Re: New Chelation Bill YEA

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: New Chelation Bill YEA
From: [email hidden] (Hawki63)
Date: 7/28/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: New Chelation Bill YEA
From: [email hidden] (Jan)
Date: 7/28/2003 4:40 PM Pacific

Quoted message said:

This bill permits a physician to practice chelation therapy

Hawki snipped!! Hawki snipped!

And didn't mention it!!!

Take NOTE Peter!!!

Jan

<snip remainer of LIES>

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: New Chelation Bill YEA
From: [email hidden] (Jan)
Date: 7/28/2003 4:40 PM Pacific

Quoted message said:

This bill permits a physician to practice chelation therapy. Chelation
therapy
is a medical treatment in which a chemical is introduced into a patient's
body for the purpose of binding and either removing or rearranging

metallic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

elements. Under the bill, the Medica

again Janny neglects to read the [censored] she posts!!!

janny....we were doing a form of chelation in the 70's with most every

dialysis

Quoted message said:

we performed...as these poor folks were overloaded with IRON from too

frequent

Quoted message said:

blood transfusions...can you spell "remove metals"..

it has NEVER been illegal for chelation to be done ....

Can we advertise it, claiming that it's an efficacious treatment for heart
disease or not?--rb

Quoted message said:

did ya read how frequently the noun "physician" is used????

did ya read any references to "doing chelation to remove plaque?"

no...neither did I...

did ya see any indication that chelation is illegal in and of itself???

no...neither did I...

Well if it's not illegal why is it illegal to advertise it as a treatment
for heart disease? --rb

Quoted message said:

maroon..you and rb surely are related...

Yes, our Father is not the same father that you have.It seems your father
is a liar!--rb

Quoted message said:

hawki
hawki

rb said:

Quoted message said:

it has NEVER been illegal for chelation to be done ....

Can we advertise it, claiming that it's an efficacious treatment for heart
disease or not?--rb

No, only for metallic element removal or re-arrangement

This bill permits a physician to practice chelation therapy. Chelation
therapy is a medical treatment in which a chemical is introduced into
a patient’s body for the purpose of binding and either removing or
rearranging metallic elements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

did ya read how frequently the noun "physician" is used????

did ya read any references to "doing chelation to remove plaque?"

no...neither did I...

did ya see any indication that chelation is illegal in and of itself???

no...neither did I...

Well if it's not illegal why is it illegal to advertise it as a treatment
for heart disease? --rb

Because it doesn't work for treatment of heart disease.

WB

In article <[email hidden]>,

(doe) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: New Chelation Bill YEA
From: "rb" [email hidden]
Date: 7/28/2003 10:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Can we advertise it, claiming that it's an efficacious treatment for heart
disease or not?--rb

Yes ..

1: Eur J Haematol. 2003 Jun;70(6):398-403. Related Articles, Links

Reversal of cardiac complications in thalassemia major by long-term
intermittent daily intensive iron chelation.

Apples and oranges. The claim commonly made by alties is that chelation
treats atherosclerotic heart disease and causes regression of
atherosclerotic plaques. The article you cite does not support such a
claim. It does not even address such a claim. It is merely evidence that
chelation therapy is effective as a treatment for excessive iron levels.
That is nothing new. That is how chelation therapy has been used by
"conventional" doctors for decades. That chelation therapy reverses
heart damage that is specifically caused by elevated iron levels in
thalassemia patients is therefore not particularly suprising or
revolutionary. Unfortunately for your argument, reversing iron-related
heart damage is NOT the same thing as reversing atherosclerotic heart
disease. They are different disease processes, and the article you cite
does not even address whether chelation therapy is effective against
atherosclerotic heart disease.

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

rb said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well if it's not illegal why is it illegal to advertise it as a

treatment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for heart disease? --rb

Because it doesn't work for treatment of heart disease.

Except for those that have taken it.

Male bovine dung.

Quoted message said:

Btw, do you know anybody that has taken
it?--rb

Yep, he's dead now. Chelation doesn't work for CAD.

In article <[email hidden]>,

WB said:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:04:42 -0230, "rb" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Btw, do you know anybody that has taken
it?--rb

Yep, he's dead now. Chelation doesn't work for CAD.

It doesn't work for peripheral vascular disease, either.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Quoted message said:

From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Apples and oranges.

And placebo.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quoted message said:

It is merely evidence that
chelation therapy is effective as a treatment for excessive iron levels.

Reversal of cardiac complications in thalassemia major by long-term
intermittent daily intensive iron chelation.

