I sense a disturbance in the antivaccine crankosphere.

Actually, maybe “disturbance” is the wrong word. Unabashed whooping it up is closer to correct. High-fiving is perhaps a better term. Or maybe partying like it’s 2005. The question, of course, is what is the inciting event was that sparked such widespread rejoicing in the antivaccine world. I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with the hero of the antivaccine movement, the man who arguably more than anyone else is responsible for the MMR scare that drove down MMR vaccine uptake in the UK to the point where measles, once vanquished, came roaring back. Yes, we’re talking about Andrew Wakefield, whose incompetent and now retracted research launched a thousand biomedical quacks. (Actually, that’s probably an underestimate.) However, we’re not talking about Andrew Wakefield directly. Rather, we’re talking about Professor John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield’s now rightly discredited 1998 Lancet paper. The anti-vaccine crank blog is going wild with the news that Professor Walker-Smith has succeeded in his appeal of the General Medical Council’s decision that he should be struck off the medical record along with Andy Wakefield:

A High Court judge quashed the finding of professional misconduct against Professor Walker-Smith, who had carried out some of the tests for the controversial paper that suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Mr Justice Mitting also called for the reform of the General Medical Council’s disciplinary hearings after the lengthy battle by Professor Walker-Smith to clear his name.

The Wakefield paper prompted a nationwide scare over the safety of the jab after the study of 12 children was published in the medical journal The Lancet.

On AoA, we’ve been treated to some articles with titles like this:

The full ruling can be found here. Let’s dig in, shall we? As usual, what the antivaccine movement is promoting and what is in the ruling are not necessarily the same thing. If there’s one thing that’s obvious from the outpouring of verbiage from various antivaccine blogs, Twitter feeds, and press releases, it’s that the antivaccine movement somehow thinks that this decision exonerates Andrew Wakefield, too. Let’s disabuse them of that delusion right now, shall we? According to Mr. Justice Mitting:

At a press conference, which Professor Walker-Smith did not attend, convened to accompany publication, Dr. Wakefield stated publicly the view which he had previously expressed privately to Professor Walker-Smith that he could no longer support the giving of MMR vaccine. The joint view of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch, stated in a letter to Dr. Wakefield on 21st January 1998, was that it was inappropriate to emphasize the role of MMR vaccine in publicity about the paper and that they supported government policy concerning MMR until more firm evidence was available for them to see for themselves. They published a press release to coincide with publication stating their support for “present public health policy concerning MMR”. Dr. Wakefield’s statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.

Correct. There is no respectable body of opinion supporting Wakefield’s hypothesis that the MMR is somehow linked to autism or the entity Wakefield made up called “autistic enterocolitis.” It’s rather annoying that Mitting would refer to it as a “body of opinion.” One can only speculate that it’s his legal background that leads him to use this particular phraseology. No scientist would. Scientists would (and do) point out that not only is there no good scientific evidence supporting Wakefield’s hypothesis, but there is a lot of evidence that falsifies his hypothesis. There’s a reason why Wakefield is viewed with such contempt in the scientific world. Actually, there are multiple reasons, not the least of which is that Wakefield is an incompetent scientist willing to commit research fraud to provide evidence for trial lawyers to use in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, a plot that Brian Deer uncovered and described in excruciating detail and with excruciatingly detailed documentation. This ruling says nothing about that; it’s primarily about methodology and Mitting’s legal ruling that the GMC didn’t adequately explain the rationale behind its findings that Walker-Smith committed professional misconduct. Mitting’s decision also relies a lot on his clearly poor understanding of medical research issues. (More on that below.)

It’s a simple fact, though, that Mitting’s decision regarding has nothing to do with whether Wakefield is a fraud or a pseudoscientist or not. Nor does it have anything to do with the question of whether vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccine, cause autism, as much as Wakefield’s many apologists would like to convince people otherwise. In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, Wakefield’s being struck off the British medical registry has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Even if Wakefield had prevailed and been allowed to keep his medical license, his claimed findings that vaccines cause autistic enterocolitis and/or autism would have been just as bogus. Legal rulings are not science. They can be based on science, but often they are not. It’s nice when they don’t go against science and nicer still when they resoundingly agree with science, but such is not always the case. To try to argue that a legal ruling such as the one regarding Professor Walker-Smith exonerates Wakefield is an even worse folly than arguing that his being struck off necessarily proves he is a quack. He’s an antivaccine quack based on science; it matters not what the courts say.

Admittedly, I haven’t paid much attention to Professor Walker-Smith. Back when I wrote about Andy Wakefield being struck off, I said very little, if anything about Walker-Smith. The reason, of course, is that I viewed the Walker-Smith decision as being at best peripheral. I didn’t know enough about him to decide for myself whether the GMC decision was justified or not. Still, it’s useful to look at the court’s decision to see why it concluded that Walker-Smith didn’t deserve to be struck off.

The first thing that needs to be considered is a dichotomy. John Walker-Smith appealed the GMC decision. Andrew Wakefield did not. Why not? It’s hard to say. Was it because he was too busy being the medical director of the quack clinic Thoughtful House in Texas? After all, at the time he was already making plenty of cash without a medical license. There was no need for him to appeal, which would cost a lot of money and effort. He had already left England anyway, his reputation trashed long ago. In contrast, Professor Walker-Smith appears to have had more reason to fight. He had stayed behind and, unlike Wakefield, who had never been particularly respected, Walker-Smith had been highly respected in his field. There was a lot more motivation for him to try to salvage his reputation.

In any case, here is the conclusion of the appeal decision:

For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel’s critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC’s experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel’s findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC’s approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.

As you can see, the decision all boils down to the question of research and whether Walker-Smith thought he was doing research or actually treating autistic children using interventions that were clinically indicated. If the interventions were clinically indicated, then it could be argued that he did not commit professional misconduct. If the interventions were done with the knowledge that they were being done for research purposes rather than to treat the children, then Walker-Smith is guilty of misconduct. The reasons, of course, are the lack of ethical committee approval yet, as is discussed in the decision:

At the heart of the GMC’s case against Professor Walker-Smith were two simple propositions: the investigations undertaken under his authority on eleven of the twelve Lancet children were done as part of a research project – Project 172-96 – which required, but did not have, Ethics Committee approval; and they were clinically inappropriate. Professor Walker-Smith’s case was that the investigations were clinically appropriate attempts at diagnosis of bowel and behavioural disorders in children with broadly similar symptoms and, where possible, treatment of the bowel disorders or alleviation of their symptoms. The GMC’s case was that he was conducting research which required Ethics Committee approval. His case was that he was conducting medical practice which did not. Accordingly, an unavoidable and fundamental question which the panel had to answer was: what is the distinction between medical practice and research?

In light of this introduction, what follows is profoundly contradictory in that the judge acknowledges that what Walker-Smith did could be reasonably viewed as research, but exonerates him because it could also be viewed as therapeutic:

The panel made no express finding on this issue and cannot have appreciated the need to do so. It was not helped by the premise upon which the GMC’s case was founded. There was a good deal of evidence, to which I refer in greater detail below, that Professor Walker-Smith and his team were undertaking what any reasonable body of medical practitioners would categorize as research – but also that he intended and genuinely believed that what he was doing was solely or primarily for the clinical benefit of the children. When such an issue arises, a panel will almost always have to determine the honesty or otherwise of the practitioner.

Justice Mitting then lists facts supporting and negating the proposition that what Walker-Smith was doing was research. I must admit, I find some of the “facts negating’ to be questionable. Particularly bizarre was Mitting’s listing of a fact that no parent other than one was required to sign the consent form in the proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee or in the revised form approved by it. Well, duh! That was part of the problem, now, wasn’t it? You know? Doing research without having obtained adequate informed consent from the parents?

Also rather odd was Mitting’s other reasoning that “none of the five clinicians involved in the investigation of the Lancet children who gave evidence to the panel considered that they were following Project 172-96.” So what? The children’s information and clinical histories ended up being used in Wakefield’s Lancet paper. I suppose one could argue that Walker-Smith was an unwitting dupe of Andy Wakefield an therefore was not guilty of research professional misconduct, but, if that’s the case, it’s hardly flattering to Walker-Smith. it’s also hard to imagine what clinical indications existed to subject these children to lumbar punctures. As a clinician, I always had a hard time figuring out how Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and the rest justified doing lumbar punctures on these children.

The implications of Mitting’s ruling are frightening in their potential. Think about it. Basically, if his ruling stands, it’s hard not to wonder whether it’s open season on human research subjects in the UK. As long as the physician can construct a quasi-legitimate-sounding rationale that he can point to aside from a research protocol for doing research-related tests on human subjects, he apparently doesn’t need to get ethical approval anymore. He can cite Mitting’s ruling that, as long as he doesn’t think he’s doing research–even if that is incorrect–then he’s not, and the GMC can’t do anything about it. So much for the Helsinki declaration! Similarly, his “any reasonable physician” test fails spectacularly as well, at least in the way he applied it. “Any reasonable physician” would not subject autistic children to a battery of invasive tests including lumbar punctures for dubious clinical reasons. Those tests were quite correctly judged by the GMC to have been ordered for research purposes rather than for routine clinical care. Autism quacks in the UK have good reason to rejoice. As it stands, one has to wonder whether they can now get away with essentially anything.

Of course, none of this stops the antivaccine movement from lapsing into full mental jacket conspiracy mode. For instance, our old friend Ginger Taylor, speaking for the Canary Party, issued a press release:

“It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield,” said Ginger Taylor, executive director of the Canary Party. “A judge has now ruled that the GMC hearings were a farce. Parents are waiting for journalists to find their spine and start some honest reporting on the character assassination of doctors that is blocking medical treatments for vaccine injured children, and the role that GSK and Merck may be playing to protect their profits on the MMR vaccine. The Canary Party honors and stands by doctors of integrity like Prof. Walker-Smith, who continue to fight and defend their hard-won reputations for going the extra mile to investigate and improve the chronic, difficult-to-treat cases that now permeate our society.”

Uh, no.

I do love the conspiracy mongering, though. From my perspective, Judge Mitting’s decision strongly implies that, rather than being involved in Wakefield’s professional research misconduct, Walker-Smith was an unwitting dupe. Neither conclusion speaks particularly well of Walker-Smith, but I suppose it’s better to be an honest dupe than a dishonest research cheat. Personally, I’d rather be neither. No matter how hard the antivaccine movement tries to spin this as some sort of exoneration of its hero Andy Wakefield, it’s not.

Comments

  1. #1 Shay
    March 20, 2012

    Vaccine-induced scurvy? You have got to be kidding me.

  2. #2 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    News at 11: Vaccines cause your pinkies to fall off, but first, a word from our sponsors.

  3. #3 JGC
    March 20, 2012

    Not just vaccine induced scurvy–vaccine induced scurvy that looks exactly like the physical trauma which would result from picking up and violently shaking a newborn.

    I’d say you can’t make this stuff up, but clearly someone has.

  4. #4 LW
    March 20, 2012

    Not just “vaccine-induced scurvy that looks exactly like the physical trauma which would result from picking up and violently shaking a newborn”, but vaccine-induced scurvy that has that effect almost instantly — within a day or two at most.

  5. #5 herr doktor bimler
    March 20, 2012

    Vaccine-induced scurvy? You have got to be kidding me.

    Sadly, no. Some of the anti-vaxxers have branched into the lucrative field of Professional Witness, testifying in court on behalf of baby batterers. They will explain to the court that the deceased infant’s broken ribs and cerebral hemorrhage were caused by a new form of galloping scurvy where whichever vaccine the infant had received had sucked all the vitamin C into another dimension.
    It may be that they are sincerely convinced that vaccines must be inflicting *some* form of harm, and unable to find anything else, they have battened onto the cause of infant injury.

    Kalokerinos was exploiting the Aborigine population in Australia. They do suffer from dire child-health statistics, and so bad is their access to decent food and health support that I can quite believe that he did encounter cases of scurvy among them. However, instead of doing anything to promote better food, he founded his career on campaigning for them to be deprived of what little public-health access they *were* receiving.
    Then there was his AIDS-denialism and his accusations of genocide directed at WHO… If Pegasus wants to rely on the likes of Kalokerinos for moral support, then go for it!

    And then, as LW pointed out at #389, there is the starkly racist rhetoric from Pegasus in which African vilagers have “instinct” rather than intelligence.

    Now I am waiting for Pegasus to cite Kurtz’s anecdote from “Apocalypse Now” — the story where Viet Cong insurgents cut off the arms of children inoculated for polio — and support the actions of the apocryphal guerillas.

  6. #6 Militant Agnostic
    March 20, 2012

    Prometheus @397

    In the OAP hearings, video recorded by the parents clearly showed that autistic behaviors were present before the vaccine(s) in question were given. Why would you imagine that other parents – even mothers – would be exempt from this very common human frailty?

    Just to emphasize the point – the parents were so convinced that the pre-vaccination video recording did not show autistic behaviors that they presented it as evidence that their child was “normal” before receiving the vaccination.

  7. #7 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    They will explain to the court that the deceased infant’s broken ribs and cerebral hemorrhage were caused by a new form of galloping scurvy where whichever vaccine the infant had received had sucked all the vitamin C into another dimension.

    Hahahaha! Nobody would actually…

    …wait…

    Oh for crying out loud. A hearty DIAF to all these charlatans.

  8. #8 dean
    March 20, 2012

    Do we know if folks like pegasus (and sid, and these other woo charlatans) are as willing to abuse their pets by withholding shots as they are their children, or do they treat animals better?

  9. #9 Pegasus
    March 20, 2012

    Prometheus:

    “Once again, it needs pointing out that the popularity of an idea is not linked in any way to its validity”

    How very, very true. That’s the reason why history is replete with examples of the majority being proven wrong, even after hundreds of years.

  10. #10 Chris
    March 20, 2012

    So, Pegasus, what is your sure fire way to protect babies from pertussis?

  11. #11 Shay
    March 20, 2012

    Dean, there are as yet no jurisdictions that allow exemptions from rabies vaccines based on religious beliefs. We protect our dogs and cats far better than we do our children, in that regard.

    But I’m sure you’ll find someone out there who thinks parvo, feline leukemia, etc, can be cured or prevented by woo. I had to leave a room once after a conversation with a woman who was treating her dog’s hip dysplasia with acupuncture, lest I slap her into the next dimension.

  12. #12 Thomas
    March 20, 2012

    “How very, very true. That’s the reason why history is replete with examples of the majority being proven wrong, even after hundreds of years. ”

    Yep. Thank you for admitting that when you wrote about an “outcry about vaccinations by an ever-increasing number of lay & professionals” you were committing a fallacy. Of course, without that argument (which you clearly now realize is bogus), you don’t have much left, so I look forward to your reconsideration of your entire position.

  13. #13 OccamsLaser
    March 20, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F. –

    Centuries ago evil spirits were blamed for disease. Then we had bad karma. Then it was the humours. Then germs. Then stress. Then genes. Then the ubiquitous claim ‘you got a virus’. No wonder Dr Fuhrman titled his second chapter in SuperImmunity ” The Failure of Modern Medicine”.

    But Dr. Fuhrman believes that the flu is a simple viral illness. Is he wrong?

    Now I see from the Burzynski link why I am being flatteringly linked to one Emily. Sounded like she spoke sense, although I need to brush up on her natural hygiene.

    See, here’s another example of your dishonesty. What would you say of someone with an SBM viewpoint who was engaging in lies of this sort?

    Give me Dr Wakefield any day over Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems. Does he think everyone is gullible? Then again, he’s making millions out of the gullibility, isn’t he?

    As you observe, we need to evaluate possible biases when there are financial interests involved in promoting a particular health approach. What are your financial interests — clinic income, seminars, DVD/CD sales, that sort of thing? What, in fact, is your primary source of household income?

    As he quotes one of his surgeon colleagues when asked why he doesn’t use nutrition to obviate the need for surgery in his patients: “I earn $5 million a year from surgical proceedures, that’s why?”

    Abba sang about it in the 70’s: money, money, money….

    …and yet you continue to conceal your financial interest in the therapies you are so vigorously promoting. [Non-]physician, heal thyself.

    There is no question that drugs can sometimes save lives.

    Please name them.

    Sceptics,drug-lovers/nature deniers that you are, just open your eyes to what is going on with the patient results at these [Fuhrman, et al] clinics

    It’s nice to see that not everyone on this blog is totally closed minded.

    You ask people who disagree with you to be open-minded. Yet, you proudly declare that you refuse to act as you ask others to act:

    Calling me closed minded you could be right.

    Please furnish unambiguous evidence, not that I would attach any significance to it.

    Hand washing in a restaurant is a poor analogy. If I want a job there I will comply with the employer’s rules, end of story, whatever my views on hand-washing, germ theory etc.

    Maggots don’t cause the carcass & flies don’t cause the garbage & germs don’t cause the disease, they FOLLOW it.

