68 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

Not saying you are arguing for this, but if a doctor is allowed to precribe anything and a company can make any claims about the products they sell, does the consumer have any legal recourse if the treatment is ineffective or harmful? 

 

This seem to be exactly the status quo, how it presented to me with my chronic condition!

 

With a PAD due to a 80% stenosis at the abdominal aorta bifurcation and a pain-free walking distance of only 3-400 meters I was told by cardiologists the only way to overcome this would be to replace my whole Y-shaped aorta bifurcation with a goretex-like tube. I had to insist on seeing a second cardiologist on a second occasion for getting questions about possible risks for this procedure answered, because the first denied any. The acute risks for serious adverse event for this kind of operation out of his clinical experience was estimated by the 2nd cardiologist to about 1% of patients - longterm outcomes he couldn't tell, since this particular prosthesis allegedly hasn't been long enough in use (..even wikipedia knew).

 

Less invasive balloon angioplasty wouldn't be done anymore, since it would be to risky (for arterial rupture - which then would necessitate the allegedly less risky chirurgical replacement described above?!) and usually the stenosis would come back already after only 2 days again (simply not true again).

 

Their prescription of statins for my whole life - in their eyes totally irresponsible if I would refuse - in a independent analysis showed that it would need a number needed to tread of 48 to prevent only 1 premature death, not much better for the other prescription of aspirin.

 

 

Not only did I not take any legal recourse for such blatant and unscientific disinformation of official outlets of this sickness industry - but now I'm even grateful for such obvious financially driven lies (of course, not from these them self ignorant cardiologists, but their 'educators'). Because it made me search and find harmless natural treatments available over the counter not costing society the outrageous prices they fixed for themselves, and so much more healthy at that.

 

Which doesn't mean at all I'm not also glad about many advances made and available in acute trauma therapy.

Edited by pamojja, 04 November 2015 - 09:39 PM.

[Antonio2014]

That's funny, because there are an awful lot of people who find that these compounds are quite useful to them.

 

And a lot of people take sugar pills, call them drugs and talk about water memory. So what?
 

https://en.wikipedia...ntum_ad_populum

Edited by Antonio2014, 12 November 2015 - 11:17 PM.

[niner]

 

 

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".

 

Yeah, totally. The value of multiple poorly conducted experiments, without control group, without any statistical analysis, without accounting for confounders, without any form of medical analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc. is ZERO.

 

That's funny, because there are an awful lot of people who find that these compounds are quite useful to them.  I think what you mean is that these compounds are worthless to you.  What makes you think that published human (or other animal) experiments would have no control group or statistical analysis?  If you had a health condition that FDA approved meds couldn't help, but an unapproved compound could make your life worth living, or perhaps even keep you alive, would you use it, or would you choose to die for lack of a p < 0.05?

 

I'm have not interest in arguing the validity of an individual's claim regarding the effectiveness and safety their personal's experienced with any given treatment. I'm thinking about this on the level of a doctor prescibing a treatment and a company making claims regarding its product. Do you support a doctor being able to perscribe and a company being able to make claims regarding their product based on "an awful lot of people" finding a treatment to be effective and safe? When you go beyond the indidivual and their experience, what rules, if any, do you think their should be when healthcare providers and companies are selling their products and services? 

 

Not saying you are arguing for this, but if a doctor is allowed to precribe anything and a company can make any claims about the products they sell, does the consumer have any legal recourse if the treatment is ineffective or harmful?

 

I wish I hadn't mentioned the large number of anecdotes, because everyone is focusing on it, and it's a side point.  I'm not arguing that companies should make claims or that doctors should be able to prescribe on the basis on internet anecdotes.  I would like to see a system like Japan recently adopted, where drugs could be made available to people after a phase 2 clinical trial, under the condition that they be monitored by the prescribing physician and their response and tox data be collected.  People getting drugs under this system would have to be made aware that it was in a "not fully approved" category, so they would understand that there was more risk involved.  Their ability to collect damages should be limited to actual damages.  Since it has been formally trialed, MitoQ might qualify (or be close to qualifying) under such a scheme.

 

There remains the question of what to do with data from small human clinical trials, animal experiments, and, yes, reports in forums like this.  There are supplement makers (I'm thinking of BioSil here.) that make claims on the basis of their small clinical trials, and provide literature citations right on the package.  The FDA does go after people who make ridiculous claims, so apparently they don't find this ridiculous, because they haven't gone after it.

 

 

That's funny, because there are an awful lot of people who find that these compounds are quite useful to them.

 

And a lot of people take sugar pills, call them drugs and talk about water memory. So what?
 

https://en.wikipedia...ntum_ad_populum

 

Yeah, niner and his logical fallacies... Care to respond to this?

 

 

I think what you mean is that these compounds are worthless to you.  What makes you think that published human (or other animal) experiments would have no control group or statistical analysis?  If you had a health condition that FDA approved meds couldn't help, but an unapproved compound could make your life worth living, or perhaps even keep you alive, would you use it, or would you choose to die for lack of a p < 0.05?

[Logic]

A natural substance = unpatentable = unprofitable = no phase III, double blind, placebo controlled studies.

