How Can We EVER Trust Anything Anymore?

Um, that's another myth. There is no conservative side of government. But you're right; they are all bought and paid for.

I'll buy that.

That's just rhetoric, Lyn.

Maybe, but I feel better, now.

Not sure I can buy whatever it is that phoenix911 is selling.

The point is independent funding begets unbiased results.

Not selling anything lyn,

Its just that you paint with a very slanted brush. I suggest you use a wider as well as staighter brush, that way you'll cover it all.

i.e., there is no party innocent here...... liberal or conservative.

I agree with you. My problem is that I claim to be a moderate Republican (Some might brand me a RINO), living in a state populated by radical tea party, neo-cons. We don't see much in the way of moderation here.

In a nut shell, those with the most money acquire the most power and then they make the rules that benefit them most. Some people call this corruption. We call it politics. Hmmmm. What ever happened to a government by the people?

They also never envisioned the type of media that dominates today's political scene and the dominance of the celebrity culture in selecting leaders based on image rather than character and vision.

How many administrations back would you say this was true for?

Just asking.

You are right. There is now a days hot issue here in India, Indian Government has placed order on Agusta Westland Helicopters worth Euro 556 Millions for 12 Choppers. These were meant for VVIP travel. There was kick back of Euro 51 millions. Bounty to be shared by politicians, Defence personnels and others. Mr.Obama U.S president had dropped the proposals for similar offer as he found it too expensive but our Indian VVIPs decided to purchase these choppers. There is enquiry being held to investigate complete transactions.

It's rather difficult to sensationalize a null hypothesis.

The problems with biased studies have been around for quite a while. The elixirs in medicine have been with us since at least ancient Greece. There are many shrills selling medical elixirs even today with absurd claims. It seems if they do no harm they are allowed to sell them.

I know little of the drug industry but in a study of leachate from a landfill site, the independent engineer is required to submit all the required data from the lab to the regulator. It is up to the engineer to interpret the data and submit his findings. A government regulator can disagree because all the information is available to argue. A statistical analysis can be used to assure such data is acceptable. The lab is certified and spiked samples are submitted for control purposes. Using such a technique in the medical studies seems possible and will also keep the report writer honest and the study honest. That is that all studies will be available. The writer will be forced to interpret "all" the data collected. In such a circumstance where the interpreter may be pressured to not report findings, it would be up to the interpreter to declare his findings limited.

To get the interpreter to carry out honest studies, it may mean that some sort of study certification or license will be required. I hate it when you must resort to licencing the interpreter. How else do you police bad studies that are biased? Alternatively, if studies are given to independent groups like universities, the group could be evaluated and rated. If they consistently bias studies, then reject that group or individual interpreter. On the other hand, if drug companies find loop holes in the rules, the reports may have more strength than they should have received. Unfortunately, it does mean implementing regulation that could be enforced.

Truth eventually prevails. For example we can find lots of studies claiming red wine is good for us. Usually that claim is presented as drinking wine with alcohol is good. But it is not the alcohol that has any benefit, it is the antioxidant in the grape skins. Eating grapes can also be beneficial. Alcohol can lead to other problems like cirrhosis of the liver and mental health problems. The same goes for my favorite beverage coffee, it is bad and good. But coffee helps prevent cirrhosis of the liver. Lots of studies that keep leading to the same results are important. If the results are partial or scattered, the study would show up as a statistical anomaly. These anomalies also should be reported. It is important to know the limitations and pitfalls of studies. IMO. Thanks for the connection SWB123.

To answer your topic question, specifically in relation to the video about pharmaceutical research, I don't trust them. So far, I've been able to avoid man-made pharmaceuticals, to a very large degree. The video you link to provides good starting evidence. The book, "Overdosed America," provides more detailed evidence. There seem to be more books by doctors willing to present this "dark" side of medicine. Still, for many patients, it is like waking from a dream, or nightmare as the case may be.

It is prudent and advisable to study as much as one can about the body and nutrition, so one can take responsibility for one's own health. The tide is slowly turning, and many doctors are being forced to have to study nutritional treatments because their patients are doing so. (Also, they have to be aware of the interactions of herbal supplements and vitamins with drugs because more and more people take them.) So you achieve 2 goals by research and studying nutrition and health yourself -- you gain more control over your health, and if/when you DO visit your doctor, your more knowledgeable questions will help you discover just how much your doctor knows about what you have learned. If he can accurately correct you on anything, so much the better. But at least s/he will have to be on her/his toes. The more we question at a nutritional level, the less often we will encounter the prescription knee-jerk reaction we get so often in a visit to the doctor. They have been conditioned to think that is how a patient expects and desires the session to end.

One key concept to grasp is that some disease conditions aren't nutritional deficiencies, but imbalances (which I guess could still be called a deficiency); sometimes nutritional, sometimes hormonal, etc. Even (or especially) taking supplements one can cause imbalances to occur, and then we blame the supplement for some unintended effect -- not to mention the hype that exists in the supplement industry, too. That is why continual study is imperative -- and the need to experiment and tweak one's regimen. But I'd rather know something about the body and health than nothing. Remaining ignorant, is, for sure, when you are at the mercy of a system gone haywire.

Frankly, I am tired of people blaming everyone else for their bad choices in life.