    I take it that as you believe that germs follow desease, handwashing cannot in any way affect the contracting of disease, correct? Therefore, you believe that handwashing and cleanliness and sanitation have no effect on preventing disease. And, further, that one can contract any disease and the germ may not even be present (if, through some mechanism, it is blocked from contact with the person with the disease), correct?

    I believe in Lord Rutherford’s statement: that the only pure science is physics, all the rest is stamp collecting.

    It follows, therefore, that you admit that the practices you advocate are not based on science.

    The public health view indoctrinated into the gullible public that they are powerless against the microbe without public health interventions is what I rail against & rant about.

    Your characterization of “the public health view” is false; I suppose you have to falsify it in order to have something to attack (I’m not an expert in debate tactic terminology, but I think this is a form of a strawman argument). The truth is that “the public health view” includes such practices as strict cleanliness and sanitation practices, safe food handling, and so on. It is really disappointing that you must lie to this extent in your efforts to make some sort of impact.

  14. #14 OccamsLaser
    March 20, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F. –

    Centuries ago evil spirits were blamed for disease. Then we had bad karma. Then it was the humours. Then germs. Then stress. Then genes. Then the ubiquitous claim ‘you got a virus’. No wonder Dr Fuhrman titled his second chapter in SuperImmunity ” The Failure of Modern Medicine”.

    But Dr. Fuhrman believes that the flu is a simple viral illness. Is he wrong?

    Now I see from the Burzynski link why I am being flatteringly linked to one Emily. Sounded like she spoke sense, although I need to brush up on her natural hygiene.

    See, here’s another example of your dishonesty. What would you say of someone with an SBM viewpoint who was engaging in lies of this sort?

    Give me Dr Wakefield any day over Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems. Does he think everyone is gullible? Then again, he’s making millions out of the gullibility, isn’t he?

    As you observe, we need to evaluate possible biases when there are financial interests involved in promoting a particular health approach. What are your financial interests — clinic income, seminars, DVD/CD sales, that sort of thing? What, in fact, is your primary source of household income?

    As he quotes one of his surgeon colleagues when asked why he doesn’t use nutrition to obviate the need for surgery in his patients: “I earn $5 million a year from surgical proceedures, that’s why?”

    Abba sang about it in the 70’s: money, money, money….

    …and yet you continue to conceal your financial interest in the therapies you are so vigorously promoting. [Non-]physician, heal thyself.

    There is no question that drugs can sometimes save lives.

    Please name them.

    Sceptics,drug-lovers/nature deniers that you are, just open your eyes to what is going on with the patient results at these [Fuhrman, et al] clinics

    It’s nice to see that not everyone on this blog is totally closed minded.

    You ask people who disagree with you to be open-minded. Yet, you proudly declare that you refuse to act as you ask others to act:

    Calling me closed minded you could be right.

    Please furnish unambiguous evidence, not that I would attach any significance to it.

    On germ theory:

    Hand washing in a restaurant is a poor analogy. If I want a job there I will comply with the employer’s rules, end of story, whatever my views on hand-washing, germ theory etc.

    Maggots don’t cause the carcass & flies don’t cause the garbage & germs don’t cause the disease, they FOLLOW it.

    I take it that as you believe that germs follow desease, handwashing cannot in any way affect the contracting of disease, correct? Therefore, you believe that handwashing and cleanliness and sanitation have no effect on preventing disease. And, further, that one can contract any disease and the germ may not even be present (if, through some mechanism, it is blocked from contact with the person with the disease), correct?

    I believe in Lord Rutherford’s statement: that the only pure science is physics, all the rest is stamp collecting.

    It follows, therefore, that you admit that the practices you advocate are not based on science.

    The public health view indoctrinated into the gullible public that they are powerless against the microbe without public health interventions is what I rail against & rant about.

    Your characterization of “the public health view” is false; I suppose you have to falsify it in order to have something to attack (I’m not an expert in debate tactic terminology, but I think this is a form of a strawman argument). The truth is that “the public health view” includes such practices as strict cleanliness and sanitation practices, safe food handling, and so on. It is really disappointing that you must lie to this extent in your efforts to make some sort of impact.

  15. #15 flip
    March 20, 2012

    @379 Adelady

    Your comment was wonderful!

    @380 Pegasus

    As usual the alt-med advocates forget that ‘follow the money’ works both ways. It’s a tactic that I despise from both skeptics and alt-medders, because it proves nothing but that people like to be able to feed themselves, no matter what side of the fence they’re on. Earning dough doesn’t really say anything of the validity of what they promote.

    @385 Pegasus

    Many years ago I attended a talk by Dr Archie Kalokerinos, an Australian doctor who was one of the first to link the 3 month triple antigen with SIDS.

    Are you Australian? Or American?

    Do you people really think that the outcry about vaccinations by an ever-increasing number of lay & professionals alike is because they are morons? They are stupid? Or are they all shit-stirrers, just out to bring down the medical/drug establishment?

    I think they are prone to confirmation bias and correlation/causation, like everyone else. The difference is that scientists know about these effects and account for it. Most people don’t realise how easy their brains fool them; not so much delusion as honest mistaken beliefs. I have plenty of honest mistaken beliefs, the difference is I don’t go around telling everyone to follow my actions.

    Why are so many mothers complaining of changes in their babies/children’s health & development soon after vaccination?

    You’re missing an important point here: the scientists listened to the parents, investigated claims, discovered nothing, and then – because of lack of time and funding to investigate everything to the nth degree – moved on to other more plausible areas where they were more likely to find a cure/treatment. You ignore that fact like so many other anti-vaxxers do. In your world, if scientists don’t confirm a mistaken belief, well then, they just didn’t listen in the first place. In reality, scientists listened, then investigated, then disagreed and moved on. (This ignores another issue which is that anti-vaxxers are just a loud minority and that many autism advocates/autistic people agree with the science)

    Why don’t we see the same intense sentiment from people concerning other routine medical/ dental procedures eg colonoscopies, teeth braces, mammograms etc? Maybe because there are real & serious adverse effects of this out-of-control vaccination program,that’s why.

    I’d say it has more to do with the issue of government involvement and school requirements. A certain percentage of people don’t want to be told what to do; whereas nobody’s legislated everyone have mammograms. I think the vast majority of complaints have more to do with libertarianism than anything else, much like the anti-AGW complaints.

    I firmly believe, as do many others, that the vaccine schedule is one of the main causes of the increasing rate of childhood diseases & developmental lags.

    That’s a fair belief, but when it’s investigated and nothing to be found, maybe you should try moving on to other plausible causes where your energy would be better spent.

    In my honest opinion, I think it is the worst feature of modern medicine, the full implications of which will unfold in the fullness of time, when the medical profession detaches itself from the drug companies’ umbilical cord.

    I’d like to know how you would propose doing that. Let’s say you are in charge of legislation that would prevent Big Pharma from dealing with doctors… how would you prevent it? How would you ensure full and honest investigation of illnesses, their cures/treatments, and the implementation of it without co-operation or interdependency? I’d really like to know how you would separate them and how you would still ensure people receive good medical assistance when they need it.

  16. #16 OccamsLaser
    March 20, 2012

    Apologies for the duplicate post. Second version is correct.

    -OL

  17. #17 Denice Walter
    March 20, 2012

    @ flip:

    I’d like to add that while alt medders screech about the filthy lucre doctors and pharma companies extort they sometimes portray themselves as altruistic humanitarians with sundry charities listed amongst their product listings..I mean *informational articles*- and speak about their free counselling sessions and lectures as well as feeding the poor. However, it’s easy to figure out how much average doctors earn if you know where they live and pharma companies are usually required to post earnings. Woo-meisters are a bit harder to trace but here’s at least one: it’s 10-11 million per year ( in AUS$, esp for you!)from supplement sales according to spoke.com and manta.com. Supposedly an alt med fave sought out 40 million per annum ( AUS$) from a new product he’d market. Another owns several companies. A few of our targeted boys have exquisitely posh digs displayed on the net for all to see and infer the cost thereof. No shabby chic here!

    Remember these are the same fellows yapping incessantly about *greedy doctors* and *highway robbery* by pharma… what’re they jealous?

  18. #18 Pegasus
    March 20, 2012

    Herr Doktor:

    “Kalokerinos was exploiting the Aborigine population in Australia. They do suffer from dire child-health statistics, and so bad is their access to decent food and health support that I can quite believe that he did encounter cases of scurvy among them. However, instead of doing anything to promote better food, he founded his career on campaigning for them to be deprived of what little public-health access they *were* receiving”.

    Nice fabrication. To add weight to your hate,I suppose you’ll throw anything at people like Archie even if it’s total psychobabble,which this is.

    Archie recommended & made changes to the indigenous diet. During his career he strongly advocated a wholesome diet, focussed on vegetable & fruits. I heard him speak a number of times & heard him promote a far better nutrition program than was advocated by the health department at the time (this is not hard to do, even today).

    To say he was exploiting the aboriginal community is to inflict harm upon your own cause. He was a remarkable man of courage, compassion & conviction. The more you lie about such a wonderful human, the smaller you & your cause becomes.

  19. #19 Pegasus
    March 20, 2012

    Occamslaser/ Amelia/ FW:

    Read Fuhrman’s books. Especially chapter 2 ( The Failure of Modern Medicine) of his lates book SuperImmunity You might learn something. Then you will know that he was simplifying his views for the average person. It’s multi factorial.

    Please let me know what you learn from reading his wisdom.

  20. #20 Mark M
    March 20, 2012

    Peg,

    Big Pharma! Conspiracies! Yadda yadda.

    What about Wakefraud’s massive cash bonus for FALSIFYING HIS RESEARCH?

    You reckon every doctor is on the take, corrupt, taking backhanders, etc.

    Yet when one is proved to have done exactly that, he’s your hero!

    But hey, who needs logic when you’re an anti-vaxxer?

  21. #21 Mark M
    March 20, 2012

    “Then you will know that he was simplifying his views for the average person….”

    Nope. He was simplifying them for the simple person.

    *waves*

  22. #22 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    March 21, 2012

    Why don’t we see the same intense sentiment from people concerning other routine medical/ dental procedures eg colonoscopies, teeth braces, mammograms etc?

    Well, let’s see:

    Braces – there’s no legal requirement for braces, nobody cares if you get them or don’t, and they serve a largely cosmetic purpose. Braces were even a form of jewelry for a while.

    Mammograms – I don’t know where you were when in 2009 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its guidelines for breast-cancer screening to reduce the recommended frequency. There was some pretty intense sentiment attached to that. It was in all the papers.

    Colonoscopies – As colon therapies of all kinds seem to be de riguer in alternative medicine, I’m surprised you bring this up. Most people I know who’ve had one were not impressed, though my friends who had colon cancer are pretty glad they had them.

    Compare these to mass immunization, which has the potential to save millions of lives and eradicate a number of diseases that kill or maim children – but at some individual risk.

  23. #23 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Krebiozen:

    “Relman and Angell are criticizing the private insurance healthcare system in America, not the way medicine is practiced”.

    Your interpretation is certainly sanitised. You must be a very conservative, conventional doctor.

    When the FDA is a slave to the drug companies (Angell),& the FDA is all powerful in approving poorly & inadequately tested drugs which are then foisted upon the trusting & innocent pubklic, this changes the way medicine is practiced. Read more from Dr Angell, especially her wonderful book The Truth about the Drug Companies.

    Imagine the woo meisters selling their supplements & one of the leaders of woo coming out & openly admitting that the regulatory body of woo was a slave to the supplement industry.

    I am covering my ears because of the “irony meters”.

  24. #24 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    Covering your ears, Peg?

    Must be some unambiguous evidence around…

    (#333)

  25. #25 flip
    March 21, 2012

    @416 Denice

    A slight side issue to what you’re saying and a hamper in Peggy’s britches:

    Here in Aus the majority of pharmacies carry… yep, you guessed it, alt med products. There’s no end of vitamins, supplements and other alt med stuff. And yet, Big Pharma is somehow suppressing it all – and managing to earn a profit from it too.

    Must be a great conspiracy when you can walk into your pharmacy and buy any old woo you like.

    @417 Pegamily

    During his career he strongly advocated a wholesome diet, focussed on vegetable & fruits

    I guess Indigenous populations didn’t know about those things, having not been living off the land for decades… Got any actual proof for that statement?

    @418 Pegamily

    Hey, recommendations to read books instead of peer-reviewed literature! I think I need to invent a Pegamily bingo card.

    Just like Emily, you’re ignoring my hard questions too. What do only the others deserve a (admittedly half-assed) response?

    @422 Pegamily

    Imagine the woo meisters selling their supplements & one of the leaders of woo coming out & openly admitting that the regulatory body of woo was a slave to the supplement industry.

    What regulatory body of woo? There is none. Which is probably the point but not in the way you think.

  26. #26 Militant Agnostic
    March 21, 2012

    Thomas @412

    Of course, without that argument (which you clearly now realize is bogus), you don’t have much left, so I look forward to your reconsideration of your entire position.

    Will that reconsideration occur before or after the heat death of the universe?

  27. #27 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Mark M:

    “Big Pharma! Conspiracies! Yadda yadda.

    What about Wakefraud’s massive cash bonus for FALSIFYING HIS RESEARCH?

    You reckon every doctor is on the take, corrupt, taking backhanders, etc.

    Yet when one is proved to have done exactly that, he’s your hero!”

    Did I say every doctor? Please furnish evidence.Did I say a conspiracy? Ditto. Did I call Wakefield my hero? Never.

    The sceptics’ ploy: attribute fanciful statements & positions to your opponent, & then clubbers unite. It’s very amusing, really.

    After reading most of the other threads, past & present, I’m getting a good feel for the commentators with creativity & flair. We’ll never agree on anything pertaining to health, mind you, but hey, what’s that between friends?

  28. #28 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Krebiozen:

    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2012 Annual Meeting

    From Medscape Medical News

    Bisphosphonates Increase Contralateral Atypical Fracture Risk

    Laird Harrison
    February 9, 2012 (San Francisco, California) — Patients who continue bisphosphonate therapy after an atypical index femur fracture are more likely to suffer a fracture in the contralateral femur, researchers reported here at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2012 Annual Meeting.

    “Stop bisphosphonates if you have an index atypical fracture,” said lead researcher Richard M. Dell, MD, an orthopaedic surgeon at Kaiser Permanente, California.

    Increasing evidence shows an association between bisphosphonate use and atypical femur fractures. Previous research found that more than 20% of patients with an index atypical femur fracture will develop an atypical femur fracture on the contralateral femur.

    To examine the impact of discontinuing bisphosphonate use in these patients, researchers at Kaiser Permanente in California studied 126 patients who suffered atypical femur fractures at the medical center in 2007, 2008, and 2009. (Kaiser’s database was useful because extensive records were available on 2.6 million people older than 45 years.)

    The researchers found that 53.8% of those who continued bisphosphonates for 3 or more years after the first atypical fracture suffered an atypical fracture in the contralateral femur.

    In contrast, only 18.5% of those who discontinued bisphosphonates in the first few months after the initial fracture experienced a contralateral atypical femur fracture.

    In other words, by stopping bisphosphonate therapy, these patients reduced their risk for a contralateral atypical fracture by 65.6% (P = .023).

    Bisphosphonates both strengthen and weaken bone by slowing the process of remodeling, he noted. “The bone becomes old, and old bone acquires micro damage,” he explained. “Initially, the bone is stronger, but eventually it becomes weaker.”

    This study adds evidence that this is happening.

    “This would argue very strongly that you should discontinue the bisphosphonates” in patients who have been taking them for a long time, Dr. Lane said.

    Current US Food and Drug Administration labels call on physicians to consider this possibility in their bisphosphonate prescriptions.

    Dr. Lane recommends that patients taking bisphosphonates stop after 5 years. Then he measures bone density and bone markers.

    If the bones are dense enough and not being remodeled too fast, the patients can continue without bisphosphonates. If the bones are losing density, he recommends a lower dose.

    Dr. Dell recommended discontinuing bisphosphonates in patients whose radiographs show warning signs of atypical fractures. He pointed out that alternative drugs can be used to treat osteoporosis. However, the relation between other antiresorptive drugs and atypical fractures is still not well known, Dr. Lane said.

    Dr. Dell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lane reports relationships with multiple companies that make products for orthopaedic surgery.

    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2012 Annual Meeting: Abstract 190. Presented February 8, 2012.

    Within 10 years, bisphosphonates will follow Vioxx to oblivion. And rightly so.

    Just imagine giving literally millions of healthy women chemotherapy, which is what fosomax & other bisphosphonates are. State sanctioned carnage, mainly on women.

    It would be worth your while Krebiozen, to keep abreast of the dangers of your profession’s drugs, instead of continually spinning the party line how good & safe they are.

  29. #29 MI Dawn
    March 21, 2012

    Did it ever occur to you that these people (pegasus, emily, etc) only know really bad doctors? I have never been to a doctor who pushed drugs for things that could be controlled by a better diet, exercise, fresh air.

    Yes, I take medication for high blood pressure, but before starting the medication, my doctor had done “watchful waiting” while I increased my exercise levels, lost weight, saw a dietician and improved my diet. For 2 years, the evil doctor DEPRIVED Big Pharma of any profits from my taking medications and watching to see if the other treatments would help. Shame on him!

    My ex has adult onset diabetes. Again, the evil doctor pushed nutrition, exercise, dietary counseling – though DID start medications right away. However, as my ex lost weight and his blood sugars improved, the medications were decreased in amount and frequency. Why, now he’s only taking 1 pill a day! Shameful that Big Pharma is being deprived of the profits from his 3 pills a day beginning dose.

    Pegasus: you’d impress us all a lot more if you posted peer-reviewed evidence of your information, didn’t cherry-pick data, and didn’t accuse others of ad hominums while using them yourself.

  30. #30 Calli Arcale
    March 21, 2012

    Shay @ 410:

    Dean, there are as yet no jurisdictions that allow exemptions from rabies vaccines based on religious beliefs. We protect our dogs and cats far better than we do our children, in that regard.

    True, however in most jurisdictions, the most enforcement is that the city won’t issue a license if you don’t submit proof of vaccination. Given that cities which *mandate* dog and cat licensure generally have less than 50% of the pets actually licensed, it’s unreasonable to expect vaccine enforcement to be effective. Obviously there are not the resources. From watching Animal Planet’s various cop shops, I’ve learned that generally the penalty for not vaccinating is usually nothing unless your dog bites someone, and then it’s either losing the dog for a while as it undergoes quarantine, or euthanasia if an asymptomatic victim declines rabies prophylaxis (since the only guaranteed test for rabies in an asymptomatic animal is examination of brain tissue under a microscope). Some jurisdictions may have a fine, but it won’t come into play unless your pet bites someone and it gets reported to the police. Technically, most venues require breeders to vaccinate the animals before sale, but again, enforcement is spotty at best. The almost routine nature of puppy mill busts are evidence that enforcement has a serious uphill battle.

    So while there are no *legal* exemptions to rabies and distemper vaccination, in practice is it far easier to not vaccinate your dog than to not vaccinate your child. And the majority of people who do not vaccinate their pets do it not out of anti-vax attitudes but out of “meh” attitudes. It is shocking how many pet owners never bring the animal to a vet.

    Pegasus @ 427:

    Within 10 years, bisphosphonates will follow Vioxx to oblivion. And rightly so.

    You just quoted a doctor discussing responsible use of bisphophonates and fine-tuning of treatment plans and you conclude from this that they should be withdrawn from the market? By this logic, pretty much everything should be withdrawn from the market. Including alternative medicine, food, air, water and sunlight. I’m not sure you’re really reading what you’re pasting, because it does not support your conclusion.

  31. #31 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus,

    Bisphosphonates Increase Contralateral Atypical Fracture Risk

    You mean this article? I think you missed a bit in your quote, this bit:

    The drugs are still worthwhile, Joseph Lane, MD, professor of orthopaedic surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. “For 30 to 50 fractures prevented, there is 1 atypical fracture,” he said.

    Why didn’t you include that part of the article? You quoted all the rest of it and just omitted those two sentences. I call that a despicable bit of editing that was deliberately intended to mislead people reading it. How would you describe it?

    Within 10 years, bisphosphonates will follow Vioxx to oblivion. And rightly so.

    A 40:1 benefit to risk ratio is unacceptable why exactly?

    Just imagine giving literally millions of healthy women chemotherapy, which is what fosomax & other bisphosphonates are. State sanctioned carnage, mainly on women.

    How can any sane person possibly conclude that a drug that prevents 40 times as many fractures as it causes is “State sanctioned carnage”?

    It would be worth your while Krebiozen, to keep abreast of the dangers of your profession’s drugs, instead of continually spinning the party line how good & safe they are.

    What a sanctimonious piece of *!%# you are, lecturing me when you have just exposed yourself as being deceitful enough to edit articles to fit your prejudices.

  32. #32 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    A comment of mine just went into moderation, pointing out that Pegasus omitted a paragraph from the Medscape article:

    The drugs are still worthwhile, Joseph Lane, MD, professor of orthopaedic surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. “For 30 to 50 fractures prevented, there is 1 atypical fracture,” he said.

  33. #33 OccamsLaser
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F. –

    Did I call Wakefield my hero? Never.

    This pattern of lying is really saddening:

    Go the good guys! Can’t wait for Wakefield to come up trumps.It’s only a matter of time.

    And I’m still waiting for you to retract this lie:

    I sell NOTHING… THERE IS NO PROFIT!!!

    Now this:

    The sceptics’ ploy: attribute fanciful statements & positions to your opponent, & then clubbers unite. It’s very amusing, really.

    Recognize this tactic? Here’s an example:

    Give me Dr Wakefield any day over Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems….10,000 hits of formaldehyde? 10,000 hits of polysorbate 80?

    As has been pointed out, this is an instance of you attributing a fanciful statement or position to your opponent, and then attacking that fabricated position. For the record, Dr. Offit was solely discussing the immune system’s theoretical maximum capacity to respond to antigens. If you’d read the paper in question, of course, you would have known that, but despite your contant hammering of others to read your favorite authors’ works, you (once again) act hypocritically in this regard. The result is that you spread false information, and are called on it.

    It is refreshing, however, that you have now agreed that it would be a fanciful position to claim there was any conspiracy involving the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, and health regulators, and that you do not hold that position. Thanks for clarifying your stance on that.

    I have posed several questions to you that you have repeatedly evaded. I am surprised that rather than answer them truthfully, you would rather be perceived as dodging them. Can it really be that you have decided that the truthful answers to those questions would be even more damaging to your image than the reputation as an evader you are acquiring?

    Dr. Fuhrman says that the flu is a simple viral illness.

    Is he wrong?

  34. #34 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    Correction to my last comment, Pegasus also omitted this sentence from the Medscape article:

    “The medications are extraordinarily helpful, but you don’t need them for a lifetime,” he said.

    Only the bits that suggest the benefits of bisphosphonates outweigh the risks were cut out. I think that’s simply despicable.

  35. #35 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    Peg,

    I’ve met some dumb, uneducated people in my time, but you’re the only one who’s actually proud of it. Are you Amish?

    “Did I say every doctor? Please furnish evidence. Did I say a conspiracy? Ditto. Did I call Wakefield my hero? Never.”

    I wasn’t quoting you, I was summarising your position. Do learn to read.

    Nope, you didn’t actually say those exact words. You didn’t say plenty of other words too.

    Words like Fraud. Quack. Ignorant. Nonsense. Untrained. Amateur. And as recently discovered with your shameful selective editing: deceitful.

    But we can hear them from you nonetheless.

    Your hero-worship of Wakefraud is blatant. Hence why you ignore the point about his massive conflict of interest and taking £430,000 from Big Pharma to falsify his research.

    Still, ‘unambiguous evidence’ is only there to be ignored, right? Like the cases of measles with and without Wakefraud’s MMR scare: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/measles/

  36. #36 OccamsLaser
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F. –

    Did I say a conspiracy?….
    The sceptics’ ploy: attribute fanciful statements & positions to your opponent, & then clubbers unite. It’s very amusing, really.

    Here’s the proof you demanded:

    western medicine is in bed with big pharma

    the drug companies employ the FDA as a “handmaiden”.

    We will have to wait for SBM to find another mistress who is as cashed up as bigpharma.

    Earlier:

    I know I do not lie. That is all that matters to me.

    It has now been shown that you have lied on multiple occasions.

  37. #37 Calli Arcale
    March 21, 2012

    Mark M:

    I’ve met some dumb, uneducated people in my time, but you’re the only one who’s actually proud of it. Are you Amish?

    You slander the Amish. They’re not dumb, nor even uneducated, really. They even vaccinate their children.

  38. #38 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    Calli, you’re quite right. I withdraw that comment.

  39. #39 OccamsLaser
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F. –

    To reinforce Krebiozen’s point, here is the actual article that you posted after altering it, with the portions you deleted without any indication put back in place and highlighted in bold.

    Why did you cut out those passages?

    Patients who continue bisphosphonate therapy after an atypical index femur fracture are more likely to suffer a fracture in the contralateral femur, researchers reported here at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2012 Annual Meeting.

    “Stop bisphosphonates if you have an index atypical fracture,” said lead researcher Richard M. Dell, MD, an orthopaedic surgeon at Kaiser Permanente, California.

    Increasing evidence shows an association between bisphosphonate use and atypical femur fractures. Previous research found that more than 20% of patients with an index atypical femur fracture will develop an atypical femur fracture on the contralateral femur.

    To examine the impact of discontinuing bisphosphonate use in these patients, researchers at Kaiser Permanente in California studied 126 patients who suffered atypical femur fractures at the medical center in 2007, 2008, and 2009. (Kaiser’s database was useful because extensive records were available on 2.6 million people older than 45 years.)

    The researchers found that 53.8% of those who continued bisphosphonates for 3 or more years after the first atypical fracture suffered an atypical fracture in the contralateral femur.

    In contrast, only 18.5% of those who discontinued bisphosphonates in the first few months after the initial fracture experienced a contralateral atypical femur fracture.

    In other words, by stopping bisphosphonate therapy, these patients reduced their risk for a contralateral atypical fracture by 65.6% (P = .023).

    The drugs are still worthwhile, Joseph Lane, MD, professor of orthopaedic surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.

    “For 30 to 50 fractures prevented, there is 1 atypical fracture,” he said.

    Bisphosphonates both strengthen and weaken bone by slowing the process of remodeling, he noted. “The bone becomes old, and old bone acquires micro damage,” he explained. “Initially, the bone is stronger, but eventually it becomes weaker.”

    This study adds evidence that this is happening.

    “This would argue very strongly that you should discontinue the bisphosphonates” in patients who have been taking them for a long time, Dr. Lane said.

    Current US Food and Drug Administration labels call on physicians to consider this possibility in their bisphosphonate prescriptions.

    Dr. Lane recommends that patients taking bisphosphonates stop after 5 years. Then he measures bone density and bone markers.

    If the bones are dense enough and not being remodeled too fast, the patients can continue without bisphosphonates. If the bones are losing density, he recommends a lower dose.

    “The medications are extraordinarily helpful, but you don’t need them for a lifetime,” he said.

    Dr. Dell recommended discontinuing bisphosphonates in patients whose radiographs show warning signs of atypical fractures. He pointed out that alternative drugs can be used to treat osteoporosis. However, the relation between other antiresorptive drugs and atypical fractures is still not well known, Dr. Lane said.

  40. #40 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    OccamsLaser,
    Only quoting the most important part of an article is fair enough. Reproducing an entire article but with the most important information removed (risk/benefit ratio in this case) is something else entirely!

  41. #41 OccamsLaser
    March 21, 2012

    Krebiozen –

    Of course, what it means is that at some level, she knows that reality and truth do not support her positions, so she has no choice but to present fabricated or altered information in service to her cognitive dissonance.

    But, as she apparently profits off her promotion of these positions, perhaps the seduction of that income stream is so powerful she is willing to engage in these various dishonest behaviors to maintain that income. Perhaps she will reveal her sources of income and clear that up.

    It is quite sad for the Natural Hygiene practitioners (if there are others) that so far, Pegasus/Emily has been their lone representative in these forums. For such a vocal proponent to have been so strongly indicted by her own words is gravely damaging to the image of the movement. I wonder if there might be another NH practitioner who would be willing to disavow Pegasus’/Emily’s dishonest statements in an effort to distance the discipline from her dishonesty, evasions, hypocrisy, and fabrications.

  42. #42 herr doktor bimler
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus:
    The sceptics’ ploy: attribute fanciful statements & positions to your opponent
    But earlier @175:
    Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems […] Then again, he’s making millions out of the gullibility, isn’t he?

    Tendentious hypocrisy from Pegasus? Well cover me with peanut butter and throw me to the labradors!

    Nice fabrication. To add weight to your hate,I suppose you’ll throw anything at people like Archie even if it’s total psychobabble,which this is.

    Coming from Pegasus, I assume this is a compliment. But I will not be swayed by flattery! Well maybe a little.

    Flip:
    Just like Emily, you’re ignoring my hard questions too.

    That’s how the gish-galloping style of trolling works, flip. You can ignore all the refutations of the nonsensical claims comprising your previous comment, because you have already moved on to a new comment and a new list of nonsensical claims cut-&-pasted from elsewhere.
    Some of the trolls who frequent RI are classy and it seems a shame to label them and Pegasus with the same term.

  43. #43 flip
    March 21, 2012

    @426 Pegamily

    Check bingo card – Emily’s brush off as disagreements and actual discussion of the issues/questions put to her. (And @427, check bingo card – Emily’s misquoting of sources)

    @428 MI Dawn

    Did it ever occur to you that these people (pegasus, emily, etc) only know really bad doctors?

    Yes. In fact, I’d bet that most alt-medders head that way because of bad experiences with certain doctors. (I know it’s happened in my family, including myself in my pre-skeptical days)

    @435 Occamslaser

    Pegasus hero-worships Wakefield, so it’s no surprise that she emulates his lying and his denial of it.

    @441 Herr Doktor Bimler

    Oh I’m quite familiar with Gish gallop; but it does help to point out what she’s doing to the lurkers. When I started reading science blogs (not Science Blogs, I just mean science sites in general) the one thing that put me off someone’s argument was the refusal to answer questions. If someone is willing to admit problems or discuss the tough stuff, I may disagree with their position, but I gain a respect for their attitude.

  44. #44 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Well what a naughty little boy I am. I omitted a couple of paragraphs, & in retrospect I should have included the whole article. I knew the entire article would be read by some of you sceptics, but I didn’t think it would incur your wrath like it did.

    Of course Dr Dell would justify the chemotherapy to normal women, as he feels compelled to appease his colleagues . And besides, As Dr Strand states in his very honest book Death by Prescription, “doctors love their drugs”. Dell’s comment is the Allopathic Quack Miranda principle. Gently criticise some aspect of the medical juggernaut, but be sure to issue a sugar coated caveat how much you respect the very thing you’re citicising, & how wonderful the drug is.

    Bisphosphonates were poorly tested, which we know is usual for most drugs since the FDA sold out for money to “fast track” approvals.

    They were initially never intended for healthy women. Now they are used very widely in healthy women, who reperesent a lucrative cash cow to the drug companies, the specialists & the DEXA scan manufacturers (read Selling Sickness by Moynihan). And who suffers? Mainly women. Bone that is osteopenic doesn’t need chemo, it needs lifestyle modifications. But common sense & health were never really taught at med school.

    The following problems with bisphosphonates have been reported in your medical journals. Read them yourselves, & if you are female, think twice if your good doctor’s love affair with drugs is worth the risk, when common-sense lifestyle modifications are all that are needed:

    Gastric ulcers: Arch Int. Med Jan 8, 2001;
    Serious eye problems: NEJM March 20, 2003;
    Atrial fibrillation: Arch Int Med April 28, 2008;
    Atypical low energy fractures: NEJM March 20, 2008 & Jnl of Clin Endocrin & Metab. 2005 Vol 90;
    Jaw Rot: Jnl Dental Res 2006 No 86; Annals Int Med 2006 No 145; gen Med Jnl Watch March 31 2005; Jnl Am Dental Assn 2006 Vol 137;
    Oesophogeal Cancer: NEJM Jan 1 2009.

    Do doctors who prescribe chemo to healthy women tell them of these possible side-effects. Rarely, if ever. And it is the women who suffer, just like they did with HRT for 40 years before the drug’s long term effects were fully understood. And what happened when HRT was exposed & women stopped taking it? Breast cancer rates fell sharply, according to the Cancer Council of Australia.

    And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    How do my sins of omitting 2 paragraphs, which copped your bile, compare to this:

    ” How did we get here? How did money come to exert such a remarkable influence over the medical profession?” Dr Jerome P Kassirer: “On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health” p170.

    About the above book, this is what Dr Jordan Cohen, President, Association of American Colleges says:

    ” Public outrage at the unconscionable practices documented in this book may be our only hope of redirecting the medical profession away from overweening self- interest & back towards its moral purpose- protecting patients’ interests. If readers of this book are not outraged at what they learn, hope for a future of beneficient medicine may indeed be lost” (Back cover of book).

    And this: “There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety. We need studies on vaccinated populations based on various schedules & doses as well as individual patient susceptibilities that we are continuing to learn about. No one should be threatened by the ppursuit of this knowledge. Vaccine policy should be the topic of frank & open debate, with no tolerance for bullying.” Dr Bernadette Healey, former Director, NIH.

    And this from Dr Caldwell Esselstyn in his book ‘Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease’ p9:

    “Modern hospitals offer almost nothing to enhance public health” & then p10 & this is for you MI Dawn::

    “As a physician, I am embarrassed by my profession’s lack of interest in healthier lifestyles. We need to change the way we approach chronic disease. p10”

    Get serious sceptics. You can vent your spleen at me no problem, but wake up to what is happening in modern medicine, it’s a looming catastrophe.

    And finally Krebiozen, for you to call the deceased Dr Kalokerinos a “raving lunatic” is typical of your morals & ethics. You villify me for an omission (fair enough) but reflexly dismiss people like Archie, Fuhrman & T. Colin Campbell by plucking some nonsense criticism out of the woodwork from your ilk, without knowing much about them or the real subject.Your knowledge of health is no better than the average doctors, which is appalling.There are very few enlightened & brave medical doctors. You certainly aren’t one, as you are a toe-the-liner medical/drugs apologist. Kalokerinos was one of them.

  45. #45 Emily
    March 21, 2012

    Very interesting reading. Could I make a suggestion to you Pegasus.

    Forget the alt/medders, forget 90% of SBM (seriously bad medicine) & research the true biological principles of self-healing.

    This won’t change any of the bloggers’ minds or lives, but it will change yours, I promise you.

  46. #46 Thomas
    March 21, 2012

    “Will that reconsideration occur before or after the heat death of the universe?”

    Oh, I have faith in Pegasus; I’m sure that the retraction will come, now that Pegasus has recognized the weakness of the evidence he or she presented. Pegasus is far too honest a person to refuse to admit a mistake.

  47. #47 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    Di I detect some sock-puppetry being used a a pretext for a quick exit?

  48. #48 Thomas
    March 21, 2012

    “Well what a naughty little boy I am.”

    See – Pegasus acknowledged lying by omission.

    “And finally Krebiozen, for you to call the deceased Dr Kalokerinos a “raving lunatic” is typical of your morals & ethics.”

    And here Pegasus condemns name-calling, which I assume means that Pegasus is rightfully ashamed of writing
    “poison lovers,” “fool” “drug-lovers/nature deniers” and all the other name-calling he has done.

  49. #49 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Thomas:

    The difference is that the object of my scorn is not dead. My omission you can call what you like, but Krebiozen’s shot at the deceased is nothing short of a disgrace, & shows him as the low life he is. He should honestly be ashamed of himself. No wonder there is an implosion coming.

  50. #50 Thomas
    March 21, 2012

    Absolutely. Deceptive quotes are much more ethical than insulting dead people. Thanks again for conceding that your appeals to popularity were invalid, by the way.

  51. #51 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    My omission you can call what you like,

    “Willful deception” sounds OK.

    but Krebiozen’s shot at the deceased apologist for infant-killers

    FTFY. I’m sure he was swell otherwise.

    is nothing short of a disgrace, & shows him as the low life he is.

    Not so low as to misquote and try to paper over it with distractions and idiocies, it seems.

  52. #52 flip
    March 21, 2012

    @444 Emily

    Wow, we constantly berate Pegasus for being you after a month of silence from your comments… and suddenly you appear again. (Granted I haven’t read the last few blog posts, so I may be wrong in my assumption)

    Forget the alt/medders, forget 90% of SBM (seriously bad medicine) & research the true biological principles of self-healing.

    What was that about not having anything to sell or promote?

    This won’t change any of the bloggers’ minds or lives, but it will change yours, I promise you.

    Yeah, you had ample opportunity to change mine, except you were incapable of: making any specific definitions; posting accurate info of sources (some NH) you cited; showing any efficacy or low risk; being honest in general; avoiding reliance on confirmation bias and other logical fallacies.

    Tell me, how is sock puppetry done so badly? You showing up here after flouncing off is just bad tactics. Why not just return after a hiatus and say “I had stuff to do, but now I’m ready to get back into the discussion again”? No one would have cared, but the sock puppets make you look even more dishonest (if that’s possible) and silly.

    @448 Pegamily

    The difference is that the object of my scorn is not dead. My omission you can call what you like, but Krebiozen’s shot at the deceased is nothing short of a disgrace, & shows him as the low life he is. He should honestly be ashamed of himself. No wonder there is an implosion coming.

    Ah I see now. No matter what the person thought or did, if they’re dead, they can’t be criticised. I call a Godwin looming on the horizon.

  53. #53 Calli Arcale
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus:

    Well what a naughty little boy I am. I omitted a couple of paragraphs, & in retrospect I should have included the whole article. I knew the entire article would be read by some of you sceptics, but I didn’t think it would incur your wrath like it did.

    Of course Dr Dell would justify the chemotherapy to normal women, as he feels compelled to appease his colleagues .

    No, you shouldn’t post the entire article; you already posted more than is really polite. But you should probably *read* the whole article. Even what you did quote does not support your conclusion; Dr Dell is not simply sugar coating bisphosphonates to appease the Gods of Pharma. He’s discussing fine-tuning of recommendations for a particular subset of the population. You seemed to think he was talking about hidden dangerous that mean nobody at all should be taking them, and it’s transparently obvious to anybody with a 10th grade reading comprehension level that that is not what he was saying at all.

  54. #54 OccamsLaser
    March 21, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F./G.F. –

    I omitted a couple of paragraphs

    We already knew that. But let’s be clear: you chose to delete those passages from your posting of the article.

    Why did you decide to alter the article by removing those passages? What is your opinion of SBM practitioners who selectively conceal information that does not support their positions?

    What is your opinion of yourself?

    Please also note that there are several direct questions that have been posed to you repeatedly that you continue to evade, to the detriment of your ever-diminishing reputation.

    Your clumsy attempt to bolster your claim that you and “Emily” are two different people who do not know each other can only backfire. I suggest you summon a sliver of integrity, if you have any, throw yourself on the mercy of the readers here, and admit that you have been lying on this point, for whatever reason. I have been very patient with you, but we both know the truth about this. I wonder what honest practitioners of Natural Hygiene think about your antics here on their behalf; when people search for information about Natural Hygiene in the future, they will likely happen upon these threads, and the impression they form will be very unfavorable indeed due to your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    Please tell us what your financial interest is in the approaches to health that you have been promoting. Or would you rather someone else produce that information if you can’t be bothered to?

  55. #55 Pegasus
    March 21, 2012

    Calli Arcale:

    “You seemed to think he was talking about hidden dangerous that mean nobody at all should be taking them”

    Not at all. These chemotherapy drugs have a limited place in patients with pagets disease & osteosarcoma, & a very small group of patients who have intractable osteoporosis. They are now widely prescribed to normal women, who are increasingly succumbing to the drug’s terrible side-effects. Osteopenia is a fabricated disease. What next? Will we be told that sarcopenia is a disease which needs deadly medication? Probably. A little boys being next in line for HPV.

    Every major national & international Osteoporosis Society/Foundation, which purport to disseminate objective information to the public, is financially backed by the very companies which stand to profit by hoodwinking the women of the world, with most doctors going along with this travesty.

    Who does the medico/pharma complex think are their biggest cash cows? The elderly, the young & women.

  56. #56 Matt F
    March 21, 2012

    Oh look Pegasus/Emily is talking to himself/herself.

  57. #57 Stu
    March 22, 2012

    Who does the medico/pharma complex think are their biggest cash cows? The elderly, the young & women.

    *cough*Viagra*cough*

    Good God you are a moron.

  58. #58 OccamsLaser
    March 22, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F./G.F. –

    Please seriously think about confessing your many lies and deceptions in this forum. The self-immolation is becoming uncomfortable to witness.

    The falsehoods, hypocricy, fabrications, evasions, purging of statements that undermine your claims, inventing positions of others so you can attack them, concealment of your financial motives — really, all the most appalling tactics you accuse SBMers of engaging in — are demolishing your reputation right out in the open for all to see, including your co-workers and family, and likely for all time. You can take the cowardly way out and flee the blog, but it will not matter — your posts will remain, as will, of course, all the posts by others that expose you. Better to bite the bullet and try to salvage something of your image, if indeed there is anything left.

    I daresay that most of the people who you’ve told us you admire would be deeply embarrassed to be associated with someone who has behaved as you have.

  59. #59 Mark M
    March 22, 2012

    “The medications are extraordinarily helpful, but you don’t need them for a lifetime,” he said.

    Wow. You didn’t want anyone to see that bit, did you Peggy?

    Witness is a liar, case dismissed.

    (Cue more quotes from Peggy’s paranoid peer-ignored piss-poor paperbacks. ‘Death by Prescription’ doesn’t need censoring, hey Peg…?)

  60. #60 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    Pegasus,

    And finally Krebiozen, for you to call the deceased Dr Kalokerinos a “raving lunatic” is typical of your morals & ethics.

    Why is that either immoral or unethical? I chose my words carefully after reading some of Dr. Kalokerinos’s articles. Here are some quotes:

    My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of ‘Save the Children’s Fund and almost all those organisations is one of murder and genocide. They want to make it appear as if they are saving these kids, but in actual fact they don’t. I am talking of those at the very top.

    In a talk recorded by Peter Bowditch he said that Hitler and Stalin were like guardian angels compared to these agencies.

    During one trial, the prosecution stated that infantile scurvy was no longer seen. I replied with ‘Yes it is. But it is not called ‘scurvy’ it is called the ‘shaken baby syndrome’.

    PMID: 15660885 ‘Could Vitamin C deficiency have a role in shaken baby syndrome?’ concludes, “From the available information in the literature, concluded that there was no convincing evidence to conclude that vitamin C deficiency can be considered to be a cause of shaken baby syndrome.”

    It was similar with the measles vaccination. They went through Africa, South America and elsewhere, and vaccinated sick and starving children…They thought they were wiping out measles, but most of those susceptible to measles died from some other disease that they developed as a result of being vaccinated. The vaccination reduced their immune levels and acted like an infection. Many got septicaemia, gastro-enteritis, etcetera, or made their nutritional status worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were very few susceptible infants left alive to get measles. It’s one way to get good statistics, kill all those that are susceptible, which is what they literally did.

    I assume he is referring to the high titer measles vaccine which appeared to increase all-cause mortality in some children compared to standard titer measles vaccine. Several studies in developing countries have shown a very large reduction in all-cause mortality in children who were given measles vaccine as compared to those who were not. What Dr. Kalokerinos wrote is demonstrably untrue.

    Perhaps I should amend my description of Dr. Kalokerinos. Either he spread what he must have known were lies that would put children’s lives at risk, and defended child murderers, or he was delusional, I don’t see any other possibility.

  61. #61 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    Pegasus,

    You villify me for an omission (fair enough) but reflexly dismiss people like Archie, Fuhrman & T. Colin Campbell by plucking some nonsense criticism out of the woodwork from your ilk, without knowing much about them or the real subject.

    I have read widely and extensively on the subject with an open mind. When I started taking an interest in nutritional medicine, several years ago (I bought a copy of ‘Life Extension’ by Pearson and Shaw 25 years ago, which probably shows just how open-minded I used to be), I used to have high hopes that a specific diet, or specific nutrients were the keys to health. After reading umpteen studies, articles and webpages about different diets, nutrients etc. I came to the reluctant conclusion that the maxim “eat, not too much, mostly plants” is all we can say with certainty about nutrition. Pretty much everything else is hype and hot air.

    Your gurus don’t even agree among themselves what an ideal diet is. Kalokerinos advocated IV vitamin C, Fuhrman promotes a high nutrient to calorie ratio i.e. low starch, and raw foods, McDougall advocates a high starch diet, Campbell claims that animal protein, especially casein, causes heart disease and cancer, Ornish recommends low fat dairy. They can’t all be right, unless they are all just reducing calorific intake and increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables, just as my doctor tells me I should. As for “nonsense criticism”, you should read the critique of Campbell’s China Study that carefully and methodically demonstrates that he cherry-picked the statistics to support his prejudices.

    Your knowledge of health is no better than the average doctors, which is appalling.There are very few enlightened & brave medical doctors. You certainly aren’t one, as you are a toe-the-liner medical/drugs apologist. Kalokerinos was one of them.

    I am not a doctor. You seem to have swallowed whole a lot of claims about diet that are not supported by the evidence, and you are railing against people who are simply less gullible than you. That’s how it seems to me anyway. If you really believe that Kalokerinos was enlightened and brave, I don’t think we have much left to discuss.

  62. #62 flip
    March 22, 2012

    @455 Pegamily

    These chemotherapy drugs have a limited place in patients with pagets disease & osteosarcoma, & a very small group of patients who have intractable osteoporosis.

    Check bingo card – Emily’s contradictory stance that meds are both evil unnecessaries *and* useful for some medical conditions.

    Every major national & international Osteoporosis Society/Foundation, which purport to disseminate objective information to the public, is financially backed by the very companies which stand to profit by hoodwinking the women of the world, with most doctors going along with this travesty.

    I return you to my question posed previously: if you were in charge, how would you keep medical practitioners apart from the drug companies, whilst still ensuring good quality and safe treatments/cures for all?

    Ah, never mind… I know I’m just being ignored because I called Emily a victim-blamer and blasted her for being a pretty obviously incomprehensible ‘pilot’ who couldn’t answer anything about treating mental illness with her woo. Or anything else for that matter.

  63. #63 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    A final few words for Pegasus about bisphosphonates. In women who have had a hip fracture (remember that’s 329,000 women every year in the US):

    Oral bisphosphonate exposure led to relative reduction of 8% per month of use (p = 0.001) or about a 60% reduction in mortality per year of use.

    Serious fractures occur in a large number of elderly patients. From Medscape:

    in 2005, fragility fractures in the USA resulted in 2.5 million medical office visits, 430,000 hospital admissions and 180,000 nursing home admissions, with a direct cost of US$17 billion.

    You say that osteopenia is a fabricated disease yet according the the Harvard Women’s Health Watch newsletter:

    Among postmenopausal women, as many as half of all fractures occur in those whose T-scores don’t meet the criteria for full-blown osteoporosis.

    Primary prevention of both osteoporosis and fractures is the aim of treating osteopenic women with bisphosphonates. According to Oregon State University:

    One out of every two women, and one in eight men over the age of 50 will have an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime.

    What was that about “a very small group of patients”?

  64. #64 Calli Arcale
    March 22, 2012

    Or anything else for that matter.

    I ponied up with considerable personal information for her to hypothetically discuss treatment of UTI (a pretty straightforward condition); all she gave in return was chirping crickets, which gives me very little hope for the health of her clients.

  65. #65 Calli Arcale
    March 22, 2012

    Krebiozen — an elderly relative of mine died as a direct consequence of a hip fracture. She was 99, and within months of her centenary. She’d been in pretty good health up to that point, and sharp as a tack. Unfortunately, she did not survive the surgery to repair the hip. That’s a common outcome in that age range, but hip fractures are so severely impairing that it’s worth the risk of surgery. Better to die under anesthesia on the operating table than after months of bedridden agony.

  66. #66 JGC
    March 22, 2012

    Bisphosphonates were poorly tested, which we know is usual for most drugs since the FDA sold out for money to “fast track” approvals.

    If you believe that bisphosphonates were poorly tested, please provide actual evidence the testing was insufficient: tell us what testing should reasonably have been done but was omitted, and/or what testing was done but was done incorrectly.

    Waving your hands and chanting “fast track approval” isn’t enough–especially as bisphosphonates were approved prior to the inception of the fast track approval process (the first was Merck’s Fosamax for treatment of osteoporosis and Paget’s disease in September 1994) while the first drug to receive fast track approval was Dupont’s Sustiva for treatment of HIV, four years later in September 1998).

  67. #67 Mark M
    March 22, 2012

    FYI, folks… your instincts serve you well.

    Moderator confirms Pegasus and Emily do indeed share an IP address. It’s the same person.

    Bye, bye, Peggemily.

    Been nice exposing you.

  68. #68 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    Calli,

    Better to die under anesthesia on the operating table than after months of bedridden agony.

    Indeed – mortality within a year after a hip fracture is 15-20%, that’s 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 people. Treating elderly osteopenic or osteoporotic women with bisphosphonates carries a tiny risk compared with their benefits. Whether treating osteopenic women is cost effective is a different question.

  69. #69 Denice Walter
    March 22, 2012

    @ Krebiozen:

    About those *fabricated diseases*:
    This has been a popular meme recently *chez woo*- it seems that Pharma and doctors’ professional associations meet up and manufacture diseases so that they can sell new drugs to treat the illness thus acquiring customers *for life*!

    They dream up symptoms, that are, in reality, just a normal part of living ,”pathologising everyday life”, and alert patients to the symptoms and write out rxs. They usually cite restless leg syndrome, acid reflux, sleeping problems as well as many psychological conditions ADHD, GAD, depression…. some of them don’t accept the concept of mental illness to *begin with* and rant against psychopharmaceuticals of all stripes. Long diatribes are posted or broadcast implicating meds ( esp SSRIs and atypical anti-psychotics)in school shootings and suicides of young people. Expect to hear lots more along these lines @ NaturalNews and the ProgressiveRadioNetwork.

  70. #70 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    Denice,
    The same people who complain that SBM does nothing but treat the symptoms get upset when it finds effective ways to prevent symptoms by treating asymptomatic conditions like osteopenia and hyperlipidemia.

    As for those who claim that mental illnesses don’t exist, they have clearly not had much experience with them. I have had to deal with two close friends developing psychosis; one had late onset schizophrenia, (which resulted in him killing his mother, a tale I have related her before) and one had a depressive psychosis. There was nothing imaginary about either, and neither were using prescription medications.

  71. #71 Denice Walter
    March 22, 2012

    @ Krebiozen:

    Well, they tend to over-look little complications of daily life like that as well as myocardial infarctions and strokes: remember these are the folks who scoff at vaccines, anti-biotics and ARVs- as if there were never complications of measles and strep or opportunistic infection due to compromised immunity. Those are merely figments of the overly active imaginations of pharma executives, otherwise known as our dearly beloved paymasters.

  72. #72 herr doktor bimler
    March 22, 2012

    Probably. A little boys being next in line for HPV.
    The gish-galloping troll’s obsessions were becoming a little bit creepy there.

  73. #73 Thomas
    March 22, 2012

    “This has been a popular meme recently *chez woo*- it seems that Pharma and doctors’ professional associations meet up and manufacture diseases so that they can sell new drugs to treat the illness thus acquiring customers *for life*!”

    It’s a wonder then that big pharma hasn’t gotten behind Morgellons then, isn’t it? I guess doctors and drug companies are evil both when they make up illnesses and when they don’t come out with treatments for illness that other people make up.

  74. #74 herr doktor bimler
    March 22, 2012

    Don’t mention CFS, Thomas, or this thread will keep going with another 473 comments.

  75. #75 Pegasus
    March 22, 2012

    Krebiozen:

    Your recent response concerning Kalokerinos was measured & appreciated. I can understand how his words would incite
    the ire of many, particularly sceptics.

    I spoke with him many times, & knew some people who were close to him. I found him a kind & compassionate man, although I didn’t personally agree with his extreme views which you have quoted.I did however agree with many other of his views.

    Regarding diet, the people you mention agree on most things but differ on a few minor areas. Fuhrman & Campbell also advocate water-only fasting & McDougall refers people to a fasting establishment at times.

    The ones you have mentioned (alive) all get fantastic results with many conditions, time & time again. This is because their emphasis is the same, & this is the important thing, not minor differences.

    All of them agree that modern medicine is going the wrong way in relation to chronic disease.

    I am running, not hiding again & will resume the osteoporosis discussion in future.

  76. #76 AdamG
    March 22, 2012

    ‘Pegasus’ @475

    I am running, not hiding again & will resume the osteoporosis discussion in future.

    Emily, can you inform us why you decided to use a different name (‘Pegasus’) when you started posting on this thread? And why you decided to change back to Emily at post 445, then back to Pegasus? This sort of behavior is highly frowned upon here, and is a bannable offense.

  77. #77 flip
    March 22, 2012

    @467 Mark M

    Moderator confirms Pegasus and Emily do indeed share an IP address. It’s the same person.

    Well well…. proven a liar once again.

    @475 Pegamily

    Fuhrman & Campbell also advocate water-only fasting & McDougall refers people to a fasting establishment at times.

    Whoops… you nearly slipped into your Emily persona there.

    I am running, not hiding again & will resume the osteoporosis discussion in future.

    No doubt under a different pseudonym.

  78. #78 Krebiozen
    March 22, 2012

    Pegasus,

    I’m slightly amused that you think me characterising Kalokerinos as a raving lunatic makes me a “lowlife” but you appear happy for me to conclude he was either evil or deluded.

    Regarding diet, the people you mention agree on most things but differ on a few minor areas. Fuhrman & Campbell also advocate water-only fasting & McDougall refers people to a fasting establishment at times.

    If and when they have accumulated some good quality evidence of the safety and efficacy of fasting, do let me know. I would be interested to see it, honestly. Unlike many CAM interventions it is not entirely implausible that fasting may have benefits over and above a reduction in calorific intake. I will remain sceptical until I see convincing evidence. I suspect the risks outweigh any benefits.

    The ones you have mentioned (alive) all get fantastic results with many conditions, time & time again. This is because their emphasis is the same, & this is the important thing, not minor differences.

    They claim to get fantastic results, but their publications tell a different story.

    All of them agree that modern medicine is going the wrong way in relation to chronic disease.

    I think there is a grain of truth in many things you say, but you exaggerate them out of all recognition, and blame modern medicine for what are really social failures, failures of education, or the predictable consequences of putting primates genetically programmed to seek out sweet, fatty foods in an environment where these foods are freely available.

    I think that if everyone ate less generally, ate more fruit and vegetables and took more moderate exercise there would be a lot less chronic illness. There is good epidemiological and interventional evidence for this. The difficulty is in getting large numbers of people to make large lifestyle modifications. As I have pointed out before you and your health gurus generally deal with highly motivated people who are willing to make such changes. Even they have compliance problems – Esselstyn’s interventional study started with 22 (or possibly 24) patients and after ten years only 6 were still on his diet (PMID 7500065). I have mentioned before the doctor I worked with in a poor part of London who ran a lipid clinic and despaired of getting most of her patients to lose weight and quit smoking.

    I think drug companies should be better regulated because, of course, they will exaggerate the safety and efficacy of a drug they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars bringing to market, we know some have been guilty of ignoring evidence of serious side effects of some drugs, and some RCTs that didn’t provide the data they wanted have not been published. There are people working on ways of solving these problems, like making sure that all clinical trials are declared before they start and are published whatever they show.

    I think that overtreatment and polypharmacy are problems, especially in the elderly, many of whom would benefit from a drug review – pharmacists in the UK have been doing just this recently. If you look on PubMed you will find over 600 studies that have ‘polypharmacy’ in the title. The systematic medication and assessment review and tracking, the SMART Program, is just one measure being taken to deal with this. I come from a family of doctors and was brought up with the maxim that 90% of complaints that people consult a doctor for will go away on their own, but many of us demand an unnecessary prescription, and doctors too often comply. That is slowly moving in the right direction.

    None of this means that SBM is Seriously Bad Medicine, as one of your alter egos claims. It means we need to base more medicine on better evidence.

    I am running, not hiding again & will resume the osteoporosis discussion in future.

    Unless you find a reliable, effective (meaning it works in the real world), drug-free way of preventing fractures in post-menopausal women that doesn’t involve the use of a time-machine, I don’t really have anything else to say on the subject.

  79. #79 OccamsLaser
    March 22, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F./G.F. –

    I am running, not hiding

    On the contrary, you have been hiding for a month — evading direct questions posed to you under your various identities.

    For example, you’re hiding your financial interests in the health practices you have been pushing, despite multiple requests for that information.

    Most of your lies and deceptions have been exposed, despite your efforts to hide them, however.

    Do your clients know about your lying? Do you think they will continue to trust you when they discover your true character? Do your business partners advocate the behavior you’ve engaged in here? Does your family know about this side of you?

    Do you sleep well, knowing how dishonest you have been in public?

  80. #80 herr doktor bimler
    March 22, 2012

    Well well…. proven a liar once again.

    Don’t forget the casual breathtaking racism… apparently African villagers have “instinct” rather than intelligence.

  81. #81 Pegasus
    March 23, 2012

    Krebiozen”

    “They claim to get fantastic results, but their publications tell a different story”.

    Not so. Their publications do nothing of the sort. Their publications support their claims. It’s Harriet Hall who tells a different story. But she even says (in relation to The China Study) that they make a good case, just not quite good enough. That’s hardly condemnation. And besides, who is she to pontificate about the merits or otherwise of these programs. Her criticisms are totally unconvincing. She also does her cause no good by quoting from the Western Price Foundation for confirmation of her criticisms, the very organisation that your sceptical groups have labelled woo. Even sceptic royalty David Gorsky gently reprimanded her for this in your links.

    Don’t need to wait 10 years for rct’s to prove beyong doubt that their programs are effective in disease prevention/reversal. As Esselstyn says: they work.

  82. #82 OccamsLaser
    March 23, 2012

    Pegasus/Emily/D.F./G.F –

    What is your financial interest in the approaches to health that you are promoting?

    Will you have the integrity to admit that you’ve been lying about Pegasus and Emily being two different people?

    Will you find the strength to admit that you lied when you wrote, as Pegasus, that you were not up on “Emily’s” Natural Hygiene?

    Will you confess that you fabricated a claim by Dr. Offitt in order to attack a position that he does not hold?

    Will you reveal the reason you selectively removed passages from an article that you posted without giving any indication that you had altered it?

    Are you lying to your clients with this regularity? Do you justify your dishonesty by believing you have to do it in order to maintain your income? How do you feel about members of the SBM community who engage in that behavior?

    Should we judge the Natural Hygiene field as a whole by your behavior, or if we look for others who make the claims that you do, would we find only you?

  83. #83 Chris
    March 23, 2012

    I’m still waiting for Pegily’s special magic diet that will protect a baby from pertussis. She never did satisfactorily tell us why the rates of measles incidence plummeted 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970.

    It is an amusing morphing troll.

  84. #84 flip
    March 23, 2012

    Yeah, I’d like Pegamily to answer Chris’ question. Of course answering one or more of the others would be nice too.

  85. #85 Pegamily
    March 23, 2012

    Occy:

    You are tenacious, I’ll concede that.

    The irony is that you are partly responsible for the morphing. You, supported by another blogger who shall remain pseudonymless, were the ones who became identity obsessed in my previous life & talked in terms of work interference, disclosing phone numbers etc. I didn’t mind the verbal abuse ( children who are disease vectors, irresponsible, dangerous parent etc), that was fine, I can give as good as I get. If you recall, I exited because of the slight chance that this vague threat by you & co could escalate into reprisals or something more tragic for my family. I’m not saying you or the other blogger were intending any such radical action, but one must play it safe in this crazy world, guarding against all possibilities.

    However,I enjoyed the intellectual jousting, gained from the experience, & after a month on the sidelines just reading the blogs, I decided to slide back into the mix.

    I did not fabricate a claim by Dr Offitt. It was my understanding he claimed 10,000 vaccinations would be harmless in one day, I stated that as such, then someone stated his claim was a 10,000 antigen load. No lie, no big deal.

    The selective ommission of those passages is the only thing you can fairly charge me with. It was a long piece,so I dumped a couple of segments, leaving the thrust of the piece to more strongly favor my argument. Guilty as charged. A world away from pharma omitting adverse effects from their findings to increase their bottom line, at the expense of countless human lives.

    Regarding my income, that is my business. I do not ask you yours. I will say though, that although you classify me as an alt/med purveyer of woo,I am much closer to your philosophy than you really understand. I am highly critical of the nonsense from both sides of the fence. The problem is that the conventional nonsense maims & kills far more people than dispensing diluted water masquerading as a remedy etc. When untold people could be spared just by removing the causes of their illness, I attack the nonsense purveyers. I do not sell herbs, crystals, homeopathy, potions, elixirs etc.

    Thanks for enquiring about my sleep. I sleep very well & look forward to each day with optimism & vitality.

    So there you have it, Occy. Have a good day.

  86. #86 Lawrence
    March 23, 2012

    @Pegamily – I’m glad you finally admitted to lying. Selective omission is still lying, regardless of your vocation.

  87. #87 flip
    March 23, 2012

    @485 Pegamily

    The irony is that you are partly responsible for the morphing.

    Oh please. If you were that insulted by their behaviour, what you do is *not* engage in sock puppetry, but engage in a moral higher road where you don’t waste your energy on people whose ethics you don’t like. If you’re not trying to convince people of anything (which you’ve denied before) why waste your time coming back under a different pseudonym?

    If you recall, I exited because of the slight chance that this vague threat by you & co could escalate into reprisals or something more tragic for my family.

    In which case you show your utter idiocy by posting using exactly the same tropes and references and calling yourself out and not knowing how IP addresses work. If you’re that threatened by the idea of abuse, then you know what: you stop posting where your identity can be further revealed. Either that or take the threats to your local police and make a complaint. I’ve actually been threatened (in far more abusive ways) from online personalities, and I can tell you the first thing I did was to *stop* engaging with the person/s and *went to the police* because I was that scared for my life and the lives of my family. Did you do either of those things since you’re so very frightened?

    The selective ommission of those passages is the only thing you can fairly charge me with.

    Then you haven’t been reading what you’ve been posting, nor our replies. Not surprising given your blatant misquoting of everything, including people who promote NH.

    Regarding my income, that is my business.

    It’s not. You previously posted that you teach at universities, that you ‘pilot’ people, that you run a clinic. If it wasn’t our business, why did you tell us already? It’s quite clear that you’re up to your old tricks again: contradiction after contradiction.

    I am highly critical of the nonsense from both sides of the fence.

    Except of course, that you’re not. You have time and time again promoted CAM ideas whilst attacking SBM, and have not once succinctly defined where you agree with SBM except to contradict yourself on where it is useful and where it is not. (See upthread) One minute it’s sometimes useful, the next it’s the evil threat of allopathy. Make up your mind.

    I do not sell herbs, crystals, homeopathy, potions, elixirs etc.

    No, just fasting ‘therapies’, courses in NH, and generally promoting CAM concepts. No profit motive there *roll eyes*

    Oh, and a constant reliance on victim-blaming, energy treatments (you promoted energy treatments for mental illnesses), CAM proponents and anything else that fits your confirmation bias and lack of research.

    What you seem to get confused about is that if you don’t promote crystals, that somehow means we should overlook the fact that both crystals *and* NH are not evidence-based. Here’s a clue: we’re interested in what you *are* promoting, not what you *aren’t*. So you don’t promote crystals so what? You do on the other hand promote an awful lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense, contradicts itself, and/or is not shown to have any efficacy or low risk.

    You came here to promote NH, so even if you’re not earning money from it – which you quite clearly are – you’re certainly being dishonest by trying to make yourself appear as some innocent question-asker. You’re not. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re only interest is to attack SBM and promote NH; to attack vaccines and promote fasting; to attack proper treatments for proper illnesses and promote victim blaming, positive thinking as a cure-all, and an unrealistic ideal of natural health.

    You informed us – with no evidence to back you up – that germ theory is wrong, evolution has problems, fasting for 30 days is ‘healthy’, couldn’t explain why a NH facility had no emergency staff on hand at night, couldn’t point to any research for NH that showed it worked, couldn’t accept that anecdotes mean nothing, misquoted references constantly, relied on authority instead of data, contradicted yourself at every turn, couldn’t offer diagnoses or treatment plans based on real life examples, couldn’t get the number of your own children straight, wouldn’t admit you have biases of your own, told us you take no records, outright told me that I’m mentally ill because I was just a horrible child, refused to see that an attack on SBM is not proof that NH (or anything else) works, and just plainly screwed up wherever you could. In more than one thousand comments, you couldn’t describe your own position succinctly; let alone defend it against our questions and criticisms.

    (Lurkers can follow past discussions here and here)

    You came here for the explicit reason to denounce evidence-based medicine and advocate some vague notion based on ‘personal experience’ and then expected people here to simply take your word for it – and because someone gave you an excuse to flounce off, you did. Because I highly suspect you realised you were getting trounced.

    But thank you so VERY much for actually coming out and admitting you were using a sock puppet. Once again, Queen Emily strikes again and shows herself to be incapable of an honest discussion.

  88. #88 Denice Walter
    March 23, 2012

    @ Pegamily:

    You can’t have it both ways!
    If you use a pseudo-nym you will protect your privacy *however* if you then link to a website that includes contact information because it is an advertisement for your products and/ or services, you shouldn’t complain if people realise who you are!

    Many people @ RI use pseudos precisely because they have been harassed in RL by their opponents ( I leave off my second last name). Our esteemed host and a few other regulars have had problems; I know a fellow sued for 13 million USD and another who had interference at work and at home, because they took on a well-known charlatan and an HIV/AIDS denialist (respectively) using their real names.

    Do you seriously believe that a commenter might pursue you from across the pond or across the Pacific while leaving a trail here for investigation?

    About conflicts of interests: if you support a view ( SBM, alt med, TCM) and you also offer a product or service, I think you should mention it even if you do use a pseudo. ‘ Hi, my name is Qi and I do accupuncture!”- but if you link to your business site- well, what do you expect!
    For the record: I counsel people and make investments( virtually none in pharma)

  89. #89 AdamG
    March 23, 2012

    However,I enjoyed the intellectual jousting, gained from the experience, & after a month on the sidelines just reading the blogs, I decided to slide back into the mix.

    Emily, you have yet to apologize for your behavior in comment 445, where you essentially have a conversation with yourself to make it seem as if there are more individuals who share your opinion than there actually are. This behavior is disingenuous and reprehensible. If you truly assumed a new identity solely because you felt threatened, what could your motivations for comment 445 possibly have been?

  90. #90 OccamsLaser
    March 23, 2012

    Pegamily –

    You are now on record admitting that you lied about not being, or knowing, “Emily”. You are also now on record, therefore, about lying about being ignorant of Natural Hygiene.

    You also admit to altering an article by removing parts that undermine the position that you already decided to hold, presumably so that you could fool others about what the article actually said. This is a heinous form of lying.

    These three lies are added to your ever-growing accumulation. Let’s review some of the others, not all of which have you confessed to.

    You claimed, “I sell NOTHING.”, and “THERE IS NO PROFIT!!!” These are lies. In addition to being an unambiguous falsehood, it is, perhaps even more egregiously, an attempt to conceal you financial connection with the therapies you are pushing. How do you feel about SBM practitioners who hide their financial interests in the therapies they promote?

    You pretended to be an American. You’re not.

    You claimed to have both a husband and a wife. One of those claims was a lie.

    You lied about how many children you had. When you were caught, you lied about why you’d given conflicting information.

    You’ve made false representations about public health policies in order to attack those fabricated policies.

    You lied about your view of Mr. Wakefield.

    You lied about whether you believed there were conspiracies in SBM.

    You lied about what Dr. Offitt stated, writing, “Give me Dr Wakefield any day over Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems….10,000 hits of formaldehyde? 10,000 hits of polysorbate 80?” in order to fabricate support for your position.

    You lied about what Dr. Berwick said regarding 30% of medical spending in order to fabricate support for your position.

    Here are some new lies by you:

    You, supported by another blogger who shall remain pseudonymless, were the ones who became identity obsessed in my previous life & talked in terms of work interference, disclosing phone numbers etc.

    You’re lying, as the open record at this site proves. Produce evidence that I “talked in terms of work interference, disclosing phone numbers,” or retract this fabrication and apologize for smearing me in this repugnant manner.

    You write,

    the verbal abuse ( children who are disease vectors, irresponsible, dangerous parent etc)

    You’re lying. Produce a specific quote where I used any of those terms when characterizing you, or retract this fabricated accusation. How disgraceful of you.

    You make reference to

    this vague threat by you & co

    Another scurrilous lie. Produce evidence of this “threat” by me or retract this accusation.

    You now say,

    I did not fabricate a claim by Dr Offitt. It was my understanding he claimed 10,000 vaccinations would be harmless in one day, I stated that as such

    False. You did not state it as “your understanding” as though you weren’t sure. Here’s what you actually wrote:

    Dr Offitt, the fool who stated that 10,000 vaccinations at once would cause no problems.

    …and now you throw in,

    then someone stated his claim was a 10,000 antigen load. No lie, no big deal

    Really? Why, then, didn’t you retract it? Why, in fact, did you instead respond by saying,

    Antigen load? Give me a break.

    Your parade of lies continues unabated.

    If an SBM proponent were exposed as being as dishonest as you merely admit to being, would you believe anything he or she said in support of SBM? What would your opinion of such a person be if he or she were being held up as a trusted source of SBM-promoting information? What would you post here about that person?

    If Dr. Offitt concealed his financial connections to therapies he supports and was caught reproducing articles where he had removed sections damaging to his positions, and when asked about Natural Hygiene, he fabricated some shocking statements supposedly made by one of its leading practitioners in order to attack that person, what would you post here about your opinion of Dr. Offitt?

    When your patients discover how dishonest you are, will they trust what you tell them?

    You write,

    Regarding my income, that is my business. I do not ask you yours.

    How telling. You are so afraid of your financial interest in the approach you’re pushing being known, you resort to this absurd tactic. Do you believe that investigators who publish journal articles should be allowed to conceal their financial connections to the subjects they write about by claiming that their income is their business, and besides, they don’t ask their readers where their income comes from? You are constantly hammering the point that SBM parties have financial interests that bias or corrupt them, yet you not only refuse to admit your own, you actually go so far as to lie about them.

    You say,

    although you classify me as an alt/med purveyer of woo,I am much closer to your philosophy than you really understand.

    It is most disturbing to consider the prospect of you attempting to minister to a seriously ill person when you are unable to read the simplest text with comprehension. Produce a quote where I “classified you as an alt/med purveyer [sic] of woo” or where I made any statement of “my philosophy”, or retract this baffling statement.

    In fact, our philosophies couldn’t be farther apart. You believe that once you have settled on a position, or you need to promote something in which you have a concealed financial interest, it is fair for you to engage any tactic, including lying, fabricating evidence, taking both sides of an issue, lying about your opponents’ positions, and so on, in order to promote the therapies you’re pushing, and you believe it is right to choose to be close-minded so that you are not susceptible to having your stance shifted by exposure to truth. In sum, you are terrified of truth, because of what it might mean for your deeply-held beliefs, so you avoid it, and when you come across it, you change it so it is not so threatening. Through this litany of profoundly dishonest mechanisms, you try to maintain your tenuous grip on the position you are afraid to question.

    I believe in the opposite of all those things.

    I do not lie.

    Yes, you do.

    A lot.

  91. #91 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 23, 2012

    Just like the lying scum she is, Scumily tries to pretend that someone else is responsible for her wrongdoing. “i was so AFWAID! I had NO CHOICE but to take on a new identity! … and then come back and launch an offensive out of the blue.” Hardly plausible, but even if it were true it wouldn’t make your collusion between your “Emily” identity and your “Pegasus” identity anything but stupid dishonest sock-puppeting.

    If Pegasus had actually been a separate person, her “it’s called ‘germ theory’ and that means it’s unproven” gambit would only be woefully ignorant. However, since Pegasus was actually you, choosing to use that gambit after I and several others explained to you in detail why it is incorrect just makes you lying scum. What, you think honest people arguing in good faith drop out of arguments and come back with sock-puppets so they can present arguments they already know are false? If that’s the sort of moral values you instilled in your 3-or-maybe-4 children then it’s a miracle if none of them are doing jail time. “Remember, kids, if you get caught doing something wrong, say you didn’t know it was wrong and you’ll never do it again. And if you get caught a second time when you go back to do the same wrong thing, say that it wasn’t you the previous time, it was just someone else who really resembles you.”

    I used to think, back when you were Emily, that you were “just” thick-headed bordering on delusional. Now you’ve proven beyond a doubt that you’re just a dishonest scuzzball who doesn’t give a crap about anything but getting her own way, and thinks it’s okay to lie through her teeth to get an advantage, just because she’s such a special snowflake, she can’t be expected to follow the rules that grown-ups do. Go burn in hell, Scumily.

  92. #92 flip
    March 24, 2012

    I have a comment in moderation slightly upthread, but it occurs to me while reading this:
    scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/03/the_demise_of_climate_denialis.php

    Is Pegamily Lord Monkton in disguise?

  93. #93 flip
    March 24, 2012

    My comment finally appears at #487.

  94. #94 Krebiozen
    March 24, 2012

    Pegasus,

    Not so. Their publications do nothing of the sort. Their publications support their claims.

    Which publications are you referring to? Those referred to in the link I gave above are very small, and don’t measure whether their programs prevent heart attacks or death. They look at surrogates for these endpoints, such as arterial diameter and changes in cholesterol. The problem with surrogates is that they are not always reliable. For example the drug torcetrapib increases HDL levels and was expected to reduce cardiovascular deaths, but RCTs were dropped when it did the opposite. We really don’t know the long-term effects of these programs in large numbers of people.

    Even if they are effective, they have serious compliance problems. I already pointed out Esselstyn’s 75% dropout rate. Ornish’s study started with 48 patients and ended with 20 after 5 years. Really they should have included all the patients they ‘intended to treat’ whether or not they were able to comply, as drug trials do. An intervention that patients cannot stick with isn’t very helpful. Until we see large scale longer term studies I remain sceptical.

    It’s Harriet Hall who tells a different story. But she even says (in relation to The China Study) that they make a good case, just not quite good enough. That’s hardly condemnation.

    Where does she say that? The blog post I read said of The China Study, “Critics have questioned whether the data support his conclusions and a re-examination of his raw data found serious flaws in his methodology and his reasoning.” I have read the full critique of Campbell that Dr. Hall links to (written by a vegan, by the way) which convinced me that he went into the data looking for evidence that supported his hypotheses, and ignored anything that didn’t. That’s no way to do science, and no way to find the truth.

    And besides, who is she to pontificate about the merits or otherwise of these programs. Her criticisms are totally unconvincing.

    They are convincing to me. I have read a lot of of what Dr. Hall has written on this and other subjects and I know she is always careful to back up everything she writes with solid evidence. I will wearily repeat that we know that reducing calorific intake, losing weight and eating more fruit and vegetables is helpful. Whether the more extreme diets promoted by these doctors works any better in the medium to long term remains to be seen. If you want better qualified critics, try these:

    Dr. Richard Pasternak, director of preventive cardiology at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said that Dr. Ornish’s studies were flawed. ”There’s virtually no science here, as far as I can tell,” Dr. Pasternak said. And Dr. Paul D. Thompson, the director of preventive cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut, said, ”There does come a point where one starts becoming more of a cheerleader than a scientist.”

    You might also read ‘Heart 411: The Only Guide To Heart Health You’ll Ever Need’. I highly recommend it. It’s written by two Cleveland Clinic cardiologists and has an excellent section on how to assess the quality of scientific papers, as well as pretty much everything you could every wish to know about cardiovascular health. They recommend a Mediterranean diet, and write:

    There are no magic foods or supplements that can dramatically lower LDL. Your dietary habits should be sensible rather than extreme. We do not recommend highly restrictive diets such as the Ornish, Esselstyn, or Pritikin diets: following these diets is challenging, and ultra-low-fat diets tend to have the unfavorable side effect of lowering levels of HDL, the “good” cholesterol.

    I’ll take the word of these two experienced cardiologists over a diet guru with an on-line store selling books, supplements and gadgets any day.

    She also does her cause no good by quoting from the Western Price Foundation for confirmation of her criticisms,

    Not in the article I cited she doesn’t (it’s Weston not Western BTW). If she was making the point that there are people who claim that diets almost diametrically opposed to the vegan-based ones you support are the healthiest, then I agree with her.

    Don’t need to wait 10 years for rct’s to prove beyong doubt that their programs are effective in disease prevention/reversal. As Esselstyn says: they work.

    Maybe they do for some people, or maybe long-term these diets have unfortunate effects that don’t show up in the very small studies your gurus have done. For the moment I’m eating as close to a Mediterranean diet as I can, taking moderate daily exercise and getting a bit of fresh air and sunlight whenever I can. There’s good evidence for this and it makes me feel good.

  95. #95 Denice Walter
    March 24, 2012

    @ flip:

    I’ve always pricked up my ears whenever someone tells me that they’re on “high moral ground”…

    On victim blaming:

    Whether the person has cancer, mental illness or an infectious disease, the blamer is motivated first by fear because if a person gets an illness and you also are a person, you *just* might be susceptible to it as well: therefore they must have gotten sick because they either *did* something wrong or there’s something *intrinsically* wrong with them.This fantasy-based judgment allows the blamer to distance him or herself from reality enough to remain inviolate and immune to the said illness or, as we see amongst the woo-slingers,” If I follow my *protocol* I will never become ill” or, “If I do, I can *cure* myself easily”. I hear these lines frequently- it’s all within their power.

    Denialism of serious illness being based partially on uncontrollable factors ( including genetics, un-avoidable environmental risks and true ‘unknowns’) reveals inner psychological workings of the believer, a partial divorce, or a least a trial separation from reality. SBM seeks out all the causes of illness: whether they’re internal, external, controllable or not, physical, social, environmental as well as their interactions.

    Mental illness is exceedingly complex because people are affected physiologically and socially and may self-reflect upon their lives: how you behave and plan your life has some effect on what you feel but you cannot control everything because there are physiological underpinnings and you interact with others- who have ideas of their own- in the real world. Life involves a measure of un-controllability.

  96. #96 OccamsLaser
    March 24, 2012

    Pegamily –

    Here is another example of your deviousness and dishonesty.

    Starting on January 14, you repeatedly claimed that Dr. Donald Berwick’s stated that 30% of medicine was “useless” and “dangerous”.

    You were corrected, and you responded [emph. added],

    Regarding your criticism of my interpretation of Dr Berwick’s quote (ie up to 30% of medicare/medicaid spending was waste & not up to 30& of modern medicine was useless), you are indeed correct.

    I would be harping on about it also, if the situation was reversed. It was not deliberate, & I appreciate your pointing this out more than once so as I could see my error.

    Here’s your problem: Before you even made your first post with your fabricated characterization of Dr. Berwick’s statement, you had already been corrected about it elsewhere.

    So in this case, your dishonesty went far beyond distorting a statement to suit your purposes. You have actually been forum-shopping this lie; when you are called on it in one venue, you simply took it somewhere else and ran it up the flagpole with full knowledge that you were misprepresenting the statement.

    This proves that you can make no claim that you simply misunderstood Dr. Berwick’s statement, or that you were repeating what someone else said about it and you didn’t realize it was incorrect.

    This awful behavior stands as yet another example of how repugnant you find the concept of being truthful.

    Are the people who pay you to attend your seminars aware of your eagerness to lie to promote your offerings?

  97. #97 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    I did not fabricate a claim by Dr Offitt. It was my understanding he claimed 10,000 vaccinations would be harmless in one day, I stated that as such

    A study in intellectual integrity and courage.

  98. #98 lurker
    March 24, 2012

    “10,000 ? Tell that to Hannah Poling’s parents.

  99. #99 Narad
    March 24, 2012

    Are the people who pay you to attend your seminars aware of your eagerness to lie to promote your offerings?

    Well, well, I suppose I was too generous in my assessment of the textual similarities. I’m sure that anyone thinking of being “supervised” in a month-long water fast would be interested to know that her general judgment is so grossly impaired as to think nothing of such antics as making up a new identity and then “reappearing” to give it advice.

  100. #100 Honest?
    March 24, 2012

    “I did not fabricate a claim by Dr Offitt. It was my understanding he claimed 10,000 vaccinations would be harmless in one day, I stated that as such, then someone stated his claim was a 10,000 antigen load. No lie, no big deal.”

    You didn’t make up the lie; you just accepted it without question and repeated it to others. Commendable; you’re not a liar, just a patsy for other people’s lies. Should we conclude that everything else you write is also something you’re repeating without bothering to investigate?

  101. #101 Krebiozen
    March 24, 2012

    lurker,

    Tell that to Hannah Poling’s parents.

    You keep bringing up Hannah Poling, but I don’t really understand why. She has a mitochondrial disorder, an enzyme deficiency of the kind that causes encephalopathy at the age of one or two years old, with or without vaccines. It is by no means certain that vaccines caused or even exacerbated her illness, and the court that compensated her parents did not rule on causation.

  102. #102 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    You didn’t make up the lie; you just accepted it without question and repeated it to others. Commendable; you’re not a liar, just a patsy for other people’s lies. Should we conclude that everything else you write is also something you’re repeating without bothering to investigate?

    Emily had the same deplorable tendency.

    In one memorable comment on that thread, she managed to pack four separate lies in her description of a single paper that she was claiming for support.

  103. #103 flip
    March 24, 2012

    @495 Denice

    I see it more as a control issue, much in the same way. Victim blamers can’t control the world around them, but can’t bring themselves to deal with it, and so try even harder to take control… hence the “I do this and never get sick”. Power of positive thinking will apparently overcome even the most chaotic of worlds. Regarding mental illness specifically, I also think it has a lot to do with not being able to understand symptoms that aren’t visible. Everyone can see a cancer patient, whereas you can’t see someone who is depressed. Therefore “it doesn’t exist”. I’d also bet all the money in my pockets that it has to do with them having reasonably happy, healthy lives in general, and not being capable of empathising with someone who is depressed. I’ve met many a person who would just assume “oh you’re just having a bad day” or “you’ll get over it”. They don’t see anything long-term in it because they haven’t experienced it or had contact with mental illness themselves.

    In Pegamily’s case, I think s/he’s just being an average troll, getting her kicks wherever she can by stirring the pot.

    @496 Occamslaser

    Thanks for posting that AVN link. Now I see “Pegamily” really is Australian. Sigh…

    No wonder s/he can’t stand people going after university courses in woo. That would severely impact on the wallet, and make the titles of ‘osteopath’ and ‘chiropracter’ absolutely useless (even though they’re not listed as AMC specialties already).

    @500 Honest?

    No, s/he’s quite clearly a liar. She’s been caught out a few times. See the threads I linked to in my comment at #487.

    Pegamily, are we speaking to a him or a her? Proven a liar once more, just by reading that AVN post.

  104. #104 Travis
    March 24, 2012

    Sadly many people such as Emily and her ilk are simply happy to repeat lies they have heard without ever checking them out. Just look at the many posts that have been made here that contain long lists of papers justifying their positions, lists that are often simply cribbed from a website and repeatedly posted all over the net (a quick Google search is often very depressing showing just how far and wide those lists have gotten). There is almost never any attempt to read those papers themselves.

    I know I have mentioned this before, but what I really do not get is why people like this never step back and reevaluate their positions and their sources then it becomes clear they have been repeating completely misrepresented facts and lies. I would have thought that if you repeatedly are shown to have been wrong, or that your sources are wrong, you might start to question how much you know and whether you are right about the matter.

    Here is an example: when I was a teenager I was very much interested in UFOs and the paranormal. I was also interested in science but did not know any scientists and had not read much about critical thinking. When I was reading about UFO and paranormal “research” I just thought they were performing good studies, that this was proper research. However, I kept seeing people disagreeing and eventually started reading books by people like Carl Sagan and I started to understand that what these “researchers” were doing was not science, that is was often very dishonest and poorly conducted. What they were doing was just cargo cult science, crap dressed up in the trappings of science without the honesty and without the cruel peer review that is normally carried out.

  105. #105 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    Now I see “Pegamily” really is Australian.
    That explains the ignorance (in earlier threads) that Canberra University is different from the Australian National University.

  106. #106 flip
    March 24, 2012

    @505 Herr Doktor Bimler

    Surprising given that s/he is in NSW.

    @504 Travis

    I was the same way. I fell for the Eastern/Western fallacy, and didn’t think much about tai chi or any of that related stuff. Once I started reading science sites I realised just why they were so wrong. I don’t continue lying or believing them, I admit “well, I was just ignorant” and move on.

    Admitting one is fallible is apparently too scary for these folk. Especially one who runs their own clinic, seminars and promotes themselves as a doctor… despite their own titles not being legitimately recognised as specialties. It’s hard to break away from something you’ve spent decades holding onto and making money from.

  107. #107 herr doktor bimler
    March 24, 2012

    Here’s your problem: Before you even made your first post with your fabricated characterization of Dr. Berwick’s statement, you had already been corrected about it elsewhere.

    Goodness me. That list of copy-pasted bullshit certainly has the ring of the authentic ur-Emisus.

    There are some funny comments on that thread.

  108. #108 Pegamily
    March 24, 2012

    Occy:

    785
    “lilady –

    She does not run the clinic and she does not own it. Her bosses will be quite surprised at the “publicity” she is generating for them.

    Based on this statement, I believe you have incorrectly identified the place of “Emily’s” employ. Perhaps you can post some scrap of information that is not in itself identifiable so that I can verify this mismatch with my own findings, such as the last two digits of the phone number, or the last couple of digits of the IP address of the web site?”

    Posted by: OccamsLaser | February 10, 2012 10:32 AM

    My own findings? Such as the last 2 digits of the phone number?

    C’mon Occy are you serious or delirious?. You yourself are a pedantic nit-picker. I could go through your ramblings & deconstruct them as above but I have better things to do.

    Krebiozen:

    You should read your references completely before quoting them -Harriet Hall said that. And btw, I have never advocated veganism. I wonder if Occy will call you a liar for saying I promote vegan diets.

    Also, regarding osteopenia & the widespread diagnosis of this “non-disease” in healthy women based on a spurious measurement of a bone mineral density T score :

    ” the findings suggest that a simplke T-score threshold could be an inadequate approach to risk assessment”

    Medicine Today, Aug 2004, Vol 5 No 8

    Flip:

    I gave up answering your questions ages ago because you expect me to write a book in reply. And besides, you, like the others, credit me with stating ridiculous things ( nature cures everything, diet is a cure-all SBM is evil, uselsess etc & other such rubbish) & then attack my supposed stance. How easy is that? The threads you linked to do not make me out a liar, as you say. Your statement makes you out to be a very poor judge of a liar.

    Denice:

    I never promoted anything to do with my website. I have all the while promoted principles I know to be true, & criticised practices that I & many many others know to be untrue & potentially lethal.

    It was interesting to hear the deathly silence (apart from one respondent) when asked the percentage of modern medicine which is not science-based. And that response was not too flattering for sbm, either.

    The truth is your beloved sbm is mostly not science-based. Some is, as I have said, & as Fuhrman, McDougall, Ornish et al have all stated. And this is appreciated.

    The day to day practice of modern medicine, with its reliance on drugs & almost complete disregard of the innate healing powers within the organism when causes of illness are removed, is 90% nonsense.You all agree that some pracices are not science based (off label marketing etc), the difference between you & me is that our percentages vary.

  109. #109 AdamG
    March 24, 2012

    The threads you linked to do not make me out a liar, as you say.

    Hey look, there’s a lie right there!

    Still waiting for any sort of explanation or apology for your behavior in comment 445.

  110. #110 flip
    March 24, 2012

    @508 Pegamily/Dr Greg?

    I gave up answering your questions ages ago because you expect me to write a book in reply.

    No, no I didn’t. What I wanted was maybe a paragraph. I specifically and repeatedly asked for a succinct (look it up if you don’t know what it means) explanation of NH and how it works. Even if you did, it doesn’t change the fact that you not once posted EVIDENCE that it works. No peer-reviewed papers, just references to books. You simply don’t like or don’t understand that people can’t decipher your meaning from your vague postings and refuse to take your word for it. Maybe the problem is with you…

    It’s nice to see though that you once again Gish gallop your way past every single question, criticism and point put to you. Scream the martyr and hopefully no one will notice all the flaws in every you’ve posted about.

    I’ll also point out for people who don’t want to read 1000 previous comments: I’d never heard of NH before and was open-minded to consider it. I’m also not trained in science or medicine. You had the absolute amazing chance to convince me of your viewpoint. And failed. Utterly. And why? Because in that 1000 comments I still don’t know how NH works or what specifically you subscribe to or how you ‘treat’ people. You couldn’t summarise it in a novella let alone a book. You couldn’t even give a sentence to define your terms, which average dictionaries can do. You’re either incredibly vague on the notions yourself or didn’t want to get trapped into specifics that you know don’t make sense.

    And besides, you, like the others, credit me with stating ridiculous things ( nature cures everything, diet is a cure-all SBM is evil, uselsess etc & other such rubbish) & then attack my supposed stance. How easy is that? The threads you linked to do not make me out a liar, as you say. Your statement makes you out to be a very poor judge of a liar.

    Once again, the problem is with you. Many times may people asked you for YOUR SPECIFIC VIEWPOINT. When it wasn’t given or was shown to contradict another of your points, we had to guess at what you meant. (And you do outright contradict yourself on many of those issues you think we made up) When we asked for clarification you Gish galloped again and then cried foul every time someone tried to understand your viewpoint and got it wrong.

    PS. When you outright state you have no profit motive, and then admit that you teach at universities and run a clinic, that’s the point at which you become a liar. When you use a sock puppet account in order to continue discussion, then post that you don’t know the original account (and state you think ‘they’ have some good points), then admit under your new account that yes, the old account is also yours: that’s when you become a liar.

    I think the average lurker can figure out whether or not I’m judging you correctly. Especially if they have better reading comprehension or memory than you.

    I never promoted anything to do with my website. I have all the while promoted principles I know to be true, & criticised practices that I & many many others know to be untrue & potentially lethal.

    Then you are either woefully ignorant of how search engines work, or you can’t remember what you post. And you once again ignore the point that asserting something without evidence is useless. Or you’re a liar and know you’re scamming people.

    It was interesting to hear the deathly silence (apart from one respondent) when asked the percentage of modern medicine which is not science-based. And that response was not too flattering for sbm, either.

    Yes, because that question wasn’t a strawman at all. And strawmen *always* have to be treated as serious questions deserving time and responses.

    But hey, you can’t practice what you preach:

    From the Andrew Wakefield thread:

    I guess I must have posed questions and written comments that cut way too close for her comfort. I guess she can’t admit her own bias is the same of other humans. I guess she can’t account for luck. She can’t account for her own financial priviledge or her lack of understanding of history. She can’t account for the fact that the “fallen human” has not walked away from the “natural order of things”.

    I guess she can’t succinctly define “causes”, “disease”, “illness”, “treatment” or “cure”. She can’t state *what* the real causes of things are. I guess she can’t offer me suggestions for treating mental illness, even though she offered. I guess she can’t explain what the cause of mental illness is. She can’t explain why I am still sick even though I follow most of Natural Hygiene’s principles and have avoided many “medical interventions” and have waited for my body to repair itself. She can’t explain what it is my body is trying to repair.

    I guess she can’t state what her credentials are. She can’t succinctly answer Chris’ question without doing a song-and-dance. I guess she can’t explain the toxemia term or succinctly describe the biologicial processes of a Natural Hygiene lifestyle. And I guess she can’t succinctly describe the biologicial processes that make fasting different from starving.

    As she is now ignoring me because of all those hard questions, I’ll return the favour 🙂

    I remain completely and utterly underwhelmed at the explanatory power and efficacy of Natural Hygiene (and/or Emily’s ability to explain anything of informative value) and seriously concerned for anyone Emily comes into contact with. Thanks for playing and goom-bye.

    Posted by: flip | February 2, 2012 2:17 AM

    Please do us all a favour and move past the bit where you repeat claims with no evidence to back you up. You go on and on (and on) about SBM having no evidence behind it and yet never post your own. You’re either disengenuous or a liar. Which is it?

    the difference between you & me is that I don’t care about peer-reviewed research.

    FIFY.

    … I’m done. You can whinge and whine all you like. The only reason you’re here is to post silly statements in order to attack SBM. You have no real desire for discussion, and you’ve shown yourself (ample times) to be incapable of taking on board what anyone says or replying without turning into either a horse or a record. Both broken. Call me when you figure out how to act like an honest adult.

  111. #111 flip
    March 24, 2012

    @508 Pegamily/Dr Greg?

    I gave up answering your questions ages ago because you expect me to write a book in reply.

    No, no I didn’t. What I wanted was maybe a paragraph. I specifically and repeatedly asked for a succinct (look it up if you don’t know what it means) explanation of NH and how it works. Even if you did, it doesn’t change the fact that you not once posted EVIDENCE that it works. No peer-reviewed papers, just references to books. You simply don’t like or don’t understand that people can’t decipher your meaning from your vague postings and refuse to take your word for it. Maybe the problem is with you…

    It’s nice to see though that you once again Gish gallop your way past every single question, criticism and point put to you. Scream the martyr and hopefully no one will notice all the flaws in every you’ve posted about.

    I’ll also point out for people who don’t want to read 1000 previous comments: I’d never heard of NH before and was open-minded to consider it. I’m also not trained in science or medicine. You had the absolute amazing chance to convince me of your viewpoint. And failed. Utterly. And why? Because in that 1000 comments I still don’t know how NH works or what specifically you subscribe to or how you ‘treat’ people. You couldn’t summarise it in a novella let alone a book. You couldn’t even give a sentence to define your terms, which average dictionaries can do. You’re either incredibly vague on the notions yourself or didn’t want to get trapped into specifics that you know don’t make sense.

    And besides, you, like the others, credit me with stating ridiculous things ( nature cures everything, diet is a cure-all SBM is evil, uselsess etc & other such rubbish) & then attack my supposed stance. How easy is that? The threads you linked to do not make me out a liar, as you say. Your statement makes you out to be a very poor judge of a liar.

    Once again, the problem is with you. Many times may people asked you for YOUR SPECIFIC VIEWPOINT. When it wasn’t given or was shown to contradict another of your points, we had to guess at what you meant. (And you do outright contradict yourself on many of those issues you think we made up) When we asked for clarification you Gish galloped again and then cried foul every time someone tried to understand your viewpoint and got it wrong.

    PS. When you outright state you have no profit motive, and then admit that you teach at universities and run a clinic, that’s the point at which you become a liar. When you use a sock puppet account in order to continue discussion, then post that you don’t know the original account (and state you think ‘they’ have some good points), then admit under your new account that yes, the old account is also yours: that’s when you become a liar.

    I think the average lurker can figure out whether or not I’m judging you correctly. Especially if they have better reading comprehension or memory than you.

    I never promoted anything to do with my website. I have all the while promoted principles I know to be true, & criticised practices that I & many many others know to be untrue & potentially lethal.

    Then you are either woefully ignorant of how search engines work, or you can’t remember what you post. And you once again ignore the point that asserting something without evidence is useless. Or you’re a liar and know you’re scamming people.

    It was interesting to hear the deathly silence (apart from one respondent) when asked the percentage of modern medicine which is not science-based. And that response was not too flattering for sbm, either.

    Yes, because that question wasn’t a strawman at all. And strawmen *always* have to be treated as serious questions deserving time and responses.

    But hey, you can’t practice what you preach:

    From the Andrew Wakefield thread:

    I guess I must have posed questions and written comments that cut way too close for her comfort. I guess she can’t admit her own bias is the same of other humans. I guess she can’t account for luck. She can’t account for her own financial priviledge or her lack of understanding of history. She can’t account for the fact that the “fallen human” has not walked away from the “natural order of things”.

    I guess she can’t succinctly define “causes”, “disease”, “illness”, “treatment” or “cure”. She can’t state *what* the real causes of things are. I guess she can’t offer me suggestions for treating mental illness, even though she offered. I guess she can’t explain what the cause of mental illness is. She can’t explain why I am still sick even though I follow most of Natural Hygiene’s principles and have avoided many “medical interventions” and have waited for my body to repair itself. She can’t explain what it is my body is trying to repair.

    I guess she can’t state what her credentials are. She can’t succinctly answer Chris’ question without doing a song-and-dance. I guess she can’t explain the toxemia term or succinctly describe the biologicial processes of a Natural Hygiene lifestyle. And I guess she can’t succinctly describe the biologicial processes that make fasting different from starving.

    As she is now ignoring me because of all those hard questions, I’ll return the favour 🙂

    I remain completely and utterly underwhelmed at the explanatory power and efficacy of Natural Hygiene (and/or Emily’s ability to explain anything of informative value) and seriously concerned for anyone Emily comes into contact with. Thanks for playing and goom-bye.

    Posted by: flip | February 2, 2012 2:17 AM

    Please do us all a favour and move past the bit where you repeat claims with no evidence to back you up. You go on and on (and on) about SBM having no evidence behind it and yet never post your own. You’re either disengenuous or a liar. Which is it?

    the difference between you & me is that I don’t care about peer-reviewed research.

    FIFY.

    … I’m done. You can whinge and whine all you like. The only reason you’re here is to post silly statements in order to attack SBM. You have no real desire for discussion, and you’ve shown yourself (ample times) to be incapable of taking on board what anyone says or replying without turning into either a horse or a record. Both broken. Call me when you figure out how to act like an honest adult.

  112. #112 flip
    March 24, 2012

    Damn, sorry for the double post.

  113. #113 Krebiozen
    March 24, 2012

    Pegamily,
    Good grief, you’re still here flailing around desperately.

    You should read your references completely before quoting them -Harriet Hall said that.

    Really? This is the blog post I referred to above, there is no mention of Weston Price and Dr. Hall is less than flattering about Campbell, as I quoted. Perhaps you are referring to something else?

    And btw, I have never advocated veganism. I wonder if Occy will call you a liar for saying I promote vegan diets.

    Most of the people you claim have had fantastic results promote an extreme vegan diet. Esselstyn, McDougall and Klaper certainly do. You have condemned dairy products, and talked of the “need for a plant-based diet”. What else am I to conclude?

    Also, regarding osteopenia & the widespread diagnosis of this “non-disease” in healthy women based on a spurious measurement of a bone mineral density T score :” the findings suggest that a simplke T-score threshold could be an inadequate approach to risk assessment” Medicine Today, Aug 2004, Vol 5 No 8

    You mean this Medicine Today? There’s nothing about osteoporosis in there that I can see. The quote you give seems to come from this article that suggests that osteopenia is undertreated, exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Perhaps it’s you who should read your references before quoting them.

  114. #114 OccamsLaser
    March 24, 2012

    Pegamily/Dr. Greg –

    Occy:

    785
    “lilady –

    She does not run the clinic and she does not own it. Her bosses will be quite surprised at the “publicity” she is generating for them.

    Based on this statement, I believe you have incorrectly identified the place of “Emily’s” employ. Perhaps you can post some scrap of information that is not in itself identifiable so that I can verify this mismatch with my own findings, such as the last two digits of the phone number, or the last couple of digits of the IP address of the web site?”

    Posted by: OccamsLaser | February 10, 2012 10:32 AM

    My own findings? Such as the last 2 digits of the phone number?

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make by quoting this post of mine. Due to the, shall we say, distinctiveness of your beliefs, coupled with the fact that you are a public figure who is a prolific speaker on the health circuit and who posts the same material under his own name in other public forums, you made your identity immediately evident. Nonetheless, lilady seemed to have erred in her identification, and I offered to confirm her findings using a couple of digits from your clinic’s phone number.

    C’mon Occy are you serious or delirious?. You yourself are a pedantic nit-picker.

    I’m very serious. The fact that you consider your own lying to be mere “nits”, yet you viciously attack SBMers who you claim have lied, indicates that you harbor an asymmetric moral worldview, which is very worrisome for those you interact with. That is, you believe that when you commit some sort of moral transgression, such as lying, it is insignificant because it is you doing it. When others lie, you consider it a serious offense, and you rail against it. In short, to rationalize your behavior, you have adopted the belief that the rules don’t apply to you — the rules being that, for example, lying is wrong.

    If Dr. Offitt concealed his financial connections to therapies he supports, and was caught reproducing articles where he had removed sections damaging to his positions, and claimed journal articles and public health officials said things they actually didn’t say, and when asked about Natural Hygiene, he fabricated shocking statements and attributed them to one of its leading practitioners in order to then attack that person, what would you post here about your opinion of Dr. Offitt? Can you somehow summon the courage to honestly answer that question, or will your fear of facing yourself defeat you?

    I could go through your ramblings & deconstruct them as above but I have better things to do.

    No, you could not, and your characterizing of what I have written as “ramblings” is a demonstration of yet another in your large set of mechanisms for coping with — or hiding from — the truth. What I have posted can not rationally be termed “ramblings” (other opinions welcomed), but more importantly, what you are so obviously attempting to do is to change the subject from the content of my posts to their form — a very childish and unsuccessful maneuver, which will fail.

    You have been caught in numerous lies, some of which you have eventually confessed to. We must add to the list your four lies in this post as exposed by herr doktor bimler here and here.

    Do you lie to yourself about the contents of the papers you read in order to avoid questioning your beliefs, or do you just lie to other people about them? Do you lie to your patients about what journal articles say, as you have done in these threads? Do you lie to your patients about what Dr. Offitt has said? Do you lie to your patients about what Dr. Berwick has said?

    Do you think that little of yourself that you are afraid that if you face the truth, you would not be able to cope with it? That if you were honest with yourself and with your patients, partners, and family, you wouldn’t be able to sustain your income? That you wouldn’t be able to attract people to your seminars? That your CD and DVD sales would fall off? That you would no longer be a prolific speaker on the health circuit? What, exactly, is the reason behind your extreme fear of truth?

    Have you taught your children that they should lie when attempting to convince someone of something, because if they hold a belief deeply, the means justify the ends? What is your reaction when you discover that they have lied to you?

    Are you afraid of your patients’ reactions when they discover how dishonest you have been here? How do you balance that fear against your fear of the truth?

  115. #115 Chris
    March 24, 2012

    Pegamily/Dr Greg, what is your super duper procedure to protect babies from pertussis? Be sure to provide actual scientific evidence to support your solution that is so much better than boosting pertussis immunity of the community with DTaP and Tdap vaccines.

    And you really should answer my question on how the rate of measles incidence in the USA dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970. No more hand waving, you really have no excuse to avoid that question.

  116. #116 flip
    March 25, 2012

    Interesting that my quick browse on Dr Greg’s site showed some info for plenty of chronic illnesses, but not a lot on critical ones. I didn’t spend a lot of time there though, but did notice that the treatment for asthma is apparently a change of diet and/or fasting. I wonder how that would work if asthma is related to a pollen allergy reaction?

  117. #117 Pegamily
    March 25, 2012

    You’ve said cheerio to me more than once Flip, but you keep coming back with very long goodbyes, so I assume you are enjoying some mild dopamine release. Be my guest.

    And Chrissy, I have answered both your questions in the only way they can be honestly answered. I repeat: you cannot confer health on a person, or “protection” by a needle. Headaches can be relieved by pain killers but down the track the person pays a price, or many a price. Just because the headaches are gone, doesn’t mean you are any healthier. The cause of your feared diseases is not uni-factorial, it’s multi-factorial.

    The fact that the rate dropped as stated does not impress me without much more information- parallel health problems etc.

  118. #118 Chris
    March 25, 2012

    Actually, you never answered my questions at all… you just say “Oh, well, that is very interesting. Next!” Measles and pertussis are not just headaches.

    So exactly what is the magic formula to protect babies from pertussis? Do tell us so that we may exalt in your brilliance. Otherwise, go away.

  119. #119 herr doktor bimler
    March 25, 2012

    The threads you linked to do not make me out a liar, as you say.

    This is not my field of psychology but it would be interesting to know which rationalisations Emisus is using.
    — Perhaps the idea is that when one out-sources the fabrications to other people by copy-pasting the errancy from other websites, then it does not count.
    — Perhaps there is a distinction here between actual ‘lies’ and mere ‘bullshit’, i.e. stuff made up without knowing or caring whether it is true or false.

    In honour of Australia, this is a good time to link to the Bullshit Song from “The Return of Captain Invincible”.

  120. #120 Chemmomo
    March 25, 2012

    Newsflash, Pegamily #@515

    I repeat: you cannot confer health on a person

    Neither can you, no matter how much you try to paint it as “natural” “hygiene” (yes, separate scare quotes intended), and therefore so much more better than anything else anyone else has to offer.

  121. #121 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 25, 2012

    Lying sack of crap Scumily, you never answered exactly how it could be that proper nutrition could “help enormously” with fighting off disease and yet a sufficient percentage of the population employing that method would not have any form of herd immunity. As explained before, that’s a contradiction in basic logic, like claiming that putting the best running shoes on every member of a relay team will make each individual runner finish their portion of the race faster, but that the team’s finishing time will remain unchanged.

    It just doesn’t work that way! Either the team is going faster, or the individuals remain just as slow; it can’t be both! In the same way, either chains of infection are terminating earlier because enough individuals along those chains are “helped enormously” in fighting off the disease, or those individuals are not being helped enormously. Why do you persist in this ridiculous idea (besides you being a dumb dishonest liar, of course) that you have the secrets of “enormously” helping people to fight off disease but herd immunity still doesn’t exist?

    And if you’re tempted to use the word “multi-factorial” in your response, kindly stick your head in a garbage pile and deliver your nonsensical diatribe there. Either the factor you’re claiming to contribute to the equation actually makes a difference or it does not, no in-between.

  122. #122 Chris
    March 25, 2012

    Come on, Pegamily, show us exactly what magic diet protects a baby from pertussis! Oh, and do tell us how measles rates dropped by 90% in the USA during one particular decade if “protection” by a needle” does not work. Really, do tell us. And use real evidence.

    Your hand waving and excuses are pathetic.

  123. #123 Agashem
    March 25, 2012

    I said it before so being the mother of 3 (see I can remember how many kids I have) I am allowed to repeat myself, Emasus has no understanding of modern medicine at all. She has not availed herself of my advice to get into a hospital (always looking for volunteers) to look at the people there. Not one of them is getting better by fasting (any number of adults that I have been in contact with are not eating to the DETRIMENT of their health, interesting how not one of them gets better by NOT eating and I can say with confidence some of them are doing it deliberately and not starving in the way Emily claims is bad). Please I beg anyone out there reading this who may think or even remotely think Emasus has a point, go to a hospital, volunteer, look at the patients there. I think you will quickly find that all the breast beating criticisms of SBM will fly out the window.

  124. #124 Denice Walter
    March 25, 2012

    I think rather than look at “rationalisations” as revealing an individual’s inner workings, it would be more instructive to consider them as advertising techniques. I followed OccamsLaser’s links** to the website of the business in question.

    Peg’s work @ RI resembles those I survey: aspersion is routinely cast on SBM- often by quoting SB sources inaccurately. An entire philosophy of health and medicine is outlined as prelude to any mention of products or services. It boils down to inculcating mistrust of SBM ( and pharma) then presenting natural remedies such as supplements, herbs, massage, fasting et al. Usually there is accentuation of the risks inherent in pharmaceeutical products ( including vaccines)- leaving out their benefits- while simultaneously trumpetting the merits of nature-based solutions. Often, a proud history of the alternative method is hailed as evidence of its efficacy and safety.

    Another arrow in the quiver: SBM isn’t really scientific itself, we’re told. Standard research is labelled ‘tainted’, ‘compromised’, ‘funded by pharma’-thus not at all trustworthy. Frequently nefarious actions by drug manufacturers and governments are tossed about to increase suspicion. Personal attributes ( of the providers/ the originators of the method) exemplifying ‘kindness’, ‘altruism’,’spirituality’ and other sterling qualities are then added to the mix. Extremely high rates of successful treatment for serious conditions are reported sans RCTs; testimonials are used as well. The message is tailored to prospective customers who are dis-satisfied or suspicious of SBM already including those with chronic problems that are difficult to treat with any form of standard treatment- a reality, not everything can be fixed.

    ** believe it or not, my late relative married a fellow with the same last name and I have many cousins named as such. Fortunately, it’s a very common name.

  125. #125 OccamsLaser
    March 25, 2012

    Pegamily/Dr. Greg –

    I repeat: you cannot confer health on a person, or “protection” by a needle. Headaches can be relieved by pain killers but down the track the person pays a price, or many a price. Just because the headaches are gone, doesn’t mean you are any healthier. The cause of your feared diseases is not uni-factorial, it’s multi-factorial.

    The fact that the rate dropped as stated does not impress me without much more information- parallel health problems etc.

    Thank you for admitting that measles vaccinations are directly responsible for the dramatic drop in the infection rate, and therefore that you do not disagree with the general principle that vaccinations confer immunity.

    The next matter is for you to provide evidence for your claim that there is another, negative consequence of dramatically reducing measles infections via vaccinations — the “price” to which you refer, but which even you have admitted you are unaware of.

    That is, you have never disputed the figures provided for the dramatic reduction in measles from 1960-1970, nor have you disputed that vaccinations are primarily responsible for that reduction. Therefore, you cannot claim that vaccination does not confer some immunity.

    What you have claimed is that as a result of this positive effect on measles infections, there may be a negative effect that is equal to, or greater than, the positive effect. However, you have admitted that you have absolutely no data whatsoever to support this suspicion.

    Therefore, as it stands, you do not dispute that vaccinations can prevent disease, and you feel that there might be some other negative effects, but you have no idea what those are. It follows, of course, that there might not be any.

    Let’s address this bit of non-logic:

    Headaches can be relieved by pain killers but down the track the person pays a price, or many a price. Just because the headaches are gone, doesn’t mean you are any healthier.

    Vaccinations against measles do not “relieve” measles. And headaches are not an infectious disease. Therefore, your parallel fails completely.

    Bulletproof vests help prevent injury from bullets. By your logic, just because you weren’t hurt by a bullet when you were shot while wearing a bulletproof vest “doesn’t mean you are any healthier” than if you hadn’t been wearing one when you were shot.

    By what mechanism did vaccinations cause measles infection rates to drop?

    Can you get a disease — any disease — without any exposure to the pathogen associated by SBM with that disease?

    Dr. Fuhrman says that the flu is a simple viral illness. Is he wrong?

    Would you agree to be exposed to any pathogen to test your claim that germs do not cause disease and that germs follow after a person already has contracted a disease?

    What is your view of members of the SBM community who behave as you have behaved in these threads? Are you proud of your statements in these forums? Or are you afraid of what your patients, partners, and others will think when they read them?

    Would you rather your patients and potential patients — and seminar attendees, and CD/DVD purchasers — know your views as expressed in this blog, or are you afraid of them discovering what you have said here?

  126. #126 herr doktor bimler
    March 25, 2012

    Denice Walter:
    Peg’s work @ RI resembles those I survey: aspersion is routinely cast on SBM- often by quoting SB sources inaccurately.

    I do get the sense from Emasis’ oeuvre that the SBM empire is so evil and so unscrupulous that one is justified in using any tactics in pre-emptive defense against it — so fabrications don’t really count.

    you cannot confer health on a person
    “Health has to be earned”.

    Susan Sontag made good points in “Illness as Metaphor” about the tendency — common in quacks and magical thinkers — to interpret disease as an expression of moral failing.

  127. #127 Denice Walter
    March 25, 2012

    One of those I survey informs his audience in scolding diatribes about how their decadence- eating hamburgers, pizza, cakes, candy and drinking coffee, cola and (( shudder)) alcohol- has set them up for CV disease and cancer because of their own indulgent sinfulness. If only they had lived “right”, he intones self-righteoulsy and nasally, implying that they ” brought it on themselves.”

    Reminds me a bit the development of kids’ attributions about why ‘people are poor’ which start from internally based ( they’re either intrinsically bad or mis-behaving) to older kids’ more socially conscious, situational concepts ( lack of education or opportunity).

    On that Evil SBM meme: check out cartoons @ NaturalNews: evil mad scientists, smirking doctors and pharma scions predominate. I imagine they might illustrate RI minions as scientists contentedly stroking their gorgeous pedigreed cats or decidedly un-motherly creatures resplendent before their adoring mirrors… oops, I guess they have us covered.

  128. #128 Mehitabel the Abyssinian
    March 25, 2012

    I am gorgeous! I have a pedigree! Strokes now!

  129. #129 OccamsLaser
    March 25, 2012

    Pegamily/Dr. Greg

    Occy:

    You are tenacious, I’ll concede that.

    The irony is that you are partly responsible for the morphing.

    Another lie. You were pretending to be someone else before I had even posted on this site.

    You posted first as “Emily”, then you pretended to be a second person when you posted as “Gardener” and supported what you posted as “Emily”.

    Will you have the integrity to admit your fraud?

    What would your opinion be of an SBM supporter who posted in advocacy of SBM, then pretended to be a second person supporting the first?

    Did I say a conspiracy? Ditto [please furnish evidence].

    In case it wasn’t already clear that you were lying about this, here is another of your statements on this topic:

    the lies, corruption & gestapo tactics of intitutionalized medicine, supported by a complicit government & media.

    Are you ashamed to reveal your deceitful behavior to your patients, partners, seminar attendees, lecture audiences and bookers, and family?

    You wrote,

    The lady who before XMas recovered from severe, unremitting RA, fasted for 21 days ( water-only, as this is the only real fast), recovered because her body had the ability & vitality to heal itself. Heberdens nodes reduced in size, ALL pain went from the involved joints in the hands & elbows, & dexterity returned 90%. Even her rheumatologist was stunned. This was not a cycle of remission/exacerbation as she had had no remissions.

    Dr. Greg, do you believe that case studies should be viewed as evidence?

    You’ve stated that you do not accept the theory of evolution, but you have declared that our bodies were intelligently designed.

    Who intelligently designed our bodies?

  130. #130 OccamsLaser
    March 26, 2012

    Pegasus aka Emily aka Gardener aka Dr. Greg aka Dr. Greg Fitzgerald

    From your Health for Life web site:

    Science has proved that we CAN change established patterns of behaviour once thought permanent ( people erroneously believed the old saying ˜a leopard can’t change its spots[“]).

    Neuroplasticity is the term used which describes this potential to literally change our thought patterns.

    Learn how to reverse atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) AND psychosclerosis (hardening of the attitudes)

    Are you able to reverse your hardening of your attitudes as displayed in your repeated references to your closed-mindedness on medical matters? Do you think it would be beneficial to your health to change this established pattern of thought?

    Posted by you under the name “Emily”:

    Dr Goldhammer studied under one of the world’s leading experts on fasting & natural hygiene, Dr Alec Burton, in a 6 months residential internship in Sydney, Australia well over 20 years ago.

    I have spoken to experts on fasting ( some are medical doctors) including Dr Alec Burton…

    Here’s another reason you’ve hidden your financial interest in the therapies you promote: you don’t want readers to know that Alec Burton is actually your business partner.

    What is your opinion of SBM advocates who conceal their financial relationships with others whose programs they laud?

  131. #131 OccamsLaser
    March 26, 2012

    Pegasus aka Emily aka Gardener aka Dr. Greg aka Dr. Greg Fitzgerald

    You had been asked earlier on multiple occasions what exactly you meant when you said

    We just monitor with blood readings…

    and

    I would have looked at the blood of the baby

    You never answered.

    It seems you were being quite literal:

    http://www.healthforlife.com.au/health-services/live-blood-analysis/

  132. #132 OccamsLaser
    March 27, 2012

    Pegasus aka Emily aka Gardener aka Dr. Greg aka Dr. Greg Fitzgerald

    I asked you (as “Emily”) your opinion of chiropracters and osteopaths. Despite my repeated, direct questions, you concealed the fact that according to your Health for Life clinic’s web site, you are both a chiropracter and an osteopath.

    Why did you decide not to disclose this information?

  133. #133 Gags
    April 19, 2012

    Just want to add in my 2 cents worth as originally I was thinking of avoiding the MMR shot for my son but after all my research there is no such thing as absolute safety, there is only probability of risk. Vaccinations are not 100% effective – a tiny proportion of people vaccinated against a disease still contract the disease. It may also be that one in several million vaccinations will induce a serious side effect. It is equally true that the other several million vaccinations will produce no serious side effect but will ensure effective protection against disease. And thus without vacinating my son he is at significant risk of contracting a serious disease and that’s more likely so than autism being triggered from the shot (whether there is truth to that or not).

    BTW anyone who supports Wakefield is a muppet! How can you support someone who uses his sons’s birthday party to obtain blood samples from children. He is completely unethical and deserves to be stricken!

  134. #134 Lawrence
    April 19, 2012

    @Gags – kudos for actually taking the time to do the research!

  135. #135 Gags
    April 19, 2012

    @Lawrence – Thanks, decisions should not be made without proper consideration and plenty of research 🙂

  136. #136 Mason Mathis
    May 31, 2012

    I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don’t know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

  137. As a Newbie, I am constantly exploring online for articles that can aid me. Thank you

  138. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.