Miskin H, Yaniv I, Berant M, Hershko C, Tamary H.

Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Schneider Children's Medical
Center of Israel, Petah Tiqva, Israel.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with thalassemia major (TM) who are non-compliant with
long-term deferoxamine (DFO) chelation, survival is limited mainly because of

***cardiac complications***

of transfusional siderosis. It was recently shown in a
small group of TM patients with established

***cardiac damage***

that continuous 24-h
DFO infusion via an indwelling intravenous (i.v.) catheter is effective in
reversing cardiac toxicity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the
results with intermittent daily (8-10 h) i.v. DFO. PATIENTS: Eight TM patients
with

***cardiac complications***

treated with intensive intermittent DFO were
retrospectively evaluated by the mean annual serum ferritin, radionucleated
ventriculography and 24-h electrocardiography recordings. RESULTS: The median
age at diagnosis of

***cardiac disease***

was 17.5 yr (range 14-21), and the median
follow-up time was 84 months (range, 36-120). In the majority of patients
(seven of eight) high-dose DFO (mean 95 +/- 18.3 mg/kg/d) was administered via
a central venous line. During follow-up, there was a significant decrease in
the mean ferritin levels (5828 +/- 2016 ng/mL to 1585 +/- 1849 ng/mL, P <
0.001). Both cardiac failure (mean ejection fraction 32 +/- 5) and

***cardiac arrhythmias were resolved in four of five patients***

.. One non-compliant patient
died during the follow-up. Following discontinuation of the i.v. therapy,
compliance with conventional DFO therapy improved. The complications of this
regimen, mainly catheter-related infections and catheter-related thrombosis,
were similar to those described earlier.

CONCLUSIONS: These results with the
longest follow-up period in the literature suggest that i.v. high-dose DFO for
8-10 h daily may be as effective as continuous 24-h infusion for the

*** reversal of established cardiac disease in TM.****

PMID: 12756023 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Who loves ya.
Tom

Quoted message said:

Try again.

Read it until it soaks in.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Apples and oranges.

And placebo.

No, it's still apples and oranges.The cardiac problems from excessive
iron due to thalassemia major are a different disease process from
atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what alties advocate chelation
therapy for. To repeat: It is a DIFFERENT disease.

Quoted message said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quoted message said:

It is merely evidence that
chelation therapy is effective as a treatment for excessive iron levels.

Reversal of cardiac complications in thalassemia major by long-term
intermittent daily intensive iron chelation.

The cardiac problems from excessive iron due to thalassemia major are
completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

Miskin H, Yaniv I, Berant M, Hershko C, Tamary H.

Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Schneider Children's Medical
Center of Israel, Petah Tiqva, Israel.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with thalassemia major (TM) who are non-compliant with
long-term deferoxamine (DFO) chelation, survival is limited mainly because of

***cardiac complications***

The cardiac complications from excessive iron due to thalassemia major
are completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

of transfusional siderosis. It was recently shown in a
small group of TM patients with established

***cardiac damage***

The cardiac damage from excessive iron due to thalassemia major is
completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

that continuous 24-h
DFO infusion via an indwelling intravenous (i.v.) catheter is effective in
reversing cardiac toxicity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the
results with intermittent daily (8-10 h) i.v. DFO. PATIENTS: Eight TM patients
with

***cardiac complications***

The cardiac complications from excessive iron due to thalassemia major
are completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

treated with intensive intermittent DFO were
retrospectively evaluated by the mean annual serum ferritin, radionucleated
ventriculography and 24-h electrocardiography recordings. RESULTS: The median
age at diagnosis of

***cardiac disease***

The cardiac disease caused by excessive iron due to thalassemia major is
completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

was 17.5 yr (range 14-21), and the median
follow-up time was 84 months (range, 36-120). In the majority of patients
(seven of eight) high-dose DFO (mean 95 +/- 18.3 mg/kg/d) was administered via
a central venous line. During follow-up, there was a significant decrease in
the mean ferritin levels (5828 +/- 2016 ng/mL to 1585 +/- 1849 ng/mL, P <
0.001). Both cardiac failure (mean ejection fraction 32 +/- 5) and

***cardiac arrhythmias were resolved in four of five patients***

The cardiac arrhythmias from excessive iron due to thalassemia major are
completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is what
alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

. One non-compliant patient
died during the follow-up. Following discontinuation of the i.v. therapy,
compliance with conventional DFO therapy improved. The complications of this
regimen, mainly catheter-related infections and catheter-related thrombosis,
were similar to those described earlier.