Unfortunately for many, what turns out to be a "bad choice" in retrospect was not due to lack of thought or personal responsibility, but the lack of data or an abundant supply of bad or biased data (e.g. Advertising/Campaigning...).

People do not have equivalent resources, internal or external.

Unfortunately for many, what turns out to be a "bad choice" in retrospect was not due to lack of thought or personal responsibility, but the lack of data or an abundant supply of bad or biased data

IMO, I still think it still comes dow to 'poor life choices', that was compounded by earlier 'poor life choices'

I would agree that poor circumstances (poverty, etc.) can be a huge mountain to climb and do, sometimes, limit choices to be made. We've all seen stories of individuals in those circumstances who have pulled themselves out of those circumstances, usually, with help along the way. There is no such thing as a totally self-made man, or woman.

It is a mixed bag. There are many individuals who do complain when they shouldn't.

We could all get degrees in Psychology AND Sociology and still not be able to get more compliance with "it was my/our fault."

There are a lot of scenarios where so many thumbs are in the pie that responsibility becomes jointly owned. Getting all parties to agree to their share of the responsibility, or getting any "actor" to admit to starting the dominoes falling, becomes almost impossible. On a societal scale it, sadly, leads to the kind of stalemate we see in little or no Congressional action, to pick a glaring example. Or the banking industry. Too big to WHAT!?? To adhere to TRUTH?! To following rules guided by truth? That is at the root of responsibility.

Because a company or institution has a reputation, like an individual does, much following evil can take place for the sake of not staining it with the first act of evil -- i.e., lying usually only begets more lying. This is at the root of the video that the OP refers us to. That's another aspect of making "poor choices." As real individuals making up the institutional individual, poor choices can lead to explanatory thoughts and statements of rationale, like, "I just didn't have any other choice... it was my job that was on the line... I've got a wife and three children..." In today's job market and economy, that force can't be trivialized or underestimated. IF that is one's real circumstance, it becomes a clouded choice. Your choice will now affect innocent bystanders. If one's family supports the choice of standing on principle then it is easier to make, but not necessarily easier to live with.

Health choices are influenced by the environment we grow up in, too. In today's marketplace, vs. when I grew up in the '50's, there are the pressures of much more "fast food" restaurants, much more processed food. We didn't have so many vending machine choices in schools; soft drinks, was pretty much it. (And we wouldn't have had the money to utilize them anyhow.)

I discovered long ago how difficult it can be to try to educate people who rely on these avenues of food acquisition. Mostly, that IS a poor choice. (Fiddling with people's food choices is almost as volatile as questioning their religious beliefs!) So is that really solely their fault? Or is partly due to the fact that the world we live in, and how our lives are structured, creates an inertia to sustaining a poor choice, which was, initially made out of ignorance? Likely, a never ending discussion.

It is like the entitlement mentality is no longer a mentality, but is now genetically imprinted.

We as a human race tend to repeat ourselves by saying learn from your history but yet we never act upon it.

Move over Romans, The beginning of the end is upon us.

• Available jobs are at a considerable distance from affordable housing.

I lived in an apartments when I first went to college 30 years ago (some were called cocaine alley, and for a good reason, but thats what I could afford)..... .... after I got out, and made some money, I move to better apartments. Each time I moved up. It seems that the same people also moved in.

Typical types, people that were months late on there rent, and they thought it was alright, when qeustioned, if they are living beyond there means, The response was, I not moving back to some $hit3ole, I'm better than that. And with government subsidizing their housing helps also. Along with the other typical issues Domestic abuse, ect......

• Without work you cannot afford a vehicle. Without a vehicle public transportation takes 1-2.5 hours one-way (if it is available and gets you close to the job).

California, I believe it. But its not like that all over, maybe with taking public transportation, but hey when you need a job, that your options.

As for the rest, it comes down to poor life choices that was compounded by even earlier poor life choices.

As far as the neighbors, I sure that's all in my past. As far as California, I'm from Wisconsin, and in my 30's i was called upon on some projects there. Driving on your highways, It didn't take me long to figure not to hesitate while your driving, and if your courtesy they look at you, as wtf. If a space is open take it.

Yes, poor life choices could be an over simplified expliantion, but I like to add, that I feel in society when your down and out, those same people expect others to bail them out, while still trying to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle. No personal responsibility.

Life can be tough and seemingly unfair, and to change it, it should and has to from ones self.

Absolutely a perfect answer, and very complete.

I personally don't trust ANY pharmaceuticals, man made or otherwise because in my experience, they all work, and they ALL have side effects. I prefer the "balanced diet" solution instead of the "natural supplements" so many seem to favor. (to the tune of 95 billion dollars a year!!! Wow! What could we do with that money if we were not spending it on Q Ray bracelets and concussed water?)

With respect, I have more respect for doctors than you give them credit for in your post, mine, for instance, would never prescribe a medicine without a full discussion of possible side effects, and monitoring of any adverse issues, and he ensures I have a very clear understanding of what the medicine is supposed to do. I could eat four litres of cherries every day for my gout (for instance) or I could eat cherry extract (not as tasty as I thought it would be!), or I can take the active ingredient in cherries in its synthetic form of alo-allapurinol at a tiny fraction of the price and trouble of fresh fruit. We both know what needs to be done...but the vector (method of delivery) is a problem to solve, and the dosage can vary widely depending upon other factors, mostly involving other foods I consume.

