New study shows fish oil safe and effective alternative to drugs for ADHD

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:30:22 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

bigvince wrote:

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.

Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.

Nope. Many trials are post market.

Bull****, Mark. FDA often demands phase IV data--and the companies
just never seem to get around to them.

Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.

Perhaps, sometimes.

Not sometimes...VERY often. It's all about the money for pharma. They
do not give a flying **** about health--just making more money. And if
you can't pay, have no insurance, you get charged the MOST.

And if you can't pay, live in a developing country, you'll be denied
access and suffer or die.

That's PHARMA! Profits over life!!

Don't believe me. Read some of the books below.

George M. Carter

***
Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004

Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006

John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.

Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:47:24 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

D. wrote:
snip
A few years ago there was a report that even in the same bottle,
concentrations varied by a factor of 10.

Cite the repo;rt. I have no reason to believe you, really.

It might be true. It may or may not be clinically relevant.


I'd agree with you Mark, 100%, about pharmaceutical trials. When some
brand name drug is used in the trial, something is fishy indeed.


Sometimes, only the brand name is available. Methylphenidate is well
studied, and the generics are used.

And the point is that this represents an option that may work as well
but be much safer.

Like St. John's wort for mild-to-moderate depression.

George M. Carter

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:45:09 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:

snip
And if there are generics --- the patent must have expired! So much
for the idiocy about making millions from patented medicine as against
unpatented foodstuffs.

LOL...yeah, right.

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:10:47 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.

"Potion"? Fish oil?

Anyway, where is the support for your claim? Perhaps "eye Q" merely
donated the product for the study. Or perhaps they funded the study.
The article here doesn't say that as far as I can see.

So you claim it was sponsored by the eye Q people. What do you have
to back that claim?

Do you have a copy of the original paper? Love to see it!

So would I.

Here is an abstract:

http://www.jrnldbp.com/pt/re/jdbp/ab...195629!8091!-1

Note that the "improvements" were only in one setting, where the
diagnostic criteria require two settings.



And you bet--I think ANYONE with a kid with ADHD should try fish oil
before ritalin or other such horrifically toxic, overpriced
stuff...that should be the LAST resort. Don't you think so?

Perhaps. However, this looks like false hopes.



George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:41:30 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Vinnie...there goes your credibility and comprehension problems.
Obviously, you either did not read the article you posted, or, you did
not understand it. The article said:

"The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD."

See the nice pretty bottles:

http://www.alternativehealth.com.au/Product/eyeQ.htm

There have been numerous "studies" by the manufacturer. All bull****
designed to promote sales.

Probert, there goes your credibility. As if you had any...but that
statement merely states WHAT was used in the study.

Why do you think it was used? Why do you think it was mentioned? It is a
specific formulation..nothing "generic" about it.

Perhaps they did sponsor the study. Perhaps they merely donated
product.

Donation without cost is sponsorship.

If you think that they "donated" it for altruistic purposes, there is
this bridge that goes to Brooklyn that is up for sale. Interested?

I hardly think that donating product compares to the kind of invidious
**** pharma pulls on universities, preventing them from publishing
negative data or spinning data when they sponsor a study!

Donation still is sponsorship. I doubt that negative findings would lead
to publication.


But perhaps you, like Bowditch, have other information?

Or do you merely project your nonsense in order to defend the sales of
drugs? Profit over life and health, right Mark?

Straw man.




George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:09 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.

Well, "idiot' the STUDY was conducted at the University of Adelaide.
You have provided no evidence that the study was funded by the fish
oil industry....

I never claimed the industry sponsored it. Take a careful look.


The other comment by
Probert is very true when talking about patented drugs such as
ritalin;
Incorrect. For the past 10 years I have seen that the vast majority of
the studies on methylpheniate are sponsored by NIMH.

LOL...this may well be true--but only goes to undercut the ****ing
lies of pharma that they spend so goddamn much on R&D to justify their
outrageous, rapacious and economically genocidal pricing of drugs.

Nope. They spend to bring it to market. Then there arfe researchers who
extend the research.


US consumers pay TWICE.

I think we SHOULD have good studies--with STRONG conflicts of interest
laws--done by NIH. That's fine...but the NIH and FDA are in the
revolving door pocket of pharma. Data are distorted...licenses handed
over...and the prices charged by pharma for having done VERY little,
especially after tax breaks, then in turn help destroy the US
"healthcare system."

Really SiCKO.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:30:22 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

bigvince wrote:

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.
Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.
Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.
Nope. Many trials are post market.

Bull****, Mark. FDA often demands phase IV data--and the companies
just never seem to get around to them.

Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.
Perhaps, sometimes.

