Cruisin' for a bruisin'

PeterB wrote:

Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?

Joe Parsons wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:32:12 -0400, george_of_the_bush wrote:


On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:02:55 -0700, Joe Parsons
wrote:



Straw man. This has nothing to do with whether doctors typically
prescribe natural supplements.

And now your argument seems to have shifted to doctors not prescribing *food
supplements*--which, unless I've really missed something, was never an assertion
made by George or anyone.

And I'm wondering what I should make of the medical doctor with my HMO who told
me to take Tums Ultra as a calcium supplement for mild hypertension. Should I
have gotten some prescription variety of Tums?

Joe Parsons

(returning to my regular life now)

I hope the family is well, Joe, and you too. You are quite correct
that I only stepped into this thread when a silly blanket statement
was made about doctors not recommending alternatives to patients. I
know this isn't Real Life TM but seeing your name here is like seeing
an old friend.


Evrything is good, George. No. 1 daughter is doing excellently after the
transplant. She's working for me, and starting to hit her stride.

Glad to hear it. It has been a tough few years.



Aloha from North Carolina,


I was wondering where you'd gone to! How's the surfing over there?

If George is anywhere near Cape Hatteras...I would say "very interesting".

Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=drug%20testing" onmouseover="window.status='drug testing'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"drug testing/a, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?

Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one?? Personal attacks are so
lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post. How do you
earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure?

PeterB

00doc wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Remember, I was talking
about what doctors do typically, and typically doctors don't
recommend
alternatives to prescription medication.

That depends on the supplement. When there is one that is proved to
work for a given situation they typically do.

Care to name them?

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snipwe can determine whether
you are discrediting an entire industry based on the actions of a few
bad apples, which would suggest you are biased against the dietary
supplements industry.

snip

PeterB

Read that again Peter, and replace 'dietary supplements' with
'pharmeceutical'.

Your hypocrisy is outstanding--particularly since you'd just brought up
Vioxx.

You aren't making your case any stronger with that comment. Vioxx is a
valid example of internal management failure at both FDA AND Merck; you
are in the minority for thinking otherwise.

Of course it is. It's a 'bad apple'. I have criticised it strongly on
other threads.

You can't score points by acknowledging what everyone already knows.
It's just another lame Pharma Blogging tactic designed to get people's
trust. But it ain't working.

Isn't it about time Rich
came to your rescue? I mean, this is getting sad.


Funny, though.

But not quite as funny as the fact that you can't see your own use of
the 'bad apple' to denigrate real medicine. Thanks again

Unfortunately, the "bad apple" in the pharmaceutical industry is not an
isolated incident. It's a systemic problem pointing to a cozy
relationship between former drug executives working at FDA pretending
to regulate this wayward industry. Only a brutal overhaul will change
things.

PeterB

Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:

george_of_the_bush wrote:

On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:


p fogg wrote:

"PeterB" wrote in message
legroups.com...

Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?


If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it
persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural
remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up.

No, dingbat, it is your burden, since you made the claim, to prove that
medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that
doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas
supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients.

At my last physical, last month, my internist suggested that I use more
olive oil as my lipids were very low, and I was too low on "good
cholesterol".

No one has been talking about dietary habits, mountain fresh air, or
even walks in the park. Sorry you are lost in the conversation. This
happens a lot with Pharma Bloggers...

george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:

p fogg wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...


Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?

See my respone to Probert.

Pharmaceutical products are pharmacy-dispensed and their
makers provide copious amounts of promotional material so that doctors
will dispense them. Your comment is like saying that if Volvo makes a
good car, why don't Ford dealerships sell them? Free enterprise does
not mean a "free give-away."

Drs. don't get paid more for writing prescriptions. They get a lot of
junk and BS from drug reps. Drug reps are mostly more trouble than
they are worth. They waste valuable time and usually are ignorant.

No one said doctors write prescriptions because they are beholden to
drug reps. I said they write prescriptions because they are given
marketing and promotional material by the drug companies, however it
doesn't stop there. "Training sessions" tied to vacation packages are
also offered to doctors, and their loyalty is effectively "bought" in
this manner. Doctors, of course, are wont to provide medication to
patients in need, and naturally they prescribe those drugs most
aggressively promoted to their practices. Unfortunately, doctors can
only rely on the limited toxicology profiles provided by the drug
companies, usually a 3month study, as a measure of safety for what they
are prescribing.

Scary stuff.

PeterB

"PeterB" wrote in message
ups.com...



No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that
doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas
supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients.


This is a silly argument in the first place. Of course doctors do not
routinely prescribe nutritional supplements, because unless the patient has
presented with a condition that has resulted from a nutritional deficiency,
which is going to happen relatively seldom in day-to-day practice,
supplements are not going to be appropriate therapy. The problem is not the
doctors' prescribing habits, but your silly idea that supplements are
medications and that a system of general healthcare could be based on them.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:

PeterB wrote:

george_of_the_bush wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 13:49:22 -0700, "PeterB" wrote:



p fogg wrote:


"PeterB" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...

Medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.

FALSE. Do you care to support that absurd claim with a smidgeon of
evidence?


If you want to challenge my statement then it's your job to refute it
persuasively. Any suggestion that mainstream doctors recommend natural
remedies routinely is ridiculous. Back it up.

No, dingbat, it is your burden, since you made the claim, to prove that
medical doctors don't typically recommend non-prescription products of
any kind.


No one can prove a negative. It's common knowledge, however, that
doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas
supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients.

So you claim it is "common knowledge". Thus, you are stating a positive.
Therefore, it is YOUR burden to prove it is "common knowledge". However,
I am positive you will weasel.


At my last physical, last month, my internist suggested that I use more
olive oil as my lipids were very low, and I was too low on "good
cholesterol".


No one has been talking about dietary habits, mountain fresh air, or
even walks in the park. Sorry you are lost in the conversation. This
happens a lot with Pharma Bloggers...

No, moron, I was making a point that your limited intellect could not
grasp, as demonstrated by your response.

Now, explain why *P*eter*b* has the same initials as *P*harma *B*logger,
whatever that is.

I know..it is far easier to think in label format than to try real thought.

PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:

PeterB wrote:


Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=drug%20testing" onmouseover="window.status='drug testing'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"drug testing/a, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?


Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one??

Nah...I did not even break a sweat....

Personal attacks are so
lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post.

True, that is why it is not lame, i.e., because your post is not
substantive, unless you call bull**** substantive.

How do you
earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure?

Nope. Work. Owning a business. Employing people. Generating tax revenue.

PeterB

Now, what do you do?