I guess I just don't see the "system going haywire". The trouble with "educating yourself", which you suggest we all do, is that in order to educate a person to have a nodding aquaintance, let alone a solid understanding of (oh, to pick just one field) of how foods affect a wonky endocrine system resulting in gout, would require 5 to 7 years of med school, and a couple years of residency. The granola eating hippie at the health food store simply does not have that background. Yet, for something as important as your own health, why would you trust the health food store hippie before you trust the professional?

Hee hee, If it didn't work, I would not be worried about the new age twinkie with her potions. And of course, you need to take ownership of your own body...and be suspicious of anything anybody suggests be ingested which can change it. Lots of good info out there...it MUST be used or face the consequences.

Like I said, I thought your post was spot on, A couple of good places to start whenever you have an "ailment" would be to ask yourself "whats the harm". Like, what would be the harm of me eating 4 litres of cherries every day? (I can think of a couple...most involve time in the toilet) A selection of good web sites might include the following:

What's the Harm, a website run by Tim Farley. Because he is NOT a doctor, he is often considered less biased.

Quackwatch by Dr. Stephen Barrett

and his data base of trusted natural medicines is here (for a price of course!)

Jeff Gilchrist's statistics site, which has to do with seasonal flu statistics. For some reason, people prefer to not see those charts because they often already have their minds made up, but potentially conflicting conclusions are hard to avoid when you see them! Interesting cognitive biases arise when I show people those charts! I included this just because I liked the refreshing science in it.

Donald Simanek's site which deals with the difference between science and pseudo-science. Deals with! Heck, it beats it to death, throws it in its coffin and digs the hole!

And of course, Penn and Teller's Bullxxxt is a fine example of how to properly to look at the issues and put them into perspective.

Me...I was simply surprised that a couple of simple changes in my life and consumption habits brought my blood pressure under control, and eliminated the migraine headaches I had been suffering all these years. My doctor wanted me to stop eating salt and walk more. I did that. It worked. No pills.

Do you think the desire for the "magic pill" so many doctors prescribe are because so many people don't want to give up their salty chips, or their beer or their smoke? Coversyl, for instance, will do the same thing as pushing the salt shaker away from your plate. If I wished to continue eating like a teen ager, the "magic pill" might well keep me alive. And so many of us want to continue to eat like a teen ager!

Anyway....just kind of rambling along. I hope I have added to your post, and not dissed it in any way.

No dissing registered. I had to read my post again, though, after reading your first sentence.

Foods and nutritional supplements are far less likely to have serious side effects that most man-made pharmaceuticals have. (TV ads, for instance. I'm always amazed at the list, and how, "resulting in death," is a common one, either directly or indirectly, while the nice soothing music plays in the background as they are listed by the calm voice.) Otherwise, you'd see those warnings on cereal boxes, etc. Come to think of it maybe they should be there. (Can cause hardening of the arteries!)

Kudos to your doctor. I would note that you are in Canada. Could it be that his more thorough presentation as to your options is an effect of the system? Just wondering. If one finds a doctor like yours, one is fortunate.

And, yes, many of us want to keep our food vices and have a "magic pill" (or "pills") to counteract their bad effects. The sense of taste is a powerful one subject to addiction. Some cravings are due to the body's wisdom of what it needs or requires. Distinguishing between the two isn't always so straight forward.

The "haywire" system I speak of is the U.S. version. I have met Canadians who have expressed their opinion that in spite of the glowing description of superiority (overall, cost being as important consideration as outcomes), in general family practice, of Canadian vs. U.S. systems, there are things that could still be improved. Cancer treatment, for instance, is limited to the same choices as the U.S. system, for the most part.

Generally, the more links the merrier, to me. Too much knowledge can be overwhelming if it is all at once. You are correct in referring to "educating" oneself as quite a daunting task. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed as impossible, or as too much trouble.

For the sake of completeness, or balance, I would argue that much of the knowledge one gets for a medical degree is not utilized in general practice. (I find the same in my career of electronics. I've forgotten much of what I learned, theoretically, just because I never used it.) For many day-to-day type ailments, the traditional folk remedies (for instance, ginger for digestion and/or nausea) work quite well with NO significant side effects -- just like cherries; except for the effect you warned of. (BTW, you seem to have gained some knowledge of nutritional science, somewhere and somehow along your way -- enough to feel confident in making final decisions yourself.)

We have gained a very detailed description of anatomy and physiology. I would also suggest pharmaceutical science is so intertwined with medical practice/education that a doctor could easily feel he has minored in pharmaceutical science. The devil can be in the details. And sometimes, we don't see the forest for the trees. Their nutritional training is lacking and they have to play catch up after they leave school -- if they are wise, that is.

As I have mentioned and alluded to before, experimenting with nutritional supplements is a way of cutting to the chase of what helps and what doesn't in many common, non-life threatening ailments. (Myself, I don't mind experimenting in more serious disease states.) Self-experimentation has a robust history. Caution and common sense, hopefully, coincide in most people. I think a lot of nutritional science has evolved from this type of experimentation. Fortunately, many supplements don't lend themselves to abuse. (I am still convinced that B-vitamin deficiency/imbalance is an important contributing factor in many health issues. The disruption of almost any bodily process can manifest as "symptoms" common to many disease states, because these processes are so often parts of a "control" loop.)