Not sometimes...VERY often. It's all about the money for pharma. They
do not give a flying **** about health--just making more money. And if
you can't pay, have no insurance, you get charged the MOST.

And if you can't pay, live in a developing country, you'll be denied
access and suffer or die.

That's PHARMA! Profits over life!!

Don't believe me. Read some of the books below.

Books prove nothing.


George M. Carter

***
Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004

Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006

John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.

Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:09:32 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:10:47 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.

"Potion"? Fish oil?

Anyway, where is the support for your claim? Perhaps "eye Q" merely
donated the product for the study. Or perhaps they funded the study.
The article here doesn't say that as far as I can see.

So you claim it was sponsored by the eye Q people. What do you have
to back that claim?

Do you have a copy of the original paper? Love to see it!

So would I.

Here is an abstract:

http://www.jrnldbp.com/pt/re/jdbp/ab...195629!8091!-1

Note that the "improvements" were only in one setting, where the
diagnostic criteria require two settings.

What are you talking about?

The diagnostic criteria include two settings. That doesn't mean an
intervention will work in both.

Results: Significant medium to strong positive treatment effects were
found on parent ratings of core ADHD symptoms, inattention,
hyperactivity/impulsivity, on the Conners Parent Rating Scale (CPRS)
in both PUFA treatment groups compared with the placebo group; no
additional effects were found with the micronutrients. After a one-way
crossover to active supplements in all groups for a further 15 weeks,
these results were replicated in the placebo group, and the treatment
groups continued to show significant improvements on CPRS core
symptoms. No significant effects were found on Conners Teacher Rating
Scales.

However, in short, you don't have any reason to believe that this was
an industry-sponsored study.



And you bet--I think ANYONE with a kid with ADHD should try fish oil
before ritalin or other such horrifically toxic, overpriced
stuff...that should be the LAST resort. Don't you think so?

Perhaps. However, this looks like false hopes.

No, it looks like a significant advance using a non-toxic and
inexpensive intervention.

Or you prefer to give children speed?

My point is that yes, some kids will benefit from ritalin. But it is
clearly over-prescribed, merely adding toxicity and unknown long term
effects where fish oil could be a more than adequate intervention for
probably the majority of currently ritalin-treated children.

But no. You prefer the drugs. Biased bull****.

George M. Carter



George M. Carter

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:13:34 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:41:30 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Vinnie...there goes your credibility and comprehension problems.
Obviously, you either did not read the article you posted, or, you did
not understand it. The article said:

"The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD."

See the nice pretty bottles:

http://www.alternativehealth.com.au/Product/eyeQ.htm

There have been numerous "studies" by the manufacturer. All bull****
designed to promote sales.

Probert, there goes your credibility. As if you had any...but that
statement merely states WHAT was used in the study.

Why do you think it was used? Why do you think it was mentioned? It is a
specific formulation..nothing "generic" about it.

Ah...ANY fish oil could have been used.

SPONSORSHIP means that eye Q PAID for the study. Did they?

The researchers probably felt they had the product that was the best
quality. Having done such studies, I know that a single product must
be used for consistency. This product can then be independently tested
in the lab for identity, potency and purity.

Perhaps they did sponsor the study. Perhaps they merely donated
product.

Donation without cost is sponsorship.

Oh, bull****, Probert. SPONSORSHIP is when ****ing Glaxo pays a
university to do a study and then refuses to let them publish negative
data. SPONSORSHIP is NOT just a drug donation. If it is, that's
stretching the definition in most interesting ways.

If you think that they "donated" it for altruistic purposes, there is
this bridge that goes to Brooklyn that is up for sale. Interested?

Of course not. eyeQ gets a benefit of beng the company that provided
the product and thus people might wish to use that one instead of
Arctic Pure or Jarrow.

That's not insidious business practice, however, unlike what pharma
does on a routine basis.

I hardly think that donating product compares to the kind of invidious
**** pharma pulls on universities, preventing them from publishing
negative data or spinning data when they sponsor a study!

Donation still is sponsorship. I doubt that negative findings would lead
to publication.

Oh what a load of ****, Probert.


But perhaps you, like Bowditch, have other information?

Or do you merely project your nonsense in order to defend the sales of
drugs? Profit over life and health, right Mark?

Straw man.

FAR from it. Read some books and grow the **** up before they kill you
with their bull****.

We need SERIOUS changes in this distorted capitalist nightmare. The
effects are increased suffering and death worldwide.

Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004
Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006
John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.
Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.


George M. Carter

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:05 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:09 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.

Well, "idiot' the STUDY was conducted at the University of Adelaide.
You have provided no evidence that the study was funded by the fish
oil industry....

I never claimed the industry sponsored it. Take a careful look.


No w you're a ****ing lawyer.

You implied. You smeared. You sound like Karl Rove.