society. It's going to be the low-income, low-education
people who turn to organized medicine. This is the same crowd, by the way,
that smokes a lot of cigarettes and buys a lot of brand name foods. People
with low wages tend to have a lot of chronic diseases, and are the ones who
are stuck in the system of organized medicine. Unfortunately, and I often
mention this, these are the people that we need to help the most. It's
difficult to do that, as it's hard to educate people who often aren't really
open to new ideas. They just want to know if they're covered by health
insurance, and that's it. They don't really want to learn about what to eat
and what not to eat.


The dark history of modern medicine
But the future of medicine is in disease prevention, healing modalities, and
energetic medicine -- phototherapy, electromedicine, vibrational nutrition,
homeopathy, and so on. The future of medicine is in true healing. And I
believe that in the future, people will look back at the time period we're
in right now and be amazed. They'll say, "How could these people have just
poisoned the entire population with chemicals, and even advertised them on
TV!? How could people even call themselves doctors when all they did was
write prescription drugs for people? They're just drug dealers. How dare
they even call themselves doctors? And how could the medical schools not
even teach nutrition? How could it be?!" Foods and nutrition (see related
ebook on nutrition) are the foundation of health, yet doctors are being
given virtually no education whatsoever in this area.

I tell you, future historians will look back at this time and they will
think we were absolutely nuts. They will think we were crazy. They will
think we were off our rockers to poison the entire population through our
food supply, and then try to mask the symptoms of that through more poison
called "prescription drugs." The whole system is absurd.

So I say the game is up. The whole system is a fraud. We now know it, thanks
to the internet, to some really creative studies coming out, to the
statistics, and to people like Dr. David Graham -- the FDA's chief drug
safety scientist who has been willing to stand up and tell the truth about
these dangerous Cox-2 inhibitors. Thanks to people like that, we now know
the truth. We know the FDA is corrupt. We know the drug companies are out to
exploit every American citizen just to make a profit, no matter how many
people are killed. We know that doctors are just glorified drug dealers, and
we know that medical schools are nothing but pre-training for glorified drug
dealing. It's all a sad joke!


Why would you want to be an old-school anyway?
People like Dr. Andrew Weil are trying to make changes out there. He's more
effective in the medical community than a guy like me, as I just tend to
anger all the doctors. But he actually works with them, because he's an MD;
he can help doctors transition from old school medicine to new school
medicine. I really admire his work. He's doing a fantastic job, and he can
speak the language of general practitioners. He knows how to talk to MDs in
their language. I don't, and I don't try to. I think MDs are irrelevant
because naturopathic physicians are the future. I think MDs should go out
and change their careers. Go to Bastyr University and get a real education
in health. MDs, you're on the way out.

We need a nation where the smartest people -- the professionals, the
pharmacists, the doctors, the researchers, and so on -- actually engage in
things that help people, not things that hurt people. I mean, it should be
common sense, right? Shouldn't our smartest people be thinking about ways to
actually help people be healthier instead of just keeping them diseased and
on drugs for the rest of their lives? I think so.


Join the natural health community
If you're reading this, chances are that you already know most of this.
You're already taking care of your health in a way that far exceeds what
most people are doing. You have probably already experienced some of the
benefits of natural health, or maybe you've experienced some of the negative
side effects of prescription drugs and are ready to make a change now. Well,
I say, "Welcome to the light side of the force!" Things are good over here.
We are healthier. We're happier. We have good, solid self-esteem without
huge egos. We feel comfortable about who we are, and we can help heal others
around us by sharing information about what really works. We know when to
say no to the drug companies, the doctors, or the pharmaceutical companies.
We know how to be skeptical consumers

So I encourage you to keep investigating, and keep investing in yourself.
Keep learning more about health, nutrition, and wellness. And don't follow
your doctor's advice if he or she says all of this is useless and discourage
you from learning on your own. Fire that doctor and find yourself a new one.
Work with a doctor who encourages you to educate yourself. Work with a
doctor who takes the time to sit down and talk to you about lifestyle
changes that can make a difference. Work with a doctor who can help you get
off of prescription drugs to return to normal, healthy body function. And
there are many doctors out there like that.

Again, I don't mean to paint every doctor into the same corner; just because
they have the initials MD after their names, it doesn't mean they're
complete idiots when it comes to health. Many doctors actually do understand
health, and in fact, most of the people I admire out there, those who are
the real pioneers in natural health, started out as MDs. Some of the best
authors are MDs.

So examine doctors with caution. Make sure they know something beyond
medical school because medical school's a joke. It's what they learned
outside of medical school that really matters. And it's also how they're
willing to work with you. Are they willing to communicate? Do they listen to
you? Did they ask you good questions? Do they really have compassion for
you, and do they really seem to have an interest in your health outcome,
rather than just getting you out of the office so they can see the next
patient? You have a choice, and I encourage you to exercise that choice.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:3yBHe.212169$_o.126227@attbi_s71...

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:xYzHe.210343$x96.1331@attbi_s72...

Long raving rant with no basis in reality snipped.

Mr. LadyLollipop

ROTFLOL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Mr?????

- you seem to have an extremely warped view on the medical
field.

You wrote,

Umm, no, I didn't not write.

"Over half the time, the doctor's just going to
write out a prescription for the exact drug that the patient named,
whether
or not it is medically necessary."

The article that started this debate did not show that.

The article posted was posted word for word. Nothing was added or changed,
period.



What it showed was
that when patients complained of a set symptoms consistent with
depression, were subsequently diagnosed with depression, and offered
treatment, that 55% of these people who requested paxil got it. There are
many ways to treat depression. If approaching it pharmacologically, Paxil
is a wonderful first line choice. Safe and effective with a well known
side effect profile.

Nothing was said about giving medications whether or not they were
medically necessary. Now, one could argue - and I would in the
appropriate forum - that throwing a medication at a patient should not be
the first option for treatment of depression. Behavioral therapy or
simple counseling is a non-pharmacologica means that is also quite
effective. However, in the current example, we have patients requesting a
medication. Whether we in the medical field like it or not, the power of
suggestion is amazingly powerful. Placebo rates go from an oft quoted
33% up to about 70% or so in some studies. With that in mind, prescribing
Paxil to a depressed patient who comes to your office who agrees he or she
is depressed (which they do by definition if they're requesting an
anti-depressant) gives you not only the well established pharmacologic
benefit of Paxil but what is likely to be a more powerful placebo effect
because they already believe Paxil will help them.

Now such an approach is probably far more thought than you would normally
spend on any one aspect of this debate. This was readily apparent as you
fired off a long post with soundbites on a host of topics but not
bothering to scratch the surface on any particular one. Your post was as
meaningless as presidential advertisements at election time. All stun
factor no substance. You throw out completely arbitrary numbers, "if you
survey a 1000 consumers and ask them if they're being influenced, over 900
will say no".... This is called fiction. It *could* be 900 ... but it
could be 200 or 50 or 500. You simply have no idea.

But of course you don't. You didn't even understand the lame "experiment"
with this Paxil thing that got you started on this rant in the first
place.

By glossing over these topics in such a superficial manner, you demean the
importance of the underlying issues - such as what role should big pharma
be allowed to have or not have in direct consumer advertising or other
such marketing campaigns.

When a "pro-lifer" shoot and kills someone to "make a point", he belittles
everything he and his group stood for. Congratulations for doing the
equivalent against physicians. You make retorts very easy and your
radicalism polarizes people away from your extremist views.

You are terrible confused.

http://www.newstarget.com/009173.html