CONCLUSIONS: These results with the
longest follow-up period in the literature suggest that i.v. high-dose DFO for
8-10 h daily may be as effective as continuous 24-h infusion for the

*** reversal of established cardiac disease in TM.****

The established cardiac disease from excessive iron due to thalassemia
major is completely unrelated to atherosclerotic heart disease, which is
what alties advocate chelation therapy for. Once again, they represent a
different disease process that is related to excessive iron.
Atherosclerosis is not related to excessive iron from blood transfusions
and is not helped by chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

PMID: 12756023 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Who loves ya.
Tom

Quoted message said:

Try again.

Read it until it soaks in.

No, YOU read it until it soaks in.

One more time: The cardiac damage from excessive iron loads is a
completely different disease process from atherosclerotic heart disease.
Excessive iron loads can be directly toxic to the heart. Chelation
therapy can be used to reduce iron loads in such iron excess conditions.
Chelation therapy does NOT however, reverse atherosclerotic heart
disease, nor does it reverse the damage to the heart caused by
atherosclerosis. Citing this study does NOT show that chelation therapy
is any good whatsoever for atherosclerotic heart disease, because it
does NOT even address atherosclerotic heart disease.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

Quoted message said:

From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Apples and oranges.

And placebo.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Perhaps this narcolepsy is why Jan can't understand the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is merely evidence that
chelation therapy is effective as a treatment for excessive iron levels.

Reversal of cardiac complications in thalassemia major by long-term
intermittent daily intensive iron chelation.

[repost snip]

Quoted message said:

Read it until it soaks in.

Ah, the arrogance of ignorance. Isn't it hilarious to have
someone who doesn't even know what thalassemia major *is*,
nor the effect it has on the heart, advising those who do
to "read it until it soaks in."

Better than pro wrestling, it 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

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In <[email hidden]>, Jan wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Read it until it soaks in.

Ah, the arrogance of ignorance. Isn't it hilarious to have
someone who doesn't even know what thalassemia major *is*,
nor the effect it has on the heart, advising those who do
to "read it until it soaks in."

Better than pro wrestling, it is.

It's particularly amusing to be a physician having someone who seems
almost proud of her ignorance of medical science, biology, physiology,
pathology, and the methodology of clinical studies to lecture me and to
tell me to "read it until it soaks in." ;-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

None of the cited articles are good peer-reviewed randomized
double-blind studies that address the question of whether chelation
therapy causes symptomatic relief in atherosclerotic heart disease or
causes objective regression of atherosclerotic plaques.

Jan's going to flip out over the qualifiers.

How about, "None of the cited articles used repeatable
objective measures of outcome (e.g. angiograms)?"

--
| 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 article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In <[email hidden]>, Orac wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's particularly amusing to be a physician having someone who seems
almost proud of her ignorance of medical science, biology, physiology,
pathology, and the methodology of clinical studies to lecture me and to
tell me to "read it until it soaks in." ;-)

I suspected so -- I'm just an engineer and part-time emergency
tech, but her arrogant incomprehension is so blatant that I
can't resist watching her discredit everything she defends.

The sad thing is, Jan has no clue whatsoever that is exactly what she is
doing.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Jan said:

Quoted message said:

From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Apples and oranges.

And placebo.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quoted message said:

It is merely evidence that
chelation therapy is effective as a treatment for excessive iron levels.

Reversal of cardiac complications in thalassemia major by long-term
intermittent daily intensive iron chelation.

Miskin H, Yaniv I, Berant M, Hershko C, Tamary H.

Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Schneider Children's Medical
Center of Israel, Petah Tiqva, Israel.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with thalassemia major (TM) who are non-compliant with
long-term deferoxamine (DFO) chelation, survival is limited mainly because of

***cardiac complications***

of transfusional siderosis. It was recently shown in a
small group of TM patients with established

***cardiac damage***

that continuous 24-h
DFO infusion via an indwelling intravenous (i.v.) catheter is effective in
reversing cardiac toxicity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the
results with intermittent daily (8-10 h) i.v. DFO. PATIENTS: Eight TM patients
with

***cardiac complications***

treated with intensive intermittent DFO were
retrospectively evaluated by the mean annual serum ferritin, radionucleated
ventriculography and 24-h electrocardiography recordings. RESULTS: The median
age at diagnosis of

