• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Refuting: "CAM might be bad, but big pharma is worse"

and you would bet your life on "claims"?

a lot of mothers did in the thalidomide era - their baby's

•••

Have a look at Vioxx history......many lost that bet

Recall you highest goal is First do no harm....most alternatives do well in that regard even if effectiveness might be weak

Pharma not well at all....

The only reason that we know that Vioxx was harmful was because we actively looked for harm. We would not have discovered it otherwise. And it was easy to have Vioxx withdrawn from the market, because you only need to be suspicious that it is harmful, you do not need to prove that it is harmful, when it comes to Big Pharma. It hasn't even been proven that Vioxx causes heart attacks, yet Merck, the FDA and MD's cautiously act on the assumption that it does.

We don't look for harm from herbal medicines, so they are potentially harming millions and we simply don't know about it. And what is worse, when we do discover that they are harmful, the manufacturers keep on selling the drugs and the ND's keep on recommending them anyways. Because for herbals, scientists have to prove the drug is harmful before they will stop making it and using it. It isn't enough that we are suspicious.

Linda
 
The only reason that we know that Vioxx was harmful was because we actively looked for harm. We would not have discovered it otherwise. And it was easy to have Vioxx withdrawn from the market, because you only need to be suspicious that it is harmful, you do not need to prove that it is harmful, when it comes to Big Pharma. It hasn't even been proven that Vioxx causes heart attacks, yet Merck, the FDA and MD's cautiously act on the assumption that it does.

We don't look for harm from herbal medicines, so they are potentially harming millions and we simply don't know about it. And what is worse, when we do discover that they are harmful, the manufacturers keep on selling the drugs and the ND's keep on recommending them anyways. Because for herbals, scientists have to prove the drug is harmful before they will stop making it and using it. It isn't enough that we are suspicious.

Linda

:thumbsup:
 
Show us the harm - you are 100% speculating..

We KNOW the harm on the big pharma and not a few have slipped into use even when the harm was known.

There are extremely few biologicals in common use that would cause harm on typical regimen.

There are lots of illegals that will and over the counter abuse is rife.

Don't try and divert the much needed attention on the death and injusry rate from Big pharmaceuticals by pointing fingers at alternatives

sensible people know where the real risk lies....
 
You sound like my friend I started this thread for. You started off with some semi-valid points, but it quickly degraded into the same "big pharma is teh evul and alternatives are always better because they never have side effects, or only minor ones."

Show us the harm - you are 100% speculating..
I linked two examples in my previous reply to you, that had hundreds of cases where "alternative" treatments killed injured or otherwise harmed people. Did you read them?

Replying to specific, documented examples with "you are 100% speculating" is the sign of a fanatic.

We KNOW the harm on the big pharma and not a few have slipped into use even when the harm was known.
Therefore we should embrace untested methods that have no proven benefit, and completely unknown sorts of harm?

There are extremely few biologicals in common use that would cause harm on typical regimen.
So you're classifying all "biologicals" as CAM? What about those that are embraced by "big pharma" and those evil MDs? If both sides agree that something is effective, it's not evidence that one side is right or the other is wrong.

Do you have any examples of "biologicals" that have an actual, significant, measurable effect that are NOT embraced by "western medicine," or better yet, are dismissed by it?

There are lots of illegals that will and over the counter abuse is rife.
I don't follow you on this one...

Don't try and divert the much needed attention on the death and injusry rate from Big pharmaceuticals by pointing fingers at alternatives
Well, I started by being focused on "alternatives," if there's a diversion anywhere, it's by someone changing the subject to the evils of "big pharma."

sensible people know where the real risk lies....
Oh! I didn't think about it like that. It's fortunate that you pointed that out, because I think of myself as, or wish for others to think of me as, a sensible person. Therefore that means I must agree with you...

...wait, no.

That's just condescending for no good reason.
 
I'm still trying to think why you need vitamin "B" to facilitate the uptake of injected iron.

Macdoc.... Can you help with this one?
 
fls: Are you implying that at least some of what naturopaths are taught is quackery? What else are they taught that is quackery and how do you know?


