BTW, here's a screener. It's clipped off just slightly at the end. Wiley's last word was "healthier".
Suzanne Somers Promotes "Bioidenticals"
- Thread starter grayman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioidenticals somers
BTW, here's a screener. It's clipped off just slightly at the end. Wiley's last word was "healthier".
And that would be January 3 of which year, if you would please forgive my asking?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
So you admire Kevin Trudeau?
Nraden, can you say "bigot"?
BTW, calling you and your wife ignorant is not an insult- it is a mere statement of fact. Your bigotry makes one wonder how deep your ignorance goes ...
Last edited:
OK, finally, you have made one valid point instead of just whining and calling names. It was a bigotted thing to say. But I'll get over my current bigotry, but you will always be a lightweight. And a coward.
So I can assume by your accusation that have acquainted yourself with Wiley's works, or how else could a "thinker" arrive at this conclusion. I'm going to search through this whole site and see what other issues you have disnissed and ask you the same question about those sources. Am I missing something? Shouldn't critical thinkers at least acquaint themselves with the facts?
You're a fraud.
I echo Molly Ivins: "being called names by you is like being gummed by a newt, it doesn't hurt; but it leaves slime on my ankle."
On the positive side, I appreciate your acknowledgment of your mistake.
While you are casting about for errors on my part, don't overlook
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-31-05-1.cfm
which explains that ordinary "bioidentical hormone replacement" is medically unsupported. The excessive doses you advocate are just worse. This remains true even if you can find MDs who are led astray by your marketing.
One of the more curious things I've observed in this controversy over the last year is this pattern right here, this tactic of leveling accusations that far more aptly fit the accuser. Perhaps the idea is that this buys some kind of immunity from the same charge -- sort of a preemptive "I know you are but what am I?"
It's something I don't think I've ever encountered before, but maybe it's common among quacks and woos?
Hafast
New Blood
The problem I see here is what I believe is called a "logical fallacy". for the most part, the technical arena does not deal with the health/lives of peopld (livelihood, yes). If Bill Gates puts out a garbage product (perish the thought), my computer crashing has no ill effect on my health. My physician does not recommend that I switch to a Mac. Also, each of these individuals did not come up with their products on their own. They were smart enough to find the experts in the field.
Yes, I am aware that there is software that can affect the lives of people (aircraft guidance systems, medical equipment). Those are developed by software engineers with the help of medical experts. And, tested extensively to make sure that it works, and has fail-safes. We are talking about lives at stake.
However, using your logic, let's see if I can get away with this: I'm pretty sure that massive doses of anabolic steroids will prevent aging in men. I actually have two associates degrees, in information system, and electronic systems, so I think I'm a bit more of an expert than someone who "almost" has a degree in a non-medical field. Additionally, I am passionate about men's health issues. Please contact me with your business plan so we can get the ball rolling on this. Oh wait, I'm a government employee, my credibility would be called into question. Never mind, and we never had this conversation.
I apologize for the lenghty ranting, especially for my first post, but my mother-in-law went through cancer that was most likely related to HRT for menopause. Not that I don't believe in HRT, but I think it needs to be closely monitored/tested. I'll stop for now.
Last edited:
I see a logical fallacy in your argument. The "almost" degree is supplemented by 12 years of intense research and experimentation in this particular subject, as well as publishing in scientific journals and authoring two books with associate authors with MD and PhD degrees. True, I did not use people from the natural sciences, but I could always mention Charles Darwin and Rachel Carson, who come to mind.
Most likely? That's very scientific. I don't doubt that it is a possibility, but I don't think your use of "most likely" would pass the sniff test here, except that you are on the right side of the argument. So much for critical thinkers.
You guys are a joke. I misspell a word and I hear about it, but you let something this sloppy just ride.
I'm aware of this article. ACOG is the most politically and economically self-serving doctor's group on the planet. These are the guys who brought you ripping out women's guts for fun and profit and turned childbirth into a costly and dangerous medical emergency (with lousy results in infant mortality and morbidity compared to other western countries).
The head of the Columbia University Medical School remarked that the influx of women into medicine would greatly improve women's medical care, but not in the way you expect. When med schools were mostly men, OB/GYN was the LAST CHOICE of specialty, so the slots were usually filled by the worst students, who took the role reluctantly. That should tell you something about women's health.
Can you explain "excessive doses" in any formal way, other than quoting a PRESS RELEASE from a group that has extensive financial skin in the game? Besdies, watch out for slinky language like "most" in that piece, because bioidentical hormones have been subjected to clinicla testing and FDA approval. What do think is in a Vivelle patch?
Besides, Wiley is 100% with these guys on the "concerns regarding the purity, potency, and quality of compounded products." That's the whole point of the registered pharmacies. They sign a contract with her that their stuff is not only randomly tested four times a year, but so are the tech's who make it.
Thanks for pointing out that Wiley (not me, despite debv's comments, I have no role in Wiley's efforts, I'm just her husband) has led MD's astray with her marketing. That puts her on the same plane as.....pharmaceutical companies!
It is not sufficient to complain- you have to cite expertly-obtained, and reviewed, data. And you need to be able to evaluate sources- which is not your forte. Put up, or shut up. See:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/the_messiness_of_evidencebased_medicine.php
and:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/from_the_ridiculous_to_the_sublime_a_jou.php
I verified that the author is an oncology surgeon.
Hafast
New Blood
Fine, I'll admit I was a little snarky on this one, and apologize. I still think that without an MD in this specialty, or controlled studies, you're walking a very thin line on credibility.
