Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[JFKvsNixon]

The quote above is from his book. I didn't need to read that quote to know that pharmaceutical company influence and corruption runs deep through the core of our medical system- I found that out long ago.

 

It's just good to now that when I post such things about pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system and people like you dismiss my reasons and evidence link as naive 'bad science', that I can quote you some stuff from Ben Goldacre and you'll have some respect for it.

 

Obviously not with stuff about vaccines, as he's very much in favour of them, but, certainly when it comes to pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system, he's got a lot to say on the subject, and, what he says does not bode well for those who think the problem is a small one.

 

Ben Goldacre is very much part of the medical system, he's a doctor. If you're just going to quote him without reading his work, it'll be meaning less as you'll not understand the context of the quote.

 

In other words you'll just cherry pick the parts of the book that matches your existing views and knowledge, whereas if you read it all you can challenge you views and expand your knowledge.

[onewheeldave]

Ben Goldacre is very much part of the medical system, he's a doctor. If you're just going to quote him without reading his work, it'll be meaning less as you'll not understand the context of the quote.

 

I know. So are Dr Mcdougal, Dr Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr Ornish (doctors, that is) and several other doctors whose views I find inspiring. All of them are deeply critical about many aspects of our medical system, in particular, but not restricted to, the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies.

 

At least one of them you consider to be 'a crank'. I don't really have time to read Ben Goldacres books, or feel the need. The value of Ben Goldacre to me is that, finally, it's some common ground when attempting to communicate with people like who do not respect my other sources of information on these subjects.

 

I'd also encourage you to read up on some of the doctors I've found of value, but, that's not going to happen. I'm sure you're short of time as well.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 20:59 ----------

 

In other words you'll just cherry pick the parts of the book that matches your existing views and knowledge, whereas if you read it all you can challenge you views and expand your knowledge.

And one reason I don't have time to read loads of books is cos I'm autistic, and, unfortunately, that means that any act of communication with you, or 99% of the people on this board, takes around 10 times as long as it would were I neurotypical.

 

I'm talked down to, treated as unintelligent and, often it's suggested that I'm being dishonest.

 

In reality, I'm far from unintelligent, and, in debate, I'm always honest and sincere. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why attempting to communicate on this board is extremely frustrating, and, very, very tiring.

 

It doesn't help that when I attempt to suggest improving communication via explaining things about autism, that I'm then accused of 'playing a card' i.e. again a suggestion that i'm being dishonest.

 

So, really, the value of Ben Goldacre to me, is that he is, in effect, a chance of common ground between me, and, people like you. So, when it comes to an issue like the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies on our medical system, I no longer have to put hours of effort into posting links from experts I respect and am familiar with, only to have them dismissed as scammers, and myself dismissed as naive/gullible. Instead, I can post some relevant stuff from Ben Goldacre. Saves me a lot of time and frustration.

Edited April 14, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Tommo68]

 

In other words you'll just cherry pick the parts of the book that matches your existing views and knowledge, whereas if you read it all you can challenge you views and expand your knowledge.

 

This can be said of most books, selecting quotes can make any book look as good or as bad as you like. People whe talking about christians often to make them or their history look bad quote from the old testament which is not even part of the teachings of their messiah.

 

On the other hand people only use positive quotes when extolling the virtues of the quran deliberately omitting all the parts that westerners would find horrific.

 

Its all subjective really but you should not (as many appear to do on this forum) really quote from anything unless you have read it in its entirety.

.

.

[altus]

This can be said of most books, selecting quotes can make any book look as good or as bad as you like. People whe talking about christians often to make them or their history look bad quote from the old testament which is not even part of the teachings of their messiah.

 

As some Christians seem to be quite happy to quote bits of the old testament that support their viewpoints it's entirely reasonable to quote other bits they don't like back at them.

 

On the other hand people only use positive quotes when extolling the virtues of the quran deliberately omitting all the parts that westerners would find horrific.

 

Most people on here critical of religions don't know the Quran as they do the Bible so most people quoting it are the Muslim equivalent of Christians quoting the good bits of the Bible.

 

 

Back on topic:- A good reason for reading Bad Science is that it will give a thorough understanding of evidence based medicine and why it's the only reliable way to know what really works and why it's important to apply it to ALL people claiming to have some sort of treatment. If you or onewheeldave read Bad Science and then apply the critical approach it describes to Dr McDougal's claims you'll see why so many of us are so sceptical of him.

