Quackbusters

In article <[email hidden]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Orac <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If Angela e-mails me real polite-like, I might be willing to send a PDF
file containing the Starfield article to her.

Actually, I didn't find the followups to the article. Could you list the
citations? I'd be interested in looking them up.

Don't have 'em handy; I read that article in a copy of JAMA I got from
the library. However, I do recall that in either that issue or one
shortly after it, there were a couple of stinging rebuttals, pointing
out that Starfield's numbers were so high only because she was using
such old (pre-1970) data, and that the numbers based on more recent
studies were about 1/6 as large. Starfield did respond to this, but I
found it pretty weak. What *were* the referees thinking?

Just from the original article itself, there were problems, even if her
figures were correct. For instance, counting all hospital-acquired
infections as "iatrogenic" is dubious at best and a transparent ploy to
exaggerate the severity of the problem at worst. Similarly counting all
deaths from non-error-related drug complications is also questionable,
given that many of these deaths will be in patients who absolutely
needed those drugs for treatment.

I notice that Angela has yet to ask me for a copy of the original
article, although I haven't checked my e-mail yet this AM. ;-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

(Angela) said:

Hello Tsu,

Quoted message said:

Tsu Dho Nimh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a long history of questionable science on the part of the
medical profession. To give a single example, MDs in the 1940s
encouraged patients to smoke - smoking was 'scientifically' proven to
be beneficial to health.

Please cite your references.

Quoted message said:

I know Dr.s used to tell their asthmatic patients to smoke Stramonium
cigarettes. I think it was stramonium I am not going to look it up.

Stramonium is NOT TOBACCO: It is Datura (jimsonweed), the
official USP preparation was an extract. It was used in treating
insanity, mania, melancholis, epilepsy, asthma, whooping-couhg
and topically for a variety of skin ailments.

Smoking it (1 gram) to abort an asthma attack was practiced.
However it was replaced by the inhalants a long time ago.

Materia Medica (Culbreth, 1927)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If murder, suicide, and trauma don't get you first.>>>>

Yes - if your under forty. Life expectancy is supposed to take us into
our 70's so it should be one of the big three - heart, cancer or
iatrogenic.

You keep claiming that "iatrogenic" thing.

Quoted message said:

I wrote this:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The leading cause of death in the Civil War was disease. Even one of
Lincoln's sons died from diptheria because the army was camped on the
Potomac and discharging waste into the river.>>>>

and you are right diphtheria is not water borne and yet all these
years I have thought it was, because of what I learned in school.

Don't blame the school - diptheria has never been thought to be
a water-borne illness. Perhaps you were dozing and they were
discussing "dysentery".

Quoted message said:

is the first time I have had to recognize this. I still think it is
caused by polluted water. Something about a polluted well...

Perhaps you are confusing Lincoln's son with the Prince of Wales
.... he died of typhoid that was universally blamed on the "bad
drains" at Windsor Castle.

Quoted message said:

how an old teaching sticks. One son did die from diphtheria but it
wasn't the one I was thinking of.

Willie died from typhoid and the book I read was "Don't know Much
About the Civil War" by Kenneth Davis. Kenneth Davis is an historian
and the reason he gave was the soldiers camped upstream on the
Potamac. You say he died from acute malarial infection- the closest I
came in a search was a compomise -the website said "most likely the
illness was typhoid fever". I will go with typhoid because of the
practice of running waste into the river

That is only a factor if you are drinking FROM the river ... the
White House is distant from the river, and at the time was served
by a well.

Willie died from an ailment variously diagnosed as bilious fever,
typhoid, and acute malarial infection.

http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/features/medicine/cwsurgeon/commonterms.cfm
medical terms of the era:

Bilious fever was known for its jaundice, something typhoid
produces rarely if at all.

http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclectic/thomas/malaria_remi.html
Synonyms.—Bilious Fever; Estivo-Autumnal Fever; Gastric Fever.
Definition.—One of the divisions of malarial fever in which there
is but one revolution of the disease, the hot stage being greatly
prolonged and made up of exacerbations and remissions.

