Re: Opinions on Echinacea

PeterB wrote: 
Orac wrote:

In article <1123098951.342327.229690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Orac wrote:

In article <1122666773.066933.37950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


Mike wrote:


I think natural medicine as well as mainstream medicine can offer
benefits.  It sometimes appears that people feel like they can only
use
one or the other and one side never wants to believe anything
proposed
by the opposing side.

With this in mind.  I was curious to know what people thought of the
new study on Echinacea which debunks it as basically useless.

Any thoughts?

Mike
http://www.ultimatehealthreport.com



Remember that NO study proves anything definitively, and many of the
latest studies appear to be poorly designed.


Of course all studies proving your point are well-designed and
definitive.


No, I evaluate the evidence and let it speak for itself.  You Pharma
Bloggers talk about "proof" as if science deals in absolutes, which is
not the case.  Science is about the quality of data and proponderance
of the evidence.


Indeed it is. You're also attacking a straw man, by the way. Scientists
usually don't speak in absolutes, alties do.


Actually, PEOPLE speak in absolutes, because that's a trait of human
nature.  If you want to talk about *science*, however, we can talk
about the scientific method and how human bias drives interpretation.
Data doesn't stand alone, and evidence without interpretation is
meaningless.


Indeed. So far you've shown little evidence that you are capable of
interpreting data.



Is that why you've remained silent as I've posted numerous analyses,
correcting the distortions of others?  Now you want to come into the
fray at this stage and take a swipe at me where you think it's safe?
Support your assertion with examples of how I've failed to correctly
interpret the data.  Enlighten the rest of us, I'll be waiting.


[Snip]




Unfortunately, the "preponderance of evidence" does not support the
efficacy of most alt-med therapies.


There is an incredible body of evidence supporting the use of nutrients
in human health, and a growing realization that most disease is the
result of nutrient insufficiency.  Your statement is not only vague but
highly subjective.  What do you mean by "most alt-med therapies?"  Name
all the ones you don't believe work as promoted.


It would require pages to list "all the ones," so I'll only list a
(very) few:

Chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease
chelation therapy for autism
Echichnea for the common cold
Vitamin E for cardiovascular disease
Hulda Clark's zapper
The Gerson therapy (and its variants) for cancer
The Rife frequency generator
Echinacea for the common cold


Except for the zapper, generator, and Gerson therapy, there is good
evidence for each of these natural medicine approaches. 

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAA! SPLORF.....

Can you explain how EDTA chelation is "natural medicine"?????

Please.

I posted a 
response in this very thread about the positive science underlying use
of Echinacea (see above.)  Mainstream medicine has been using chelation
for many years, to good effect.  While I'm not familiar with research
showing a benefit to patients with autism, there ARE good studies
showing chelation to be effective with heart disease patients.  The
patent on EDTA expired long ago and that's why quality research on it
hasn't continued, but what research we have is just as good, or better,
than study results for standard treatment of atherosclerosis.

The first randomized, double-blind, controlled study of EDTA chelation
therapy for treatment of atherosclerosis was performed by Professor
Doctor Schettler, et al, in the clinics of the University Hospital in
Heidelberg, West Germany. The study was funded by Thiemann
Pharmaceutical Company, manufacturer of the platelet inhibitor,
bencyclan, marketed as Fludilat. Fludilat is widely prescribed in
Europe to treat atherosclerosis. EDTA chelation therapy was compared
with bencyclan.

If EDTA chelation for atherosclerosis works to address the underlying disease, i.e., decreases the amount of atherosclerotic plaque, the results would be demonstrable by use of coronary angiography or by Doppler studies. This would be absolutely definitive, as there is no other treatment which does this.

Provide a link that shows that this has been done.

Until then, you are merely addressing symptoms, and that 90% occlusion of the LAD before the first bifurcation will get you every time.




When the study grant was awarded, Thiemann reserved the right, in its
written contract with Schettler, to edit any published reports of the
study. Thiemann reserved the right to interpret the final data for
publication and to do the statistical analysis themselves. All recorded
data from the study were to be the property of Thiemann. It was agreed
that all data would be given to Thiemann at the end of the study.  This
effectively eliminated free access to the original data by future
investigators, however things didn't go as expected.

A total of approximately 48 patients were treated, 24 in the Fludilat®
group and 24 in the EDTA group. Disodium EDTA was administered in a
dose of 2.5 gms in 500 ml 1/2N Saline. Treatments were given five days
each week for a total of four weeks. Each patient received 20
infusions. Only patients with peripheral vascular disease who could not
walk 200 meters without pain of claudication were included in the
study. Pain-free walking distance was measured before, during, and
after therapy on a treadmill, at 3.5 km/hr with a 10% uphill gradient.

The measured results showed a 250% increase in distance walked before
onset of claudication pain in the EDTA-treated group after four weeks
of therapy. By comparison, there was only a 60% increase in the
bencyclan group. Bencyclan, however, is a drug proven to be of benefit
in this disease and is widely prescribed in Europe for that purpose.

Note that the only patient death was in the bencyclan group.  No
serious side effects were observed from EDTA.  The results of the study
received widespread coverage in the news media, but the data were never
published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the press release
stated that "EDTA was no better than a placebo," without mentioning
that the "placebo" in this case was Thiemann Pharmaceutical's very own
Fludilat®, a druge considered "proven and effective."