It is, again, prudent, to investigate substance and dosage for anything we ingest; even food. Taken to the extreme, it is possible for one to kill oneself by drinking too much water. Obviously, if one feels uncomfortable in experimenting, they probably shouldn't do so. The lack of confidence, though, is usually due to lack of knowledge. Back to educating oneself to some level. We don't have to become doctors to do this. There are enough books BY reputable doctors, with those 5-7 years of medical training, helping one to understand enough to experiment. I would suggest these as good starters in the quest for understanding nutrition and physiology.

Thank you for your thoughts and the links. All worth considering.

Absolutely. For me, it started way back when I had a notion to be a body builder. A fertile field for the food supplement trade for sure. I was "prescribed" some supplements by some of the guys working out beside me, and took the trouble to find out what they were and what they did. In retrospect, it seems dumb to do that, but peer pressure is a VERY powerful force. Most of them worked. All of them were hazardous. Even the multi-vitamines. Cod liver oil gave me gout one winter, and it never went away (admittedly possibly a false correlation.) When I had tingling in my hands and feet, my peers just told me it was the new muscles squeezing the blood vessels. It happens shrug. I decided to get a blood test, and was diagnosed with gout. Once I had a professional diagnosis, I then researched what caused it, what the effects were, and how to prevent it. Diet was suggested. As was cherries. I chose a combination of both. And yes, Cod Liver oil was a culprit. But the downside of not having enough vitamin D when body building outweighed the comparatively minor pain of gout. So, there is always a trade off. I decided to live with the pain and grow strong bones. A choice, made with my eyes wide open.

Now, with the internet available one can do a lot of research really fast. One quickly learns to tell the difference between the guy who has a real answer and truly wants to help you from the guy who has a supplement to sell you. I also discovered that in almost every case, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Or reduce gout...whatever.

As far as doctors in the US versus doctors in Canada, there is no difference that I can see. I have been treated due to accident in both the US and Canada, and did not notice a deficiency in either country. The only difference I can see between the two countries is how you pay for your treatment.

Maybe the Canadian Government is a little more "nanny state" because they pay the bills when people get out of line. Mostly we Canadians figure that it is the government's job to save us from ourselves. After all, why else would you HAVE a government? But that can be a topic for another time and another place. One thing is for sure....any doctor anywhere is subject to pressures from their clientele, their billing schedule and their ethics. I doubt there is really that much difference between our two systems in that respect.

As you said, absolutely... almost.

to elaborate on your comment:

"... mine, for instance, would never prescribe a medicine without a full discussion of possible side effects, and monitoring of any adverse issues, and he ensures I have a very clear understanding of what the medicine is supposed to do."

It is a main difference I refer to. I've been prescribed medications and haven't had the scenario you describe. I've even had pharmacists not be as thorough as they should have been, and they're the last check point before you're off on your own.

It's not that I distrust doctors, so much as, I just think they are too pill happy; at least in the U.S. O.K, I guess that's mistrusting; skeptical at the least. It's a symbiotic relationship, in that regard, with patients who DO expect a "magic bullet" pill. That, and they (the doctors) don't know enough about nutrition when leaving medical school to provide practical alternatives. And no wonder, the entanglement of pharmaceutical companies in influencing the educational syllabus of medical schools is very real. And the entanglement continues when they become practicing doctors -- not a healthy situation. (A couple of starter links, chosen rather quickly, regarding this: One, two, three, etc.) I would be interested to know how many U.S. readers of this discussion would say their doctor gave them choices of a prescription pharmaceutical and/or some natural alternative, in cases where they exist, explaining the consequences of both in detail, as you mention. It hasn't been my experience. But maybe I live in the wrong part of the country.

My musing about the Canadian system (and other governmental, single payer systems around the world) is that there aren't the same pressures from pharmaceutical companies that exist here, for physicians to prescribe drugs. (See the book I first referenced in my first post --#16 -- in this thread.) That skews the whole process/experience. Single payer, ideally, leads to more concern with prevention and keeping a patient well, as compensation doesn't depend so much on diagnostic procedures, etc. A good documentary which presents this as a major problem, from "some" doctors perspective is, "Money Driven Medicine." A commentary and video clips.

Are we a nation of hypochondriacs? I don't think so. We may be a nation of "helicopter parents," and we are most definitely a nation of people who get a lot of our medical advice from celebrities. Who ya gonna trust? Your doctor or Oprah? We are also a nation who demands instant gratification. We want that cigarette (kills millions). We want that automobile (kills millions). We want that gun (kills thousands). We want that fast food burger (850 a day!). We want that bag of salty potato chips (kills millions). We want that supplement (kills dozens - dozens? Well, yes, a few develop problems, but not many. The question is "risk versus gain"). Drugs are a problem, not just in the US but everywhere, and it's particularly noticeable in online prescription fills (this last link supports your statements very neatly).

So unless we suddenly all "get a life," commute less, eat properly and exercise an hour a day, eat healthy unprocessed food, wash our hands after we use the public washroom and get our vaccinations, we will continue to die like flies all over the world and doctors will enlist as much aid as they can to try to stem a death rate from obesity and heart disease which exceeds most epidemics in history. That they enlist the aid of Big Pharma in their quest is unsurprising; in fact, what else can they do? Tell you to exercise, eat right and throw away the salt shaker? Take a little wine for the stomach's sake? They tried that. So the big question remains "well, why didn't we do what we were told? Who we gonna blame? The media? Celebrities? Big Pharma?" No sir, the blame must rest squarely on ourselves.

