Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by Henrysullivan, May 21, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    And June, regarding the facts, are you saying that the AMA did not accept $10 million from the tobacco industry during this time? And if they did, and because the surgeon general had already stated his findings, and if the AMA had no ulterior motive, why would they have taken the money? And how could they possibly take $10 million from the tobacco industry and conceivably come out with a finding that might damn that same industry? How can we imagine that such a report, which we will learn about soon, would be impartial to the facts?

    And really, I don't know whay you assail me, the bringer of the facts, as if I have some ulterior motive. I'm not taking any $10 million from anyone. I am just a guy, telling the truth as he knows it, who is beholding to no one, no one except the truth. So condemning my character, as if I have an axe to grind, is. well, a little off base. Don't you think?
     
  2. June-

    June- New Member

    It just seems to me like you approach these subjects like it is a zero sum game. Either you win and somebody else loses or vice versa. I don't see it that way and i don't see that much is added to the body of knowledge that way and I don't think it is an effective way of offering alternatives to people who are suffering, I don't think they have the energy or interest in these kinds of debates. Now I will quit reading this thread so I can bow out.
     
  3. wileyriley

    wileyriley New Member

    And really, I don't know whay you assail me, the bringer of the facts, as if I have some ulterior motive. I'm not taking any $10 million from anyone. I am just a guy, telling the truth as he knows it, who is beholding to no one, no one except the truth. So condemning my character, as if I have an axe to grind, is. well, a little off base. Don't you think?
    « Last Edit: Today at 10:41:44 am by Henrysullivan »

    I'm glad to see you edited your original post. :) It seemed a bit harsh to accuse June of such things. She is probably one of the most level-headed and rational of us all. I don't know where you get the idea that she would even think of attacking your character through personal messages. To me, she seems to be a better person than that.

    Hate to see her leave the discussion. :(
     
  4. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I agree with you Wiley, and that is why I changed it. No, I want June to stay as well. My immediate reaction was one of 'Why is this person shooting the messenger?' My first comment reflected that reaction. And I have known June quite a while, and she me. But I do find that there are times when various folks cast certain motives upon me, that are not accurate, though perhaps even heartfelt by the caster.

    This discussion I give here is in immediate rebuttal of certain of Scott's remarks to me regarding what he purports to be a proper flow of events in the study and revelation of scientific information concerning smoking and lung cancer. All that I relate here is really all old news, but it is highly accurate and dispells the notion that all that has transpired has been proper. And this information denies others of Scott's findings, which findings indicate that scientific medical research is overwhelmingly untainted by corporate influences, a discussion he recently held with Taximom. The influence of the tobacco industry on the AMA is of no small consequence and is in high accuracy of report. So this information directly refutes Scott's point of view.

    So my bringing this information to the thread does not mean that I have an axe to grind, not that I mind anyone saying that about me. I know what my motives are. But someone else may come in, not knowing me, and believe that accusation, and therefore believe that what I write is untrustworthy. Therefore, I feel it important to correct the record, which I did, and which I softened with my edit.

    Thanks for bringing me to make that point.
     
  5. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    You indicate to me that you see this as personal. I do not. And Scott has said that he does not. Sometimes it may seem that way though, I grant. But there is no better way to get to the truth than to explore opposing viewpoints. Scott's viewpoint opposes mine. Scott has in the past gone out of his way to advertise that my point of view, and Taximom's and others, are not credible. So this is a way to explore our two approaches so that any reader can come along and assess for his or herself who is credible.

    And that is not the end goal. The end goal is for individuals who are confronted with these symptoms to devise a very best approach to combat them. That's it. There is nothing personal in this at all. And Scott agrees. And that is why I made the remark to you about the personal nature of my motives. And if you quit reading, that is completely up to you. But it is my experience that much learning comes from these kinds of discussions. I have certainly learned from taking part and I urge anyone who is of mind to take part as well. But try not to make it personal. We all slip, but we can also all recover.
     
  6. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Here's where I left off:

    So when was it that the AMA finally came out and admitted that smoking causes lung cancer? Answer: NEVER.