[Phanerothyme]

From this site (by a person who lost their entire intestinal tract after a complication from an unecessary colonoscopy, and, who has devoted a lot of time after their transplant in alerting others to the what he considers to be the dangers and misinformation surrounding them) it's 1 in 200.

 

http://roarofwolverine.com/archives/2772

 

He links to a paper here-

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550252

 

but you'll propbably need to register to view it (I had to).

 

Here's a copy/paste from that link-

 

And what are the risks of undiagnosed colon cancer?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 01:23 ----------

 

Instead, I can post some relevant stuff from Ben Goldacre. Saves me a lot of time and frustration.

Allow me to quote from the book you're reading or listening to on audiobook.

 

The diversity and isolation of these anti-vaccination panics helps to illustrate the way in which they reflect local political and social concerns more than a genuine appraisal of the risk data: because if the vaccine for hepatitis B, or MMR, or polio, is dangerous in one country, it should be equally dangerous everywhere on the planet; and if those concerns were genuinely grounded in the evidence, especially in an age of the rapid propagation of information, you would expect the concerns to be expressed by journalists everywhere. They’re not.

[onewheeldave]

 

Back on topic:- A good reason for reading Bad Science is that it will give a thorough understanding of evidence based medicine and why it's the only reliable way to know what really works and why it's important to apply it to ALL people claiming to have some sort of treatment. If you or onewheeldave read Bad Science and then apply the critical approach it describes to Dr McDougal's claims you'll see why so many of us are so sceptical of him.

 

If you have knowledge of Dr McDougals claims, and, a understanding of evidence based medicine, you should be able to consisely communicate to me (or anyone) why his claims are flawed.

 

And, bear in mind, that while evidence is obviously necessary to make valid claims, much of that evidence in the form of studies is itself compromised. that's something we all agree on.

 

It's a claim I've been making (that much of the study based evidence is compromised/flawed/deceptive), it's one that Dr McDougal is making, and, pertinent to you, it's one that Ben Goldacre is making.

 

When it comes to things like diet/nutrition, efficacy of treatments etc, the fact that much of the evidence necessary to come to conclusions is compromised/flawed/deceptive, is clearly a mammoth problem.

 

I need to come to conclusions on things like diet/nutrition and efficacy (or otherwise) of treatments- my life depends on it (as does evryones, I just, for some reason, seem to take it more seriously than most).

 

My strategy for dealing with the fact that study based evidence is compromised is that I take into account other forms of 'evidence' (in quote marks as I know that you likely will not consider it evidence).

 

i.e. certain forms of 'adecdotal evidence' (eg I respect as evidence people posting videos of several years showing how they move from a state of bad health to exceptional health in a period corresponding to when they switch to, and maintain, a 'radical' diet/lifestyle).

 

And also have respect for theories like Dr McDougals 'starch solution' which, although it does refer to plentiful amounts of study based evidence, is, in large part, based on logical arguement and historical observation.

 

While I can assume that you'll be dismissive of the above, it does leave, given that we are all in agreement that much study based evidence is compromised, the question of your proposed stategies for coping with that?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 09:22 ----------

 

And what are the risks of undiagnosed colon cancer?

 

The risks of undiagnosed colon cancer are that it won't get treated.

 

However as Dr Mcdougal says in his article-

 

The Trend Back to the Sigmoidoscope

 

This colonoscopy-dominated trend began to change in January of 2009 when an extensive review of the results of colonoscopy was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.3 Even though the entire five feet of colon were examined by the colonoscope, prevention of deaths from colorectal cancer were limited to only those polyps removed from the left side of the colon—those last two feet that are easily and safely within the reach of a sigmoidoscope. The findings shook the world of gastrointestinal medicine.

 

The next big event was the publication of the “Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial,” published in the May 8, 2010 issue of the Lancet.4 This study has become the waterloo for the colonoscopy industry. In this massive undertaking, 170,432 individuals 55 to 64 years of age were assigned to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or no screening. For those who completed the sigmoidoscopy screening the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by 33% and mortality by 43%. (Small polyps were removed at the time of the exam.) Follow-up colonoscopy was reserved for those patients with polyps that met high-risk criteria: 1 cm or larger; three or more adenomas; tubulovillous or villous histology; severe dysplasia or malignancy; or 20 or more hyperplastic polyps above the distal (left side) rectum. Only 5.3% of the participants went on to colonoscopy.

 

Why Are Benefits Limited to the Distal Colon?