(Yusef1, If I have misconstrued what you have written, please correct me.)

Hypochondriacs? That mindset usually has it's basis in fear or paranoia. That is definitely a factor. That is what makes drug ads on TV effective. Suddenly, out of nowhere (no, actually a boardroom) frequent urination is something that demands a drug. Or, as I saw just last night, not being able to get back to sleep after waking up in the middle of the night is now a "condition," which, as fortune would have it, has a drug that can treat it. If by hypochondriac you mean being gullible to these suggestions, then I would agree with that characterization.

Appropriate to that perspective is the Amazon book description for, "Selling Sickness," which reads:

Thirty years ago, Henry Gadsden, the head of Merck, one of the world's largest drug companies, told Fortune magazine that he wanted Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigley's. It had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people so that Merck could "sell to everyone." Gadsden's dream now drives the marketing machinery of the most profitable industry on earth. Drug companies are systematically working to widen the very boundaries that define illness, and the markets for medication grow ever larger. Mild problems are redefined as serious illness and common complaints are labeled as medical conditions requiring drug treatments. Runny noses are now allergic rhinitis, PMS has become a psychiatric disorder, and hyperactive children have ADD. When it comes to conditions like high cholesterol or low bone density, being "at risk" is sold as a disease. Selling Sickness reveals how widening the boundaries of illness and lowering the threshold for treatments is creating millions of new patients and billions in new profits, in turn threatening to bankrupt health-care systems all over the world. As more and more of ordinary life becomes medicalized, the industry moves ever closer to Gadsden's dream: "selling to everyone."

One of the 5-star reviews for the book, "Overdosed America," is from a doctor:

141 of 141 people found the following review helpful 5.0 out of 5 stars From one Physician to Another - THANK YOU, December 2, 2005 By A reader who is "unsupervized" (Dallas, TX USA) - See all my reviews This review is from: Overdosed America : The Broken Promise of American Medicine (Hardcover)

I have been a physician for 10 years. I have seen my profession gradually being taken over by the pharmaceutical industry. I have seen countless patients harmed - alas even killed - by drug reactions and polypharmacy.

I have sat and listened to countless drug representative presentations that were outright falsehoods and misrepresentations. It has been months - maybe even years that I have had available to me a medical education conference that was not somehow tainted by drug company money and therefore propaganda.

I have repeatedly had patients in my office begging me for medication that they do not need. They want it simply because it was on TV News last night - and came with a promise of metaphysical salvation. I spend much time every day dissuading patients from taking medication they simply do not need - indeed may even cause real medical problems.

The issues that are discussed in this book are very very real - and the scary part is I do not see my fellow physicians doing a single thing to address these huge problems.

Dr. Abramson - thank you for hopefully what will be the opening salvo in a very important battle.

Per the points I've tried to make,taken together, there can be joint blame. To dismiss the actions of the pharmaceutical industry (or any business or corporation) as benign is wrong, to me. There is real, intentional influence, as outlined in so many books -- by DOCTORS, no less. (The authors of Selling Sickness are not doctors, AFAIK. But that doesn't negate the information in the book out of hand.) The pharmaceutical companies have outright prescription quotas that they expect some doctors to meet. Maybe you haven't read any of these books. These aren't all doctors just trying to sell books.

There are many older patients without the education to discern as you and I do. Phoenix911's experience with his Dad is not rare. Who made the bad choice? So, I guess we respectfully agree to disagree on that point.

I'm not sure I remember a big push by doctors, either, to get us on the righteous lifestyle bandwagon. But, as I said earlier, I know how difficult it is to get anyone to change eating and lifestyle habits, that get more entrenched the older we get. Then at the last minute we change or die. President Clinton is a good example. So, yes, I would agree that most people aren't interested in learning or educating themselves about health. My original post suggesting it did not carry any naive expectations of a mad rush to do so. All anyone can do is try to be a catalyst for some change. It doesn't have to be on a large scale to make it worthwhile.

We will die right along with all those "instances" you mention. So should one not offer the suggestion anywhere just because many may not take it to heart? Or because we are all fighting a losing battle? Quality of life for the duration is a worthy goal. Who wants to live in a limited, diseased body if one can help it?

Speaking of automobile deaths, remember when Toyota had their problems with sticking accelerator pedals? Are they not responsible for that? Were consumers who bought those cars making bad choices in full knowledge? Was it their mistake to have purchased a Toyota car? On the contrary, the Toyota reputation has sold millions of cars for Toyota. It wouldn't be hard to produce quite a list of "deaths" and other serious "mishaps" caused by corporate misconduct. The space shuttle disaster, mentioned in another thread is another example. Did the astronauts just make a "bad choice" on that day? They trusted so many people involved with that enterprise, especially those at the top who could have said, "No." to the launch. I don't know if there were engineers at Toyota trying to sound the alarm. I haven't read enough about it. But common sense and wisdom would expect accountability on Toyota's part.

You say it is impractical to expect us to learn what doctors take 5-7 years to learn. Therefore many have to trust them. The above review indicates that trust can be misplaced; certainly influenced. Who then makes our "choice" in a session with our doctor? An uninformed, ignorant patient? The doctor? It isn't always as simple as you would paint it.