    Here’s the timeline:

    1964. We already know about that.

    1978. AMA Education and Research Fund releases Tobacco and Health, a compilation of 844 investigations begun after the 1964 Surgeon General's Report and fully funded by the tobacco industry, most of which were only tangentially related to the smoking and health issue. There are no studies related to smoking and lung cancer.

    1983. Cigarettes are the most heavily advertised consumer product in America. One and a half billion dollars are devoted to their promotion. In a Newsweek supplement devoted to "Personal Health Care" prepared by the AMA, with financial support from the magazine, 16 pages of text are devoted to advice about diet, weight control and exercise but only four sentences mention cigarettes. Not one mention specifically states that smoking is a health hazard. The same issue has 12 pages of cigarette advertisements. The AMA, at its House of Delegates, votes to "work toward promoting a smoke-free society by the year 2000."

    That’s it. The AMA has never pronounced that smoking causes lung cancer. As late as February 2009, while an JAMA commentary states that smoking 'is a factor in causing lung cancer,' the text of the commentary states that, "The greatest strength of the study by Wynder and Graham may be the simplicity of the presentation," downplaying the substance of the circa 1950 report which is the subject of the report, and playing up the style of the report. Well, where are all the other studies that should be available since 1950? And as late at 1999, the World Health Organization has held that smoking does not cause lung cancer. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm.


    Well how can this possibly be, that the American Medical Association has never pronounced that smoking actually causes lung cancer? Do we even imagine that certain economic interests could be at play here influencing the AMA’s official pronouncements? (Yes, that was sarcastic, seemingly breaking a certain rule I have established, only using sarcasm when someone is insincere with me. Even though I believe Scott is sincere, I do not believe that the AMA is sincere, thus I am free to use sarcasm in equal opposition to their degree of insincerity.) Let’s look at the history of coziness between the tobacco industry and the AMA.

    Here is an article depicting that relationship up to 1998:

    See: http://www.naturalnews.com/026437_tobacco_research_smoking.html

    Despite its stated mission, "To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health," the American Medical Association (AMA) has taken many missteps in protecting the health of the American people. One of the most striking examples is the AMA's long-term relationship with the tobacco industry.

    Both the AMA and individual doctors sided with big tobacco for decades after the deleterious effects of smoking were proven. Medical historians have tracked this relationship in great detail, examining internal documents from tobacco companies and their legal counsel and public relations advisers. The overarching theme of big tobacco's efforts was to keep alive the appearance of a "debate" or "controversy" of the health effects of cigarette smoking.

    The first research to make a statistical correlation between cancer and smoking was published in 1930 in Cologne, Germany. In 1938, Dr. Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University reported that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. The tobacco industry dismissed these early findings as anecdotal -- but at the same time recruited doctors to endorse cigarettes.
    JAMA kicks off two decades of cigarette advertising

    The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published its first cigarette advertisement in 1933, stating that it had done so only "after careful consideration of the extent to which cigarettes were used by physicians in practice." These advertisements continued for 20 years. The same year, Chesterfield began running ads in the New York State Journal of Medicine, with the claim that its cigarettes were "Just as pure as the water you drink... and practically untouched by human hands."

    In medical journals and in the popular media, one of the most infamous cigarette advertising slogans was associated with the Camel brand: "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." The campaign began in 1946 and ran for eight years in magazines and on the radio. The ads included this message:

    Family physicians, surgeons, diagnosticians, nose and throat specialists, doctors in every branch of medicine... a total of 113,597 doctors... were asked the question: 'What cigarette do you smoke?' And more of them named Camel as their smoke than any other cigarette! Three independent research groups found this to be a fact. You see, doctors too smoke for pleasure. That full Camel flavor is just as appealing to a doctor's taste as to yours... that marvelous Camel mildness means just as much to his throat as to yours."

    Tobacco Industry's suppression of scientific evidence

    At the same time that JAMA ran cigarette ads, it published in 1950 the first major study to causally link smoking to lung cancer. Morton Levin, then director of Cancer Control for the New York State Department of Health, surveyed patients in Buffalo, N.Y., from 1938 to 1950 and found that smokers were twice as likely to develop lung cancer as non-smokers.

    Cigarette producers may have hoped that the public would remain unaware of studies published in medical journals. However, the dangers of smoking became widely known in 1952 when Reader's Digest published "Cancer by the Carton," detailing the dangers of cigarettes. Within a year cigarette sales fell for the first time in more than two decades.