..... Bilious fever can not be said to run a uniform course. In
some, the fever is quite mild, the remission pronounced, and but
little, if any, gastric disturbance. In others, as the disease
progresses, it loses its remittent character, and merges into a
continued fever with typhoid symptoms. ...
Again, we occasionally meet with cases where there is great
congestion of the spleen and liver, and when the remission
occurs, there is but little reactive power, the skin becoming
relaxed, the patient is bathed with a cold, clammy perspiration,
the pulse is small and feeble, the extremities are cold, the
breathing shallow and labored, coma appears, and the patient dies
during the remission.

Sounds a lot like what happened to Willie.

Typhoid produces a characteristic body rash early on, a slow
pulse despite the high fever even in the initial stages, and no
jaundice.

Quoted message said:

I don't know why you accuse me of scorning allopathic medicine. I use
both allopathic and homeopathic medicine. I am not a "believer" in
medicine. What works, works.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

In article <[email hidden]>, Rich<,@.>

Quoted message said:

The reason that Jan Drew repeatedly (and usually falsely) accuses
others of lying is that she is trying to discredit their opinions. She
uses the term "proven liar" in a pathetic attempt to add credibility
to her claim. Of course to Jan a "proven lie" is simply something that
she believes to be untrue. And since Jan is likely delusional, her
calling someone a liar is pretty meaningless. Actually Jan Drew
calling others a liar is usually tantamount to them telling the gospel
truth.

Personally, when Jan starts calling me a "liar," I know I'm on the right
track and it encourages me to continue.;-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

.... Bilious fever can not be said to run a uniform course. In
some, the fever is quite mild, the remission pronounced, and but
little, if any, gastric disturbance. In others, as the disease
progresses, it loses its remittent character, and merges into a
continued fever with typhoid symptoms. ...
Again, we occasionally meet with cases where there is great
congestion of the spleen and liver, and when the remission
occurs, there is but little reactive power, the skin becoming
relaxed, the patient is bathed with a cold, clammy perspiration,
the pulse is small and feeble, the extremities are cold, the
breathing shallow and labored, coma appears, and the patient dies
during the remission.

Sounds a lot like what happened to Willie.

Typhoid produces a characteristic body rash early on, a slow
pulse despite the high fever even in the initial stages, and no
jaundice.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz .... blah blah ..... brainwashed .....
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE ..... Evil Organized Microbiology .....
conspiracy ..... PROVEN LIAR .....

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

In said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave said:

I have never talked scientific.

How true. You have talked pseudo-scientific, in the mistake belief
that you were actually talking scientific. Now that your scam has
been exposed, you are backpedalling as fast as you can. It's amusing,
but it would be nicer if you'd just admit defeat and get lost instead
of futilely attempting to bail out your leaking lifeboat.

<salespitch for silly ginseng product deleted>

and ignorance successfully
maintained.

Hey, we can lead you to knowledge but learning is up to you.

On that ignorance thing, what *is* the mechanism of action
for ginseng? Besides being a clotting inhibitor, that is.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Quackbusters
From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
Date: 8/6/2003 3:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Quackbusters
From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PETER!!

Tsu snipped and didn't mention it,

Because I was trying to stay on topic,

EXACTLY!! Everyone does it and not one thing is worng with that. It just
happens that Peter is desperate to find something wrong. In my posts only, of
course.

Quoted message said:

which is your refusal to
accept my decades of experience with alternative health
practicioners as valid.

You made that up.

I didn't say they weren't valid, I said what you posted wasn't the norm. I also
stated I was speaking of REAL serious illness where NO answers are found from
conventional medicine.

Not merely taking supplements.

Quoted message said:

You were the one who dragged Peter into the conversation,

Indeed I did, to show his selectiveness.

Quoted message said:

and I
will continue to snip your attempts at changing the subject.

Uh huh, and take the heat off of Peter, ain't that sweet.

BTW, I asked you to post WHERE I demonized any doctors in the Ben Kolb case,
and WHERE there was any stark constrast to the layers.