The doctor I trusted for decades, is now retired. He decided to concentrate on preventative care back in the early '70's. He lost patients (per your reference to patients not listening), and, therefore, much of his livelihood. Ultimately, it cost him his marriage. It took a strong man to do what he did. Talk about choice and responsibility. His opinion of the AMA wasn't rosy. He never really elaborated, but he didn't have to. I was already becoming knowledgeable through him and through my own reading as my interest in health began to blossom. There is a dark side.

Accountability is important for corporations as well as humans. Both make mistakes and bad choices. When a private individual makes a bad choice the consequences are limited. When an individual or individuals in a corporation make a bad choice the damage can be substantially greater. Surely you are not saying they have no accountability at all? If so, we definitely disagree.

THIS, as much as the sake of health itself, is why individuals need to take control of their own health. To each his own, though.

(So no one gets offended by a possible delayed response -- this is my last comment for the week. I don't do CR4 on weekends.)

I dont disagree at all. Or even agree to disagree... Very solid reasoning.

I know, physicians put their pants on one leg at a time, and can be mislead, and no doubt some are working to the detriment of their patients. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to have one of the "worried well" walk in their front door and complain about (whatever), and of course, they want in all honesty to do something for their "whatever". But at least they have educations and an oath to "do no harm" in their corner.

My feeling (based on lots but never enough research) is that too much money, time and effort are expended on two major, overlapping areas. 1. false and bogus "cures" to bogus diseases and conditions, and 2. too much false and biased information disseminated by people with an agenda.

People make poor lifestyle choices every day. The media and the Big "whatever" are involved in helping to make those choices.

Scientists are their own worst enemy. They rarely ever come out and give a cut and dry answer to a question...its always "well, if you smoke you might cut off 20 years off of your life, and the smoker sees that statement as "so there's a good chance you are wrong then hmmm?" and lights up another one.

My old granny always told me "you know, everybody has the right to go to hell in their own way". (the old bat had a few good ones like that, and smoked until she died at 92 by being shot in bed by a jealous wife)

Well enough of that. We agree on the problem. We are both questing for a solution which will still allow people to make free choices and still be safe. That may be the greatest problem to solve.

O.K.

I guess your comment about "one leg at time" means you agree that there is the "pressure to prescribe," on many doctors. In smaller communities that may be diminished. It's been written and commented on enough that it isn't a fantasy dreamed up. The studies that are sometimes "hidden," once disclosed or found, can be analyzed. There also is a history that would show the AMA to be like the MIB.

I would include any number of pharmaceuticals (the anti-depressants are a good example) as "bogus" cures, as well as many "alternative" therapies. There was never any really good data behind them, according to these doctors, in analyzing the studies that were suppressed, or not offered to the FDA, and/or for publication -- no better than placebos, in fact. Dr. Abramson does a fine job of taking the reader through the numbers, on several drugs, to show that "the emperor had/has no clothes," in those cases. Actually, the emperor has been trying to hide behind fake clothes, too often.

Your granny living to 92 while smoking could be another fork (or several, indeed) in the road. Genetics being one. We are willing to play a form of Russian roulette with our health not knowing where our weaknesses are, and assuming, that (any number of vices) might affect other people, but "I'll" beat the odds. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. Likely we won't. No, definitely we won't. We will die. BUT we might have more trouble-free years and just drop dead at the end, rather than being bed-ridden or wheeled around in a chair, or some similar motorized device. A graceful exit. That is the hope of paying attention to what affects our health in a demonstrable way.

My first post started by making the suggestion that each of us research and then be willing to TRY out our knowledge on ourselves. I am convinced, that among "natural" substances, vitamin C may be one of a crucial nature. For me, it's not may. But others have to come to that conclusion, after hopefully looking at the data (and experiences of others) with an open mind. I, now, have my own experience to support the studies showing the potential of its use. Nothing is more convincing that one's own experience. Thus, the suggestion of experimenting for oneself. I've, also, referred to another fine book, by Dr. Thomas Levy, in other threads, entitled, "Curing the Incurable." He has tried to revive and carry the torch for the forgotten (or ignored and unexplored) history of ascorbic acid in health and treatment of disease. I highly recommend it. One can read parts of his book at his web site. (Scroll down to see the links to portions of the book.)

We tend to live with the blinders of our own culture. The German Commision E publications are an attempt to validate, or not, many botanical substances in disease treatment. Not all cultures dismiss traditional medicine the way our medical community has in the past. Hopefully, that is changing as we type. The Chinese are another cultural example. I think it begs the question of why other cultures are more willing to give an open and fair hearing to traditional medicine than we, normally, see in the U.S. Reading the Hippocratic Oath can be instructive. Dietary regimen precedes the "do no harm." The original post and linked video gives one answer.

I saw a movie this weekend which plays very well against the subject of "choices." You and many others here might have seen it. I saw it years ago and wanted to watch it again, because I knew the punch lines, I had just forgotten everything between the start up to them. It's called "Absence of Malice," starring Paul Newman and Sally Field. It does a great job of showing how choices are so interconnected. Unlike a lot movies I've wasted time on, it is very satisfying. Choices don't happen in a vacuum. They often seem individual but aren't. Everything around us influences us and shapes our perspective which we use to make choices. And other people's choices can affect us and create a need to make a choice where it wouldn't have existed without their choice and subsequent action(s). We live in a virtual sea of intertwined choices.