I say most likely because, as in most cases, there was no definitive cause for her cancer. I'm just going by what the oncologist said. Unfortunately, my current location prevents me from doing more extensive research.
Please, anyone on either "side", I invite you to critique what I have written, and let me know where I went wrong. I have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake. I will also admit that my post was written from an emotional standpoint. However, I still stand by my belief that you are putting the health of these women at risk.
nraden, go ahead and attack me again, I am a fairly soft target. It'll make you feel better, and keep you from answering the harder questions asked of you on this forum.
To the rest of the forum, I apologize if I've steered this discussion in the wrong direction. Again, please let me know where I've gone wrong, I'm still fairly new to this forum, and I am more than willing to learn. Thank you.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
I think you are worshippable. Can I be a groupie? I will start up a fan club at the very least.
Um, just trying to say, WELCOME!! And keep up the great work.
Wrong direction? Only if the moon is actually at the center of the planet, and we've been sending astronauts in the "wrong direction" all this time.
I don't agree with you, but you have a right to your opinion. I want to thank you for being the first person on this list to be civil.
In recognition of his contributions to the principle that all people are worthy of respect, I would like to nominate our compatriot, Neil Raden, for the James Randi Civility Award.
He has been described as a "critical thinker, logical", and as "gadfly brilliant original controversial provocative".
But of course the true test of a man is how he composes and not how he describes himself.
nraden said:
A few hours later:nraden said:
Referring to Dr. Bent Formby (Wiley's estranged mentor and one-time associate author, with multiple PhDs in biochemistry):nraden said:
nraden said:
nraden said:
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
That's good news. My question, however, and the question that others have asked, or at least asked by implication is this: Why not wait to start prescribing - or "recommending" if you're trying to avoid getting in trouble for practicing medicine without a medical degree (let alone a license) - these randomly tested preparations until after appropriate, randomized, blinded trials have been conducted? Really, what's the rush?
The only reason I can think of to rush into recommending untested medical treatments - failing an emergent, mortal danger - is to make money. Whether that money is being generated by selling Wiley Protocol franchises ("franchising" seems to be exactly what's going on here) or by selling books proselytizing for the Wiley Protocol is irrelevant, since the motive remains the same.
I suppose it's a "lucky" thing that the evil, all-powerful medical/pharmaceutical establishment has permitted the FDA to leave gaping holes in their regulations so that Ms. Wiley can do what she does...
Last edited:
Pretty simple answer - she doesn't prescribe anything. She informs the doctors and it's between the doctors and the patients to decide. Why not wait for clinical trials? Go ahead, but some people, like my wife, who are in their fifties, don't want to wait until their seventies. Besides, these "preparations" are materials that have been used for years and are FDA-approved.
It's a reasonable assumption but it isn't true. Wiley, so far, makes no money from this. If it grows, she will, but they aren't franchises. They aren't sold, given an exclusive, trained how to run the business. They are sold packaging that contains a trademark so people know if they're getting what they asked for, and there isn't much money in that. You can look for evil in this, but you won't find it.
I don't imagine we'll agree in this issue.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
The "evil" in the blatantly obviously misguided product (and we've said why many many times already) is that people have already been hurt by it. Anyone who follows the misinformation will be hurt by it.
So give it up already.
So give it up already.
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
Saying she doesn't "prescribe" anything is disingenuous at best. At the very least, she is - without the benefit of a medical degree - making recommendations to women. If she were just "inform[ing] the doctors," then why would there be financial benefits (free Wiley Protocol prescriptions) offered to individual women who find pharmacies willing to get "certification" to dispense her "preparations?" No, the intention is pretty clearly to hook the women in who will then either request or demand of their doctors that they be treated with this protocol. While I'll freely admit that drug companies engage in this questionable practice as well, at least they manage to leave the actual treatment plan up to the doctors, and at least their recommendations (such as dosages, analysis of side effects, etc.) are scrutinized by the FDA.
Further, saying that the preparations are "FDA-approved" borders on sleazy as well since the protocol itself has't been subjected to proper study. In other words, neither safety nor efficacy have been proven in comparison to standard HRT regimens. There are accepted methods (randomized, double-blinded testing, as opposed to just prescribing to people in the course of a normal medical practice) to achieve this result, and you haven't produced any evidence that these methods have been utilized in the 12 years you say Wiley has been working on this. All that is provided is anecdotal.
And who says your wife has to wait until her 70s? That sounds like hyperbole. It shouldn't take 20 years to properly (have I mentioned randomization and blinding?) test a protocol such as this when, as you've already said, the preparations are previously "FDA-approved." If Dr. Taguchi (the oncologist mentioned on the website) is behind this, why hasn't she collaborated with her colleagues and gotten this done by now?
I don't consider making money to be evil. In fact, I'm actually all for it as long as one is using honest means to do so. It makes me wonder why you'd lie about it.
Under "Certification Costs" for physicians on the WP website, it's $1,500 for a two-day seminar. Unless you're sending these physicians home with significant door prizes, that looks like a profit-generating number to me. For pharmacists, the "Registration" cost is a "nominal contract fee" of $500. Training, apparently required, is an additional $750, and they have to buy a manual ("must be purchased separately from this website") for $325. It looks to me like whatever "packaging" is being sold is just marked-up gravy for you and your wife. Further, it means that people are being trained in the business and they are franchisees in the sense that only certified pharmacies can dispense the WP-labeled prescriptions.