Did you forget?

And don't tell me you aren't interested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore you should know I am speaking of actual experience in REAL
illness, not just a mere use of a few alternative supplements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And how do you know what my "actual experience with real illness"

Quoted message said:

is? Did you sneak a peek at my medical records?

Quoted message said:

I don't need to, as you have repeatedly shown you are a member of EVIL

Quoted message said:

*organized medicine*.

Quoted message said:

So ... without knowing anything about my "actual experience with
real illness" you can dismiss my lifetime of experience based on
your belief that I am "a member of EVIL *organized medicine*"?

Let's not go into the twisting game, it is childish and foolish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I'm way beyond "mere use of a few alternative supplements"

Quoted message said:

... and have been since childhood.

Quoted message said:

Which in NO way compares to having an illness, getting close to death, and
finding NO answers from conventional medicine.

Quoted message said:

Getting close to death? You think I haven't been there?

OOOps. Read it again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which in NO way compares to having an illness, getting close to death, and
finding NO answers from conventional medicine.

Jan

Quoted message said:

She has lost her marbles because of all the harrassment and has become a
disabled case of OCD. Give it up and killfilter the nut.

First Stuart, then Gymmie Bob, are epiphanies being distributed to some of
MHA's cretins?

Quoted message said:

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Angela said:

Hello Tsu,

Tsu Dho Nimh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a long history of questionable science on the part of the
medical profession. To give a single example, MDs in the 1940s
encouraged patients to smoke - smoking was 'scientifically' proven to
be beneficial to health.

Please cite your references.

I know Dr.s used to tell their asthmatic patients to smoke Stramonium
cigarettes. I think it was stramonium I am not going to look it up.

the website I took the info from was:

http://www.peter.ca/society.shtml

The website does not make any distinction like that. The clear
implication is that doctors used to tell patients to smoke tobacco. It
is a lie. From the website:

"There is a long history of questionable science on the part of the
medical profession. To give a single example, MDs in the 1940s
encouraged patients to smoke - smoking was 'scientifically' proven to be
beneficial to health."

See? No distinction. A lie.

And, of course, you refuse to do a bit of homework tosupport your
contention. So typical.

Quoted message said:

Just from the original article itself, there were problems, even if her
figures were correct. For instance, counting all hospital-acquired
infections as "iatrogenic" is dubious at best

Iagtrogenic: Induced in a patient by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. Used especially of an infection or other
complication of treatment.

If you get pertussis from your roomate's visitor, for example,
it's not iatrogenic even if you were in the hospital.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tsu Dho Nimh said:

Quoted message said:

Just from the original article itself, there were problems, even if her
figures were correct. For instance, counting all hospital-acquired
infections as "iatrogenic" is dubious at best

Iagtrogenic: Induced in a patient by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. Used especially of an infection or other
complication of treatment.

True, but the question becomes whether all hospital-acquired infections
are induced by a physician's therapy, which arguably they are not. Some
if not most clearly are, such as catheter-related infections. Others are
more of a case of a sick patient being in a place where other sick
patients are.

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

--

"Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just from the original article itself, there were problems, even if her
figures were correct. For instance, counting all hospital-acquired
infections as "iatrogenic" is dubious at best

Iagtrogenic: Induced in a patient by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. Used especially of an infection or other
complication of treatment.

If you get pertussis from your roomate's visitor, for example,
it's not iatrogenic even if you were in the hospital.

Tsu

Would it then be nosocomial, or not?

--Rich

--

"Mark Probert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Angela said:

Hello Tsu,

Tsu Dho Nimh <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>There is a long history of questionable science on the part of the
>medical profession. To give a single example, MDs in the 1940s
>encouraged patients to smoke - smoking was 'scientifically' proven to
>be beneficial to health.

Please cite your references.

I know Dr.s used to tell their asthmatic patients to smoke Stramonium
cigarettes. I think it was stramonium I am not going to look it up.

the website I took the info from was:

http://www.peter.ca/society.shtml

The website does not make any distinction like that. The clear
implication is that doctors used to tell patients to smoke tobacco. It
is a lie. From the website:

"There is a long history of questionable science on the part of the
medical profession. To give a single example, MDs in the 1940s
encouraged patients to smoke - smoking was 'scientifically' proven to be
beneficial to health."