I think solutions to getting people to recognize that they affect their health by their habits and nutrition, whether they understand it or not, is not so easy, as I've mentioned. A typical response from many of us when our palate is threatened is to be ostrich-like and pretend that what we ingest doesn't really matter much. I still have "comfort" foods that I know aren't good for health, but try to convince myself that minimal amounts are O.K. Unfortunately, it's easy for those minimal amounts to begin to amount to something.

My wife introduced me to the idea of nutrition=health when we were first married. The seed was already there, though. As a child, one Christmas, I was passionate to have a plastic model called, "The Visible Man." I'm surprised it is still being sold. The structure of the body already intrigued me at ~7 years old.

After reading enough to whet my appetite for more, I tried to "help" my Mom and Dad with "information." My Mom was O.K. but my Dad flat out told both of us, he'd eat how he pleased and to not bring it up again. She also tried to help her Mom and Dad. Her Dad, by that time, had already had a stroke and was quite dependent on my wife's Mom. Her mother, like mine, was more receptive and could help both herself and her husband. Reversing a stroke at 80 and it's damage, isn't easy. I also used to tell my wife, "There is no cure for death." It is very hard to watch a loved one suffer, to change, especially when we think, "if only," about choices made. She told me so often, "I wish you could have known my Dad before his stroke." Prevention is MUCH better than cure.

I agree with your 2 overlapping factors. It covers a huge amount of ground, no?

Complicating this is that there are exaggerated claims for some nutritional supplements, herbal, vitamin, and otherwise. These are often lacking in research data that is accepted in the U.S. As noted above, other cultures embrace the search for truth about traditional medicine. Here, one could wait a lifetime for "acceptable" studies. Back to the idea of learning for oneself and self-experimentation. And what does work for one person may not for another. Doctors often go through several drugs for a patient trying to find the one most efficacious for that patient. The same is true for nutritional therapy. It may seem like a single nutrient should help a condition, when a complement of them is needed. We also expect immediate response. Nutritional therapy doesn't always work as fast as an aspirin. That is a mindset that can also creates a false criteria for judging the efficacy of nutritional modifications. Ascorbic acid can and often, does, though. The more one reads, the more one does find anecdotal "miracles." BUT will it help ME? Self-experimentation will answer that when all the studies in the world will not.

A good portion of the success of any presentation is how it's done and when. When everyone is gathered around the Thanksgiving table, is probably not a good time to critique the menu. And an attitude of "I've read a lot about this," can come across as condescending, with the attending response.

Nope, not easy at all. I try to make suggestions and let people either act on it or not. Their choice. The consequences of our health choices affect those around us. We can become a burden on those around us. We can hurt them by our suffering. We can subject ourselves to what might have been, if only. All any of us can do is the best we can.

(Speaking of rambling... I think I've sufficiently beaten this to a pulp. I hope others here don't mind. I don't always have the time to do a proper proof-read, either. Forgive any typos and grammatical errors. My redundancy is due to the fact that I think this is of far greater importance than generally accepted. I've tried to suggest individual research into vitamin C and health in general, giving links offering, what strikes me, as enticing evidence. Unfortunately, for readers here, new threads crop up where the subject is relevant to the posted topic/article, etc. I have an urge to repeat the info. if it's relevant to the thread topic. Why waste time retyping the same thoughts? I'll try to restrain that urge in the future and reference past threads, if I respond at all. At some point, enough is enough.)

People are only human. So I don't expect much from them. However I shall keep this brief. I don't trust any supplements. Not even vitamin C. Sorry. I suspect you had some good results with an alternative therapy of some sort, and are now telling everybody how well it worked. Good on ya. But these are the reasons WHY I don't trust any supplements.

The doctor that treats himself has a fool for a patient.

Cognitive bias can undermine scientific progress.

You cannot define a line with one point. You need at least two, and more than that is better.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Dangers of Vitamin C supplements Study of 30 people

A study of 14 thousand. by Harvard University. Usefulness to the heart.

Mayo Clinic conclusions, not just of vitamin C but of many other supplements

The tempest in a tea pot. Who IS this guy? Would I trust him more than the Mayo clinic? If so, why? Oh, I see..he is selling vitamins.

The dangers of mega-dosing. These include crystals in the urine, loss of oxalic acid and collapse of the vitamin B12 balance in the body. Even the Linus Pauling Institute suggested no more than a week because it was, like, dangerous. The real question was "if it is dangerous, then what good do we get from it"? I already have gout...it seems that megadosing of vitamin C will aggravate it. Quickly and painfully. Lee Meyer feels that you don't get enough benefit from vitamin C to justify the risks.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I myself rarely got a cold until I quit smoking. Did the smoke prevent the cold? Or could it be something else...say...after I quit smoking, perhaps I suddenly became more "kissable"? More contact, more cold germs.

Keep in mind that I don't have any relatives who are doctors, and so I don't have any pre-conceived biases in that direction. I generally avoid doctors...but they have their place. Just as as engineers have their place. They have the expertise. If you are not happy with the engineer, there is a route to follow to discipline them. Same with doctors.