The story gets more interesting.  Four patients in the EDTA group
experienced more than a 1,000-meter increase in their pain-free walking
distance at the end of only 30 days treatment, but this highly
favorable data never made it into the final published study result.
Why not?  Thiemann had a legal right under terms of the contract to
edit the final results and to interpret the data in any way they
wanted, and that's what they did.  Their final report showed data that
reduced the observed benefit from EDTA by 72%, from a 250% increase in
pain-free walking distance to just 70%.  This fact became known only
because scientists from Heidelberg with intimate knowledge of the study
were shocked by what they believed was unethical and dishonest conduct
on the part of the researchers. Raw data from the study were personally
delivered to an official of ACAM for an independent interpretation.

The study result was reported at the 7th Atherosclerosis Congress in
Melbourne, Australia, in 1985. An attachment to the abstract of that
presentation, available at the meeting, contained a graphic plot of
pain-free walking distance extending out to three months after the end
of therapy. By that time, even using the modified data made public, the
increase in pain-free walking distance in the EDTA-treated patients
showed an increase of 430% over baseline, while bencyclan-treated
patients averaged less than half that much with no significant
improvement after therapy was stopped.  Nothing in the text of the
abstract discussed the graphic depiction showing the profound clinical
benefits of EDTA chelation therapy, yet far less effective drugs have
been introduced over the years with the full support and backing of the
FDA and AMA.  By the way, benefits of EDTA chelation are said to be
fully realized after three months following treatment.

By way of comparison, in the study which resulted in U. S. FDA approval
of pentoxifylline (Trental), for the treatment of claudication, walking
distance before pain of claudication increased by only an average 25%
over baseline with treatment. Nonetheless, that small amount of
improvement was considered statistically significant and Trental was
approved for marketing by the FDA. EDTA was more than twice as
effective, even using the publicly announced results of the Heidelberg
study.

Note that EDTA is already on the market as a legitimate pharmaceutical
agent to treat lead toxicity, digitalis toxicity, and acute
hypercalcemia.  EDTA is legally available for use by physicians, and it
is completely legal for any licensed physician to utilize a drug for
any purpose which, in that physician's judgment is best for his
patient.  Yet the AMA has persecuted phsycians for using this far less
costly method of treatement for their atherosclerotic patients.


I could go on a long time, but that's a start. 


Don't be shy, publish them all.  I'd love to see your list.


Perhaps you should tell us which therapies you consider effective. 


Define effective.


Oh, and BTW, referring to me (or anyone else) as a "Pharma blogger" is a
logical fallacy, namely the ad hominem attack. It doesn't address the
argument but merely attacks the person. It's intellectually lazy.


It's not a logical fallacy to identify you as a Pharma Blogger using
patterns of interaction associated with such behaviour.


Of course, you have produced no evidence to show that I demonstrate such
"patterns," given that I have only responded to a couple of your posts,
nor have you produced evidence that such patterns are even associated
with "pharma shills." No surprise there.



See below.


And it's those
tactics of interaction that PREVENT a discussion about the merits of
natural medicine from progressing.


Do tell. How have I "prevented" ANY discussion about the merits (or lack
thereof) of "natural medicine" from progressing?



I saw quite a few of your posts last year when I visited the newsgroup.
 You're posting history isn't new to me.  You clearly denigrate natural
medicine approaches and give a hail mary pass to your more agressive
pro-mainstream team-mates regardless how much they distort the studies
they pretend to understand.  Your pattern is that of an enabler and
presenting yourself as (gag) "father medicine."  I'm not impressed.  I
still think you sell vacuum cleaners.


As with all Pharma Bloggers, your
remarks are ipso facto declarations, not the pronouncements of science
as you would have us believe.


Dude, any time you want to talk serious science, let me know. I've yet
to see anything from you other than trying to smear.



I've been talking science from day one, while you and your fellow
bloggers have engaged in ridiculous psuedo-science jargon attempting to
fool the public, but I'm not fooled.  If you feel smeared, you have
only yourself to blame.


I don't hang out in
m.h.a. nearly as much as I used to a year ago, but I do check in from
time to time, maybe a couple of times a month. Oh, wait. How could I be
a "pharma blogger"? I haven't posted here in two weeks? Before that I
hadn't been here for months? Hmmm. That hardly meets your own criteria
of incessant posting to "drown out" folks like you.



Wrong.  Item #3 on the list indicates that rotation is utilized to
maximize effectiveness and create the aura of the "consensus view."
Why would ONE Pharma Blogger do ALL the work?  It's not efficient.



--
Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... > Chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease ... showing chelation to be effective with heart disease patients. ... The first randomized, double-blind, controlled study of EDTA chelation ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Thought Id post the entire article. In vivo testing of c.silver shows promise.
    ... This is true for new treatments in scientific medicine, ... that an ineffective therapy works: ... the number of patients listed as improved exceeds the number expected ... to recover without any treatment at all (or that they recover reliably ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Bexxar
    ... follicular lymphoma when used as a first-line therapy, ... and colleagues enrolled 76 previously untreated patients who ... transfusions or treatment with blood cell growth factors. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Ovarian cancer relapse - expected survival?
    ... > We know that many patients whom we treat in the recurrent disease setting will go ... but not all patients will. ... > there any treatment choices that I might make today that might impact my treatment ... > 6-9 months after their initial therapy, while very treatable, the chance of those ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • ~*Online WACOC News 2006 October 27*~
    ... CBT = Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ... CBT, GET And Human Rights: ... safety issues arising from its recommended therapies. ... the right of clinicians and patients to the highest, ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
Loading