See? No distinction. A lie.

And, of course, you refuse to do a bit of homework tosupport your
contention. So typical.

It could be that this myth arose from a magazine ad campaign for Camel
cigarettes which showed a "doctor" smoking a cigarette and saying that
"Camel cigarettes aid digestion." Does anyone besides me remember these ads?

--Rich

Dave said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave said:

I have never talked scientific.

How true. You have talked pseudo-scientific, in the mistake belief
that you were actually talking scientific. Now that your scam has
been exposed, you are backpedalling as fast as you can. It's amusing,
but it would be nicer if you'd just admit defeat and get lost instead
of futilely attempting to bail out your leaking lifeboat.

<salespitch for silly ginseng product deleted> *and ignorance successfully

maintained.*

Davey likes to play intellectually dishonest games. He learned these
tricks at the P. T. Barnum School of Internet Marketing and Huckstering.
He was an 'A' student in their course on ethics.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you get pertussis from your roomate's visitor, for example,
it's not iatrogenic even if you were in the hospital.

Tsu

Would it then be nosocomial, or not?

Probably not, I would guess.

In any case, I have wondered for a long time whether it is correct to
lump all nosocomial infections with iatrogenic infections. For instance,
although the term "nosocomial" is more commonly used to refer to patient
disease, hospital personnel can also acquire nosocomial infections.
Similarly, many nosocomial infections are more a function of a lot of
sick people being in the same building than anything doctors do. This is
not to downplay the seriousness of the problem of nosocomial infections
(which can be a huge problem in some hospitals), but merely to point out
that nosocomial infections and iatrogenic infections are not necessarily
always one in the same thing.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Rich Shewmaker said:

It could be that this myth arose from a magazine ad campaign for Camel
cigarettes which showed a "doctor" smoking a cigarette and saying that
"Camel cigarettes aid digestion." Does anyone besides me remember these ads?

Vaguely, some of the early ads for the meenthol ciggys mihgt have
done so too ... AFAIK the cig companies are now explicitly
prohibited from showing anyone likely to be mistaken for medical
personnel in their ads.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

It could be that this myth arose from a magazine ad campaign for Camel
cigarettes which showed a "doctor" smoking a cigarette and saying that
"Camel cigarettes aid digestion." Does anyone besides me remember these ads?

Vaguely, some of the early ads for the meenthol ciggys mihgt have
done so too ... AFAIK the cig companies are now explicitly
prohibited from showing anyone likely to be mistaken for medical
personnel in their ads.

Tsu

Thus, H*lda Cl*rk, Stuart, & Atlas are free to endorse Cigarettes.

--

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you get pertussis from your roomate's visitor, for example,
it's not iatrogenic even if you were in the hospital.

Tsu

Would it then be nosocomial, or not?

Probably not, I would guess.

In any case, I have wondered for a long time whether it is correct to
lump all nosocomial infections with iatrogenic infections. For instance,
although the term "nosocomial" is more commonly used to refer to patient
disease, hospital personnel can also acquire nosocomial infections.
Similarly, many nosocomial infections are more a function of a lot of
sick people being in the same building than anything doctors do. This is
not to downplay the seriousness of the problem of nosocomial infections
(which can be a huge problem in some hospitals), but merely to point out
that nosocomial infections and iatrogenic infections are not necessarily
always one in the same thing.
--

Hospitals keep data on nosocomial infections, and by far, the largest
majority of them are urinary tract infections related to indwelling
catheters, and wound infections, neither of which can be attributed to the
congregation of sick people.

--Rich

David Wright said:

Look, I know it's hard to see such irrationality and not respond, but
you don't *all* have to do it. I know that she's still writing
bizarro responses to my postings, even though she knows I killfiled
her a long time ago (when I plonk someone, I actually do it).

It is so hard to break out....

but I will try.