 

The reasons that survival benefits are confined to polyps removed from the distal (left) colon are unknown, but there are some suspicions. There are technical reasons in that the proximal (right) side is harder to clean out for visualization and more difficult to pass the scope completely into. In addition, right and left colon cancers may differ biologically: right-sided cancers are occasionally flat, making them harder to identify and remove. Right-sided colon cancers are also much more aggressive and deadly, and as a result they may less often be found in a precancerous polyp stage, before they have spread (metastasized).5

 

Colonoscopy is an imprecise instrument. Colon cancer arises from polyps (also called adenomas), and these tests miss about 24% of polyps—12% being large polyps (10 mm or greater).6.7 In autopsy studies, approximately 35% of people consuming the typical Western diet are found to have colon polyps.8,9 Two-thirds of colorectal cancers and adenomas are located in the rectum and sigmoid colon, which, as mentioned, can be examined by flexible sigmoidoscopy.

i.e. that colonoscopy isn't better at diagnosis than the alternative.

[JFKvsNixon]

If you have knowledge of Dr McDougals claims, and, a understanding of evidence based medicine, you should be able to consisely communicate to me (or anyone) why his claims are flawed.

 

I've asked you this question before:

 

Have you checked his evidence to make sure it says what he claims? Even if he's being honest he may well be cherry picking his quotes to make it say what he wants it to say. The fact that he hasn't put his claims in front of a peer reviewed journal so it can be critiqued says a lot.

 

And, bear in mind, that while evidence is obviously necessary to make valid claims, much of that evidence in the form of studies is itself compromised. that's something we all agree on.

 

Not it's not.

 

As I said before, you cannot compare the peer review research carried by the medical industry with the closed research carried out by the pharmnicutical companies. If you read Ben Goldacre you'd realise that this is what he is saying, he wants the pharmaceutical companies to open up all their data for peer review.

[MAC33]

Bill Gates......The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.

 

 

So yes......vaccines do work as intended.

[JFKvsNixon]

Bill Gates......The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.

 

 

So yes......vaccines do work as intended.

 

Have you ever noticed that as a country becomes more prosperous, and it improves it's healthcare the birth rate drops considerably?

[onewheeldave]

I've asked you this question before:

 

Have you checked his evidence to make sure it says what he claims? Even if he's being honest he may well be cherry picking his quotes to make it say what he wants it to say. The fact that he hasn't put his claims in front of a peer reviewed journal so it can be critiqued says a lot.

 

Help me out then. Here's 1 claim from the article-

 

This colonoscopy-dominated trend began to change in January of 2009 when an extensive review of the results of colonoscopy was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

3 Even though the entire five feet

of colon were examined by the colonoscope, prevention of deaths from colorectal cancer were limited to

only those polyps removed from the left side of the colon—those last two feet that are easily and safely

within the reach of a sigmoidoscope. The findings shook the world of gastrointestinal medicine.

Here's a link to that paper-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19075198

 

and, here's his link to that paper-

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19075198][/url]

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Colonoscopy is advocated for screening and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC), but randomized trials supporting the benefit of this practice are not available.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the association between colonoscopy and CRC deaths.

DESIGN:

Population-based, case-control study.

SETTING:

Ontario, Canada.

PATIENTS:

Persons age 52 to 90 years who received a CRC diagnosis from January 1996 to December 2001 and died of CRC by December 2003. Five controls matched by age, sex, geographic location, and socioeconomic status were randomly selected for each case patient.

MEASUREMENTS:

Administrative claims data were used to detect exposure to any colonoscopy and complete colonoscopy (to the cecum) from January 1992 to an index date 6 months before diagnosis in each case patient and the same assigned date in matched controls. Exposures in case patients and controls were compared by using conditional logistic regression to control for comorbid conditions. Secondary analyses were done to see whether associations differed by site of primary CRC, age, or sex.

RESULTS:

10 292 case patients and 51 460 controls were identified; 719 case patients (7.0%) and 5031 controls (9.8%) had undergone colonoscopy. Compared with controls, case patients were less likely to have undergone any attempted colonoscopy (adjusted conditional odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74; P < 0.001]) or complete colonoscopy (adjusted conditional OR, 0.63 [CI, 0.57 to 0.69; P < 0.001]). Complete colonoscopy was strongly associated with fewer deaths from left-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.33 [CI, 0.28 to 0.39]) but not from right-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.14]).

LIMITATION:

Screening could not be differentiated from diagnostic procedures.

CONCLUSION:

In usual practice, colonoscopy is associated with fewer deaths from CRC. This association is primarily limited to deaths from cancer developing in the left side of the colon.

 

Does that evidence match what Mcdougal claims? If not, where's the problem?