***cardiac disease***

was 17.5 yr (range 14-21), and the median
follow-up time was 84 months (range, 36-120). In the majority of patients
(seven of eight) high-dose DFO (mean 95 +/- 18.3 mg/kg/d) was administered via
a central venous line. During follow-up, there was a significant decrease in
the mean ferritin levels (5828 +/- 2016 ng/mL to 1585 +/- 1849 ng/mL, P <
0.001). Both cardiac failure (mean ejection fraction 32 +/- 5) and

***cardiac arrhythmias were resolved in four of five patients***

. One non-compliant patient
died during the follow-up. Following discontinuation of the i.v. therapy,
compliance with conventional DFO therapy improved. The complications of this
regimen, mainly catheter-related infections and catheter-related thrombosis,
were similar to those described earlier.

CONCLUSIONS: These results with the
longest follow-up period in the literature suggest that i.v. high-dose DFO for
8-10 h daily may be as effective as continuous 24-h infusion for the

*** reversal of established cardiac disease in TM.****

PMID: 12756023 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Who loves ya.
Tom

Quoted message said:

Try again.

Read it until it soaks in.

Note that the cardiac problems that this study refers to are NOT the
cardiac problems as a resulto of atherosclerosis or arteriosclerosis.

In said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

None of the cited articles are good peer-reviewed randomized
double-blind studies that address the question of whether chelation
therapy causes symptomatic relief in atherosclerotic heart disease or
causes objective regression of atherosclerotic plaques.

Jan's going to flip out over the qualifiers.

I like precision. If you're not precise in your statements, Jan will
attempt to exploit any ambiguity.

If you *are* precise, Jan will attempt to exploit her
own muddleheadedness by projecting it on you anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about, "None of the cited articles used repeatable
objective measures of outcome (e.g. angiograms)?"

Quite true. Or, how about (more briefly): None of the cited articles
described well-designed studies showing that chelation therapy either
relieves symptoms of atherosclerotic heart disease or decreases plaque
in arteries compared to placebo control

At this point I'd be quite interested in a simple case
series showing improvement in cardiac flow in on a
before-and-after basis. It doesn't get simpler than
that.

--
| 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 article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In <[email hidden]>, Orac wrote:

> None of the cited articles are good peer-reviewed randomized
> double-blind studies that address the question of whether chelation
> therapy causes symptomatic relief in atherosclerotic heart disease or
> causes objective regression of atherosclerotic plaques.

Jan's going to flip out over the qualifiers.

I like precision. If you're not precise in your statements, Jan will
attempt to exploit any ambiguity.

If you *are* precise, Jan will attempt to exploit her
own muddleheadedness by projecting it on you anyway.

Heh heh. All too true, alas.

So, given that Jan will either try to misrepresent what I said or accuse
me of putting too many qualifiers on it, then it doesn't matter. So I go
with what I'm most comfortable with, in case others with more capability
for reason than Jan are actually reading.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about, "None of the cited articles used repeatable
objective measures of outcome (e.g. angiograms)?"

Quite true. Or, how about (more briefly): None of the cited articles
described well-designed studies showing that chelation therapy either
relieves symptoms of atherosclerotic heart disease or decreases plaque
in arteries compared to placebo control

At this point I'd be quite interested in a simple case
series showing improvement in cardiac flow in on a
before-and-after basis. It doesn't get simpler than
that.

A nice surrogate endpoint. However, the problem is, even that might not
allow a conclusion, because the bottom line is event-free survival, MI
rate, limb loss rate, etc.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Eric Bohlman said:

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

Quoted message said:

Note that the cardiac problems that this study refers to are NOT the
cardiac problems as a resulto of atherosclerosis or arteriosclerosis.

Some (but not all) adherents of "alternative" medicine seem to believe that
every condition (or sometimes every symptom) must have one and only one
cause. Thus if a "treatment" is effective against one "cardiac problem" it
must then be effective against *all* cardiac problems.

That does seem to be the implication

Quoted message said:

The common
"alternative" belief that the common cold is not an infection at all, but
rather the body expelling "toxins," is based on this sort of reasoning.

Funny you should mention "toxins." Unspecified "toxins" are also
attributed as the cause of many diseases by alties; hence, therapies
that claim to "cleanse" the body of toxins, therapies such as chelation
therapy, coffee enemas, etc. Never mind that the alties never bother
actually to identify these "toxins," to tell us what specific chemicals
these "toxins" are. Apparently just calling them "toxins" is enough.
Never mind that different toxins may have very different effects on the
body.