    The tobacco industry responded swiftly, engaging the medical community in its efforts. The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) was formed by U.S. tobacco companies in 1954. By sponsoring "independent" scientific research, the TIRC attempted to keep alive a debate about whether or not cigarettes were harmful.

    The industry announced the formation of the TIRC in an advertisement that appeared in The New York Times and 447 other newspapers reaching more than 43 million Americans. The advertisement, titled "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers," read:

    "RECENT REPORTS on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings.

    Although conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research. However, we do not believe that any serious medical research, even though its results are inconclusive should be disregarded or lightly dismissed.

    At the same time, we feel it is in the public interest to call attention to the fact that eminent doctors and research scientists have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments.

    Distinguished authorities point out:

    1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.
    2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
    3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.
    4. That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists.

    We accept an interest in people's heath as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business.

    We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.

    We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health. For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation, and enjoyment to mankind. At one time or another during those years critics have held it responsible for practically every disease of the human body. One by one these charges have been abandoned for lack of evidence.

    Regardless of the record of the past, the fact that cigarette smoking today should even be suspected as a cause of a serious disease is a matter of deep concern to us.

    Many people have asked us what we are doing to meet the public's concern aroused by the recent reports. Here is the answer:

    1. We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health. This joint financial aid will of course be in addition to what is already being contributed by individual companies.

    2. For this purpose we are establishing a joint industry group consisting initially of the undersigned. This group will be known as TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE.

    3. In charge of the research activities of the Committee will be a scientist of unimpeachable integrity and national repute. In addition there will be an Advisory Board of scientists disinterested in the cigarette industry. A group of distinguished men from medicine, science, and education will be invited to serve on this Board. These scientists will advise the Committee on its research activities.

    This statement is being issued because we believe the people are entitled to know where we stand on this matter and what we intend to do about it."


    Doctors' involvement in the tobacco deception

    The statement -- signed by presidents of major tobacco interests including Phillip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and R.J. Reynolds -- was designed to launch the "controversy" which I mentioned earlier. In fact, there was no controversy. The research results were clear: smoking had been proven harmful -- not just to mice, but to people who had for years been advised that smoking offered health benefits.

    The TIRC promised to convene "a group of distinguished men from medicine, science, and education" and it did so. Early members of the TIRC's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) included: McKeen Cattell, PhD, MD, professor of pharmacology from Cornell University Medical College; Julius H. Comroe, Jr., MD, director of the University of California Medical Center's cardiovascular research institute and chairman of University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Medicine; and Edwin B. Wilson, PhD, LLD, professor of vital statistics, Harvard University.

    According to the New York State Archives, the TIRC's functions "included both the funding of research and carrying out public relations activities relating to tobacco and health." Faced with mounting evidence that smoking was harmful, "it became evident that this was not a short-term endeavor, and that it was difficult to manage both scientific research and public relations in one organization. As a result the Tobacco Institute was formed to assume the public relations functions, and the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) was formed and incorporated to provide funding for scientific research."

    Whether or not individual doctors supported smoking, lending their names to the TIRC gave it credibility. The Center for Media and Democracy has reported that many of the scientists who were members of the Scientific Advisory Board privately "disagreed with the tobacco industry's party line." According to the center's website: "In 1987, Dr. Kenneth Warner polled the SAB's 13 current members, asking, 'Do you believe that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer?' Seven of the SAB members refused to answer the question, even after Warner promised individual anonymity. The other six all answered in the affirmative. 'I don't think there's a guy on the [Board] who doesn't believe that cigarette smoking contributes to an increased risk of lung cancer,' one said, adding that the SAB's members were 'terrified' to say so publicly out of fear of involvement in tobacco product liability lawsuits."

    If it was fear that kept doctors on board with the TIRC and its renamed version, CTR, it did not stop them from handing out research grants. The Center for Media and Democracy describes some of the early grants: "Research projects attempted to show that both lung cancer and smoking were caused by some other 'third factor,' such as a person's psychological makeup, religion, war experiences or genetic susceptibility. One research project asked whether the handwriting of lung cancer patients can reveal characteristics associated with lung cancer. Another looked for enzyme markers predicting susceptibility to lung cancer."

    After three decades, the AMA finally admits smoking is "harmful"

    After the 1964 Surgeon General's landmark report on the dangers of cigarettes, the CTR stepped up its work, providing materials to defend the tobacco industry against litigation. The same year -- three decades after medical research demonstrated the dangers of cigarettes -- the American Medical Association finally issued statement on smoking, calling it "a serious health hazard." It was not until 1998 that the CTR was shut down -- and only after the tobacco industry lost a major court case brought forward by states across the country.
    Reference: http://www.naturalnews.com/021949_Big_Tobacco_the_AMA.html


    So I will conclude here. That is a lot of material, material which overwhelmingly disputes Scott's claim that, regarding the link between smoking and lung cancer, medical scientific research has been carried out in a manner that is befitting the goals for which the scientific method was devised.
     
  7. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Whoa!

    But... the congregation can rest easy here. Because that statement is so far from germane, and would much better be taken up in another setting, I will refrain from going there.

    But again... I do find it interesting that according to Scott, evolution is a known scientific fact; but according to the AMA, we do not know that smoking causes lung cancer.

    :)
     
  8. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Smoking can cause lung cancer. It doesn't always :)

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    I have made no fallacious statements, nor gross generalizations. I have, in fact, presented facts that do prove failings of SBM, which you have been unable to disprove, so you have resorted to baseless accusations aimed at me, as though that somehow makes the facts disappear.

    But everyone here has already read the facts as I presented them; you can't erase them. We know better than to be swayed from the facts by your dismissive attempts.

    And you really have dug yourself in deeply, not only with the whole tobacco/cancer thing, but by saying that there is no cure for MM--those of us who were diagnosed with MM/migraines and who have cured our symptoms--by finding and dealing effectively with the cause or causes-- are living proof that it CAN be cured.

    And don't try to weasel out by defining MM/migraines as something that has no cure. That won't work, either.

    We're on to you. :)
     
  10. wileyriley

    wileyriley New Member

    And you really have dug yourself in deeply, not only with the whole tobacco/cancer thing, but by saying that there is no cure for MM--those of us who were diagnosed with MM/migraines and who have cured our symptoms--
    [/quote]

    Taximom-would you please define for me how you are using the term "cure"? do you mean cured of all symptoms of mm/migraine? i know what my idea of cure is, but want to see if we have the same idea. I know for me in the beginning of my meniere's, i would've taken an end to the vertigo as a cure. but now, i want a "cure" to be so much more. i think we have to be really careful how we use that term because it means so many things and can be interpreted so many different ways. thanks.
     
  11. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    You should go and call these people up and straighten them out. I believe they are misinformed. Here's a starter list but there probably over 30,000 thousand more.

    www.entcda.com/AAOHNSF/menieresdisease.htm
    Information about Meniere's Disease from the American Academy of ...
    Although there is no cure for Ménière's disease, the attacks of vertigo can be

    www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/menieresdisease.html
    Meniere's disease can cause severe dizziness, a roaring sound in your
    ears called ... There is no cure

    www.menieresinfo.com/treatment.html
    There is no known cause of Meniere's Disease, there is no known cure for Meniere's Disease,
    and there is no cure on the horizon.

    https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/balance/meniere.html
    There is no cure for Ménière's disease

    www.dizziness-and-balance.com
    At the present time there is no cure for Meniere's disease

    oto2.wustl.edu/men/mn1.htm
    Ménière's disease is usually characterized 4 symptoms. .....
    you don't know what's causing it, and there's no cure

    www.entnet.org/HealthInformation/menieresDisease.cfm
    Although there is no cure for Ménière's disease, the attacks of vertigo
    can be controlled in nearly all cases

    www.hearingloss.org/learn/docs/MenieresDisease.pdf
    Unfortunately, there currently is no firm diagnostic tool to confirm the presence of Meniere's. Disease.
    There is also no cure for this disease

    www.uabmedicine.org/17780
    Factors that cause or aggravate Meniere's disease have been difficult to prove in medical studies. Although there is no cure
     
  12. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Yes, I mean cured of all symptoms of mm/migraine.
     
  13. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    MrMan,

    Medical science owns the definition of Meniere's, and they define it as a condition for which there is no known cause nor cure. I believe Taximom is indicating that such is not necessarily the case and is misleading. My experience of course is that she is right. But medical science also limits the possibility of various treatments curing these symptoms by disqualifying these treatments before it people might elect try them.

    The people here who have indeed found their cures, and I do not mean by removing or altering tissues, did not find them following medical science treatments. They can't have. Medical science has already discounted curing these symptoms right there in the definition of the condition.
     
  14. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Do you seriously think I should spend my time "straightening these people out?"

    Apparently, I have not convinced YOU that it is possible to cure (yes, CURE) Meniere's symptoms by addressing known possible causes of those symptoms.

    I did contact Dr. Brown, like Henry and many others here. I invited him to join this board, and also called to his attention several threads here that deal with successes. He is apparently not interested in those successes. He is interested in his own research direction.

    Which brings us back to science-based medicine, and what motivates the research....
     
  15. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    And regarding the direction of Dr. Brown's research, if it is going the same direction as they now figure endolymph flows, I fear it is in the wrong direction as well.
     
  16. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    We've been over this a million times but once more for fun.
    You have to prove MM exists before you can prove you cured it.
    MM can go away on it's own.
    Testimonials are not proof.

    Some people here can't even agree VNS is a very successful treatment for vertigo control from published studies but
    expect everyone else to believe hearsay about NUCCA and other treatments. Now add all the "What motivates medical science" paranoia and it feels like I'm reading a 911 truthers site. The only thng I haven't heard yet is that the AMA brought down the world trade center to destroy evidence that NUCCA "CURES" MM. Most of the complaints you and Henry have about medical science are really about politics not true science.

    If chiro's and NUCCA and anyone else is so sure they can cure MM , why don't they prove it.
    Why doesn't NUCCA or chiro organizations fund studies?

    Why don't you and Henry present your findings to:

    http://www.aro.org/
    http://www.entnet.org/index.cfm

    I've tried the following: lo-salt, diuretics, acyclovir, JOH, acupuncture, NUCCA, chiro, 2 month gluten free diet, allergy testing, food allergy elimination, 2 month candida diet. So far no cure for me I guess I'm the last holdout. On the plus side from all of that, I learned to stay away from MSG but it did not cause my MM. I'm afraid the only thing that offers a 100% cure rate of MM and every other disease is death.
     
  17. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    MrMan,

    Regarding 'proving Meniere's exists,' one cannot prove that something "exists" when the definition of that something is actually the absence of anything known to exist. For this reason, I don't care who you are and who your doctor is. One cannot prove Meniere's exists. This is a shell game devised to make medical science look as if it knows something that it does not. In this respect, Meniere's is tantamount to a myth, a Sasquatch, a Loch Ness Monster. But Meniere's does not exist apart from the certain set of symptoms that define it. If one has those symptoms, and the cause is unknown, one has what medical science diagnoses as Meniere's. And those symptoms exist regardless whether a certain MD pronounces the term "Meniere's.
     
  18. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    What are your symptoms, MrMan?
     
  19. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    MrMan, Meniere's is not a disease. It is a syndrome--a collection of symptoms of unknown origin.When it was first identified as a syndrome, nobody knew what could possibly cause that set of symptoms--but now, we know many different things that cause those exact set of symptoms.

    Are you saying that once someone is diagnosed with Meniere's, if you figure out the origin, it is no longer Meniere's, even though Prosper Meniere had no way of knowing back in 1861 any of the causes we NOW (150 years later) know exist?

    Wow, SBM is more backwards than I thought...
     
  20. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    MrMan, have you ever had your vitamin D and B12 levels checked? If so, do you know what the values were?

    In case you missed it elsewhere on this board, B12 deficiency can cause
    tinnitus
    dizziness
    hearing loss
    headache
    brain fog
    and plenty of other issues.
    Although in the US, serum levels from 200-1200 are considered "normal," in Japan, anything under 650 is considered to need treatment, because they actually pay attention to the studies that show neurological problems under that level, but above 200.

    I believe JOH posted that 200 was enough to keep you alive, but barely (or words to that effect--I apologize if I got that wrong, JOH, feel free to correct me here).
     

Share This Page