There is one difference between bogus medications (Q-ray bracelets, accupuncture etc.) and supplements. Most medicines and supplements actually work and have a very severe effect. Almost all medicines are "natural". Digitalis and acylic acid are natural. One will stop your heart, the other will help it run well. The Big Pharma so many people seem to be worried about really ARE doing a lot of work. I don't think there is ANY drug that does not have a side effect.

Well enough of that. I have said my piece. Please respond by IM.

With all due respect, your Canadian government doesn't pay any bill without first taking the money out of the pockets of its citizens.

But on to a point more pertinent to this discussion:

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Dental Amalgam controversy:

Health effects

Peer-reviewed scientific studies have come to opposite conclusions on whether the mercury exposure from amalgam fillings causes health problems. A 2004 systematic review conducted by the Life Sciences Research Office, whose clients include the FDA and NIH, concluded that "the current data are insufficient to support an association between mercury release from dental amalgam and the various complaints that have been attributed to this restoration material".^[3] A peer-reviewed Journal of the Canadian Dental Association article holds that "it seems likely that humans may have evolved with a threshold level for mercury below which there is no response or observable adverse health effects".^[32] Another review published in 2005 by the Freiburg University Institute for Environmental Medicine found that "mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints", that "Alzheimer's disease ormultiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure", and that "removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials."^[4]

How in the world can "peer reviewed scientific studies" come to opposite conclusions, ESPECIALLY, when it comes the use of a toxic substance being placed in a human body, UNLESS there is someone(s) pretty high up in the medical/political hierarchy with a lot to loose if even the simplest FACT is allowed to be accepted as commonly acknowledged truth along with its attendant legal liability ?!?

Sounds like some unbiased studies are in order. Friberg is a fine research university! I note that they preface their comments with "may lead to". I believe I commented somewhere about scientists being their own worst enemy because they always qualify their statements. My dentist feels that to take the mercury out of my teeth will expose me to more mercury than leaving them there. The Friberg study you referred to was with people who already had chronic mercury poisoning from other causes, and the mercury amalgams were just making it worse.... remember, the threshold level referenced in your first link? They had exceeded that level. I have provided that link for your perusal. Please read it with an open mind, it mostly supports your position, but you are a smart guy, you can evaluate it for yourself.

Ever seen mercury poisoning? No neither have I. So what's your problem? Considering most people I know have mercury amalgams in their teeth, you would think we would see some effects don't you think? Most people have a tiny amount of mercury coming out of their fillings...the CDA feels that it is not enough matter, being it is about the same exposure in a year as you would get from a can of tuna.

But, that being said, there is no reason to continue to use mercury amalgam in teeth fillings. I really don't think there is a truly safe minimum exposure to heavy metals, and welcome the modern replacements. Removing processed sugars from my diet has resulted in a remarkable reduction in dental caries in my mouth. Back in the military, they instituted a programme to teach us soldiers how to brush and floss. This program resulted in a ten fold reduction in chair time. Sounds too simple? Well, thats my whole point now isn't it! Can't pay for a dentist? Then don't drink the soda! duuuh! People can be so set in their ways...and they pay the price! Don't blame the dentist....he is the one who wants you to brush twice a day!

Oh and as for your first comment....it sounds very knee jerk and partisan. The Canadian system uses money collected from its citizens by elected officials for the purpose of providing a service (medical care) to the ones who voted them in. The American system uses money collected by insurance company officials who are un-elected and are responsible only to their share holders. Both systems get their money from the same person...the guy on the street. We in Canada just prefer that money be handled by an elected official instead of an insurance agent. shrug. Don't know what system is superior...just knows that mine works, and when I was injured on a visit to the US, the US system worked just fine as well. Both are fine systems.

Considering most people I know have mercury amalgams in their teeth, you would think we would see some effects don't you think?

Since everybody has slightly different body chemistry, who's to say we aren't seeing a whole host of direct causes of disease, and/or indirect consequences like heightened susceptibility to things like autoimmune diseases? Since these sorts of disorders can take many years to manifest, and amalgam use has been around since the 1830s, the only way to even get an untainted view of this situation, is compare our medical history with a population that has never had it. I don't even think that is feasible since there are so many other things like this in our post industrialized world, which have the potential to do us harm. But, even if it were, we apparently would be having conflicting "peer reviewed" studies on the subject, if my take on 'the world as I know it' is true.

Talking about over medications, my dad (just turn 88 last week) complained about his doctor over medicating him as he shows my his box of pills and how tough he feels, I was looking for a different doctor,....... When he had an episode and had to take him into the hospital.

the doctor on staff, looked at his record, swore and remove all but two prescription. his pain he had gall stones and a kidney stone in each kidney.

Thank you for a solid example of what I mean by "haywire."

I think that's an example of malpractice.

Malpractice?

well, the problem is, Dad was complaining, we heard him, no one made the attempt soon enough to if not change doctors, but to atleast get a second opinion before it happened.

We were brought up that we have to take responsibility of our own life choices......Doctors are not godlike, they're human.

Fortuately we got it in time, I'm just disappointed that he had to suffer (or something worse) because we did not react quick enough.

The question is self-defeating....

John D. Rockefeller said that "The growth of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest… It is merely the working-out of a law of nature and a law of God".

American political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists as ordained by "law of nature and a law of God".