Well, to start with naturopaths don't believe in vaccinations (it's hard to be sure what an individual naturopath believes since they don't all necessarily believe the same things). Then there's the reliance on undetectable "energy fields" prevalent in so much other quackery.
 
Last edited:
Show us the harm - you are 100% speculating..

We KNOW the harm on the big pharma and not a few have slipped into use even when the harm was known.

There are extremely few biologicals in common use that would cause harm on typical regimen.

There are lots of illegals that will and over the counter abuse is rife.

Don't try and divert the much needed attention on the death and injusry rate from Big pharmaceuticals by pointing fingers at alternatives

sensible people know where the real risk lies....

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ephedra/NS_patient-ephedra/DSECTION=safety

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-bot.html

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dspltr06.html

I have lots more.

Linda
 
Trolls are far less fun to deal with when you know them in real life.

Now he's using Star Trek analogies for some reason. So I'm thinking I'm...winning? But that wasn't the point. So yeah...

*sigh* I need more normal friends. Accquaintances. Whatever.

I do want to thank everyone for the suggestions - or, in some cases, the practice!
 
Do you really want to get into a pissing contest about body counts?? I don't think so......

There are stupid people that do stupid things on both sides of the ledger........wanna count how many deaths from abused drugs .....prescription and non- prescription.....there are quacks and charlatans and outright killers in both arenas.....

Then are are people that trust the mainstream medical system to do no harm.....

Medical Errors Cost US $8.8 Billion, Result In 238,337 Potentially Preventable Deaths, Study Shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408085458.htm

If you are in the main stream medical - don't try and divert attention from the far from perfect record of pharma and for profit medicine by pointing fingers at alternatives.....

By the numbers alone - the greater risk and skepticism should lie with Big Pharma and for profit medicine...

snip

A 2000 presidential report described iatrogenic error and illness as "a national problem of epidemic proportions," causing tens of thousands of annual deaths. The report estimated the cost of lost income, disability, and health care costs to be $29 billion a year. The report concluded that half of adverse medical events were preventable.
The presidential report relied heavily upon another report by the Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System (2000). Issued by the most respected agency of American medicine, To Err is Human generated considerable attention and surprise by concluding that up to 98,000 Americans are killed annually by medical errors. This number slightly exceeds the combined total of those killed in one year by motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, 16,516).

........
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that each year nearly 2 million people acquire infections while hospitalized and about 90,000 die from those infections. More than 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections have become resistant to at least one of the drugs commonly used to treat them. Staphylococcus aureus (staph), the leading cause of hospital-acquired infections, is resistant to 95 percent of first-choice antibiotics, and about 30 percent of second-choice antibiotics.

In New York City alone, treatment of people with hospital-acquired staph infections exceeds $400 million, according to a study published in 1999. Researchers found that staph infections doubled the length of hospitalization, and more than doubled the patient death rate and per patient costs.

The CDC proposes several methods of reducing hospital-acquired infections. The most important include more discriminating antibiotic use and improved hygiene of hospital staff, the main source of infections.

The modern state is, as Thomas Szasz has described it in Pharmacracy: Medicine and Politics in America (2001), a "therapeutic state" in which medical providers have far more power than consumers. Such an imbalance of power may make consumers increasingly vulnerable to the factors that cause iatrogenic illness to be an important cause of illness and death.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407200149.html

I'd not be to loud in praising a very dangerous and defective mainstream system while wagging fingers at alternatives.....lot of hypocrisy there......:garfield:
 
Maybe this was missed, however I do believe it is rather significant point:

In many ways, we're mixing philosophies. Pharmacology is not the same as the pharmaceutical industry. The former is the search and evaluation of biologically active chemicals, the latter is the politics and commercialisation of the products of pharmacology.

While there is obviously a CAM industry, the criticism is cast at its fundamental philosophy rather than at its politics or administration.

In that way, it's virtually comparing apples with, well, apple pies.

In comparing figures, it's important to consider what the underlying contributory factors might be. Given the nature of risk-assessment in medicine, it's ridiculous to compare a death due to improper prescription of a medication which has demonstrated benefits with a death from a CAM treatment that has no demonstrated benefit.