Quoted message said:

Since everybody's had the experience of getting a runny nose and sneezing
after inhaling something irritating, therefore any case of runny nose and
sneezing "must" be the result of the body trying to expel an irritant.

This does appear to be the case. And, while there are obviously common
physiologic mechanisms involved in different disease states (for
instance, inflammation is a part of many disease states), the causes can
be very different. Many different stimuli result in inflammation,
including trauma, infection, hypoxia, cancer, etc.

Quoted message said:

The underlying logical fallacy here is "affirming the consequent": if A,
then B, B, therefore A. It seems to be one of the most attractive ways to
jump to a conclusion; much training in critical thinking involves
specifically learning how to avoid it. It is *not* an error primarily made
by *stupid* people; it simply goes against our naive mental models.
However, anyone who continues to make it after having it explained to them
is being *stubborn*.

For more information on this particular logical fallacy:

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/CTAC/fallacy.htm#Affirming%20the%20C
onsequent

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#consequent

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/afthecon.html

http://datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

Quoted message said:

Someone (was it Carole?) here recently stated that in her/his system of
alternative medicine, practitioners did indeed treat everyone exhibiting a
particular symptom in the same way and did not regard the determination of
etiology as important or even meaningful. To me, that suggests a refusal
to acknowledge complexity more than anything else.

It suggests to me a refusal to acknowledge reality.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

D. C. Sessions said:

In said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspected so -- I'm just an engineer and part-time emergency
tech, but her arrogant incomprehension is so blatant that I
can't resist watching her discredit everything she defends.

The sad thing is, Jan has no clue whatsoever that is exactly what she is
doing.

Sad?

Sad for her, yes. Amusing for us.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Eric Bohlman said:

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

Quoted message said:

Note that the cardiac problems that this study refers to are NOT the
cardiac problems as a resulto of atherosclerosis or arteriosclerosis.

Some (but not all) adherents of "alternative" medicine seem to believe that
every condition (or sometimes every symptom) must have one and only one
cause. Thus if a "treatment" is effective against one "cardiac problem" it
must then be effective against *all* cardiac problems.

My uncle has two implanted cardiac devices to address two different
symptoms.

The common

Quoted message said:

"alternative" belief that the common cold is not an infection at all, but
rather the body expelling "toxins," is based on this sort of reasoning.
Since everybody's had the experience of getting a runny nose and sneezing
after inhaling something irritating, therefore any case of runny nose and
sneezing "must" be the result of the body trying to expel an irritant.

I see you do not have kids. When my kids sneezed when they were young,
it sure did look toxic. 🙂

Quoted message said:

The underlying logical fallacy here is "affirming the consequent": if A,
then B, B, therefore A. It seems to be one of the most attractive ways to
jump to a conclusion; much training in critical thinking involves
specifically learning how to avoid it. It is *not* an error primarily made
by *stupid* people; it simply goes against our naive mental models.
However, anyone who continues to make it after having it explained to them
is being *stubborn*.

Someone (was it Carole?) here recently stated that in her/his system of
alternative medicine, practitioners did indeed treat everyone exhibiting a
particular symptom in the same way and did not regard the determination of
etiology as important or even meaningful. To me, that suggests a refusal
to acknowledge complexity more than anything else.

Interesting point. The Alties often mention that RealMedicien only
treats symptoms. Seems that Carole(?) has Altmed and Real Med confused.

Mark Probert said:

rb said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:09:14 -0230, "rb" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>> it has NEVER been illegal for chelation to be done ....
>
>
> Can we advertise it, claiming that it's an efficacious treatment for

heart

Quoted message said:

> disease or not?--rb
>

No, only for metallic element removal or re-arrangement

This bill permits a physician to practice chelation therapy. Chelation
therapy is a medical treatment in which a chemical is introduced into
a patient's body for the purpose of binding and either removing or
rearranging metallic elements.

>> did ya read how frequently the noun "physician" is used????
>>
>> did ya read any references to "doing chelation to remove plaque?"
>>
>> no...neither did I...
>>
>> did ya see any indication that chelation is illegal in and of
>> itself???
>>
>> no...neither did I...
>
>
> Well if it's not illegal why is it illegal to advertise it as a

treatment

Quoted message said:

> for heart disease? --rb

Because it doesn't work for treatment of heart disease.

Except for those that have taken it. Btw, do you know anybody that has
taken
it?--rb

Weeks ago you werer assigned to find a single study using angiography
which shows dimunition of atherosclerotic plaque after chelation.

You have not turned in your assignment.

You get a zero 0.