Therefore there are great many beneficial substances out there for which there are no phase III, double blind, placebo controlled studies. There never will be.

 

Should  we ignore them?
The pharmaceutical industry doesn't!

Aspirin wasn't invented by some biology savant who sucked the structure of acetylsalicylic acid out of his thumb and then had it made by some wonder lab.
The pharmaceutical industry paid great attention to the hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports,  isolated salicylic acid, the active molecule, and then acetylated it to make it patentable = profitable.
Bam!  Asiprin the wonder drug that cures headaches in 5 minutes was born!

But if it had not been for at least 2400 years of hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports; the human race would not have a fucking clue about Aspirin, or just about any other medication!

A great many molecules from Willow Bark were doubtless fed to rats along the way until the active one was hit upon and reported.  If it had not been possible to change it slightly, while keeping its effects, that report would be gathering dust somewhere and skeptics would be calling those who took Willow Bark Tea for headaches 'a bunch of hippy nut jobs.'

 

The pharmaceutical industry has always and always will, pay attention to the hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports of 'the hippy nuts jobs' to find the molecules that are effective at treating ailments and aging.
When it is reported that such a highly efficacious, natural molecule cannot be changed slightly to make it patentable = profitable; what is it to competing medications..?

 

 

You may choose to ignore the initial, cheap reports on such substances or you can add the evidence to the thousands of years hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports and reach a decision of your own making, assuming you are capable..?

But don't be surprised if the competition competes.  Aggressively.  

In fact the level of aggression can often be used as a means to gauge the effectiveness of 'your' competing substance.

 

That is a very large part of what Longecity is all about IMHO.

 

 

[Antonio2014]

You may choose to ignore the initial, cheap reports on such substances or you can add the evidence to the thousands of years hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports and reach a decision of your own making, assuming you are capable..?

 

Old wives also said that a fig leaf in the forehead can alleviate the pain of pregnant women. Can you decide on both of them based only in tales and anecdotal reports? Wow.

 

 

That is a very large part of what Longecity is all about IMHO.

 

Sadly.

Edited by Antonio2014, 13 November 2015 - 08:58 AM.

[Antonio2014]

Yeah, niner and his logical fallacies... Care to respond to this?

 

 

I think what you mean is that these compounds are worthless to you.  What makes you think that published human (or other animal) experiments would have no control group or statistical analysis?  If you had a health condition that FDA approved meds couldn't help, but an unapproved compound could make your life worth living, or perhaps even keep you alive, would you use it, or would you choose to die for lack of a p < 0.05?

 

Not sure if you are asking me or niner. Anyway: a compound that works in animals doesn't allways work in humans (most times doesn't), and a small human trial doesn't allways is confirmed in Phase II and III (most times doesn't). Are you claiming that a compound that most probably don't work or even is harmful must be allowed to be sold with a health claim? The Japanese example is different. These compounds are sold as experimental candidate drugs and there is a careful monitoring of patients. It's simply another form of doing a Phase II study. Very different from the supplement industry bussiness.
 

[Logic]

 

You may choose to ignore the initial, cheap reports on such substances or you can add the evidence to the thousands of years hearsay, old wives tales and anecdotal reports and reach a decision of your own making, assuming you are capable..?

 
Old wives also said that a fig leaf in the forehead can alleviate the pain of pregnant women. Can you decide on both of them based only in tales and anecdotal reports? Wow.

 

Screening of Ficus religiosa leaves fractions for analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3229781/

 

Antiarthritic and antioxidant effects of the leaf extract of Ficus exasperata P. Beauv. (Moraceae)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3140113/

 

And the more oft repeated tale of willow bark tea? What do you have to say about that!?

 

That is a very large part of what Longecity is all about IMHO.

 
Sadly.

 

I was going to ask why you don't go and find a forum on FDA approved meds only and hang about there, but I have a better idea:
Which supps DONT you reccomend?

Bavituximab?
DRACO?
NR?
Vit D?
any other leads?

Edited by Logic, 13 November 2015 - 10:23 AM.

[Antonio2014]

 

Old wives also said that a fig leaf in the forehead can alleviate the pain of pregnant women. Can you decide on both of them based only in tales and anecdotal reports? Wow.

 

Screening of Ficus religiosa leaves fractions for analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3229781/

 

Antiarthritic and antioxidant effects of the leaf extract of Ficus exasperata P. Beauv. (Moraceae)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3140113/

 

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

I was going to ask why you don't go and find a forum on FDA approved meds only and hang about there

 

Why should I? I want to read and post in a longevity/immortality forum. It's sad that this forum has also sections on supplements, nootropics, religion, and other irrational mumbo jumbo, but I usually don't enter those sections.

 

Which supps DONT you reccomend?

Bavituximab?
DRACO?
NR?
Vit D?
any other leads?

 

Bavituximab and DRACO aren't supplements. Most people in developed countries already take enough vitamin D in their diet, so there's no need to supplement it. I don't know what NR stands for.

[Ark]

Any updates on Black Currents research, a couple of years ago when last in New Zealand a few supplement companies were doing research into that field.