Athon
 
macdoc: The quote you posted says that those deaths are mainly due to human error - which would be present in ANY treatment. You undermined your own point.

The only way to guarantee prevention of these sorts of deaths would be to offer no treatment at all. The recommended solution, again in your quote, was to improve hygiene. That's not something that can be done holistically.

But, when you just highlight the numbers and don't read the rest, yeah, that does look incriminating.
 
Last edited:
Another problem with counting the iatrogenic deaths from modern medical care is macdoc leaving out the millions and millions of prevented deaths.

You don't just evaluate the risks of a treatment, be it sCAM or science based medicine. You evaluate risk/cost vs benefit.

If there is no benefit, then the scale tips to the don't use it position. That's where most unproven remedies fail. If there is some benefit, but the risks are high, even with a known effective treatment, it might still not be something one would want to try. Unless of course the alternative of not trying it offered a highly probable and very serious consequence.

The risk of dying from either a medical mistake or a complication are both calculated when evaluating risk/cost vs benefit. For example, the risk of giving the first hep B vaccine dose postpartum instead of waiting a month is nil. There is no evidence the risk changes a month later and the risk is minute in the first place. But where is the biggest risk of getting hep B infection in the first month of life? While it is extremely rare, the risk from a medical error causing a hep B infection is not zero. Giving the vaccine at birth has more benefit than risk.
 
....
In comparing figures, it's important to consider what the underlying contributory factors might be. Given the nature of risk-assessment in medicine, it's ridiculous to compare a death due to improper prescription of a medication which has demonstrated benefits with a death from a CAM treatment that has no demonstrated benefit.

Athon
But it is the "no benefit" that matters here, not necessarily the fact an error is involved rather than the drug or treatment itself.

When I evaluate risk, I include the risk of errors along with the risk of side effects. Iatrogenic and nosocomial risk should always be considered because they are real risks and they can be measured.

Take a pediatric flu vaccine. If the child has an increased risk of being hospitalized during flu season and the vaccine decreases this risk, the vaccine is not only protecting the child from influenza, it is protecting the child from the hazards the child might encounter in the hospital.

I avoid the ED waiting room unless it is absolutely necessary. Why? Because I've had to manage exposures in the ED from patient to patient. Anyone coming in with a truly airborne infection who isn't properly triaged could infect any number of ED patients who just happened to be there.

These are indeed risks one takes into account. And decisions to take a drug or a treatment need to be based on risk/cost vs benefit, including all risks not just the ones directly linked to a particular drug or treatment.
 
Last edited:
If you are in the main stream medical - don't try and divert attention from the far from perfect record of pharma and for profit medicine by pointing fingers at alternatives.....

By the numbers alone - the greater risk and skepticism should lie with Big Pharma and for profit medicine...

So alternative medicine isn't for profit?

As for the numbers, it's almost as though people know to avoid alternative medicine when they're seriously ill, isn't it.
 
Naturopathy is both good and original. Unfortunately, that which is good is not original (eat a healthy diet, exercise ...) and that which is original is not good ("detoxification" - fasting, purging, enemas - for imaginary toxins). http://www.naturowatch.org/

Some people call homeopathy the ultimate quackery; but I contend that naturopathy is worse because it includes homeopathy and every other absurd notion they can find (acupuncture, "applied" kinesiology, iridology ...). They recommend a lot of "dietary supplements" (which they happen to sell) that have no known benefit. Herbs are not entirely irrational. However, very few have been shown to work. Linda cited the example of some 200 herbs used to treat malaria, yet only one was effective (Artemisia); even that is complicated because the plant does not always contain the active ingredient.

My NPR station once gave an ND 10 minutes to talk about her specialty- cancer prevention. She started by saying that 90% of cancer is prevetable (the ACS says that figure is 67%) and went on about how to cook vegetables and such. She never mentioned smoking (as the cause of 1/3 of cancer in this country) or sunlight!!? The problem with naturopaths is that the uninformed customer never knows what they say is reliable and what is not, and most is not (like a broken clock- which is right twice a day).
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom