Re: Reverse coronary calcium deposits?

From: Phil Scott (philscott888_at_sf.sbcglobal.net)
Date: 10/19/04 

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:40:53 GMT

"Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> You are full of anti-mainstream medical practice that you
are and will
> always be useless. No one in their right mind would or can
follow any of
> your sensless suggestions.

     NICE Revearsal Robert! Very good. Spinning advice to
simply "look up and read the university research" into
'anti- mainstream medical practice'.... wow.

Thats exciting.

Maybe you can clarify...Im still fuzzy. Who is harmed by
doing research or studying the latest advances around the
world?

Ah...NOW I see Robert. Somebody MUST be harmed when 50
million people world wide switch from one drug to
another...... or just quit taking a drug...///such has has
been the case severely flawed anti cholesterol drugs..

Lemme see, at $160 a month and 50 million people... why
ROBERT!. Thats almost 8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH at stake...and
at over 90% gross profit, well over 7 BILLION A MONTH.

  I understand now Robert! For 7 billion plus a month gross
or 85 billion dolleeeers a year...man on man... I would hire
an absolute army of people with no brains, ethcis or
conscience to flood these newsgroups trashing any HINT that
there could be problems in the nations need for so many
drugs...

  Thanks! I got it now... hell, Id even start with
operations in the colleges. Because its not just one drug,
its a WIDE range of drugs... and in the US those are selling
at 300 ro 400% MORE than in say Mexico for instance in most
cases...so we know from that the gross profit is way up
there...90% or more.

   The nations drug bill approaches a TRILLION dollars a year!
Now with kind of money at stake we don't need no *steeenking
research*... no sireeee Robert. NO RESEARCH IS NEEDED BY THE
PUBLIC.

  Thanks for getting me to think about it in more depth. You
know Robert this research thingie is spreading I think....did
you see all the recent expose on the issue...spread ALL OVER
the mainstream press.

   Keep up the good work though Robert, I understand fully
your position and need to remain employed.

   Once again Robert... Salute'

   Phil Scott

> Oh you give plenty of opionion all right and plenty of
undocumented sources.

  Can you give an example? Is this a good example Robert...
'The Bull*** Parade'...

  Lemme know what you think. Here it is again.

.

>From www.nofreelunch.org/comments

For T. Comeau: to bookend your article posted today re: Merck
Pfizer benefits. Zee

Subject: You missed the biggest problem
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:53:51 -0600
From: <gorby@wt.net>
To: <justsayno@nofreelunch.org>
The worst problem with drug promotion lies not with the sales
reps but with industry-funded research. I personally witnessed
the
excesses for 8 years while on the faculty of a major medical
school. This
operates at several levels.

First, one must understand that in academics teaching is like
catching fly balls and publishing is like hitting home runs.
They
didn't pay Hank Aaron for his fielding. It isn't just the
publishing and
reflected glory to the institution that drives academicians to
do research. The institution takes a cut of every grant,
whether
it's industry money or an NIH grant. The percentages vary, but
they
are rather large; a $10MM grant yields several million for the
hospital, school, or whatever institution the grantee works
for. Those
who bring in grant money have *power*. What can they get with
that
power? A raise, a bigger office, private secretary, less time
actually
having to teach residents or touch a patient (when I was in
academics
it seemed to be a matter of prestige to *not* carry a pager).

Also, although it is difficult to directly gain monetarily
from
grant money, one can usually buy a few new computers or other
toys that may
find their way home.

Publishing favorable articles leads to invitations to speak at
fun places - all expenses paid - and receive nice honoraria to
boot. Yes, the drug companies fly private practitioners to
nice places,
but who are they listening to? Impartial lecturers? No - they
are
listening to the drug whores who will say nice things about
the product.
Some of the drug whores I met during my own march in the
bull***
parade were big names in the field, including departmental
chairmen. Some
of the biggest names in my specialty are, in my opinion, on
the take.
The people who really get wined and dined at these meetings
are
the "mouthpieces", not the attendees.

One time I was even mailed a lecture, complete with slides to
present, at a sponsored meeting at a very nice resort. When I
balked
and insisted on giving my own lecture with my own slides it
caused
a major storm. Another time, one of my colleagues asked
another
colleague to do the statistics for his drug company data. When
the results
came back unflattering he asked if perhaps a different
statistical
test might be tried.

If a researcher plays the game well, publishing flattering
studies and giving lots of positive lectures, he might get a
real plum: a
"consultant's contract", or a position on the "advisory
board". This can mean tens ofthousands of dollars of income
per year for
very little actual work.

Therefore the real danger is in the poisonous influence the
private sector has on the generation of scientifi studies. Bad
results
and balanced lectures are not rewarded. Sadly, with the drying
up
of public funds for research in the past two decades, academic
institutions have had to rely more and more on private
funding. When I graduated medical school in 1979 medical
journals did not
require financial disclosure. Now you see it everywhere - a
sad
reflection of the influence of commercial research funding,
and the closest
anyone will come to actually admitting we have a serious
problem.

When a drug rep buys you lunch you know you are being fed a
sales pitch. The truly insidious aspect of all this is that
published peer-reviewed articles funded by drug companies are
usually
taken at face value, and the lectures are given by drug whores
(after
all, they are the ones with funding and have written all the
articles -
they are the "authority" by virtue of the sheer volume they
have
published). The damage done by this misinformation takes years
to undo.

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

    Nice hu Robert?

Quantcast