|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th November 2006, 12:04 PM | #81 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
|
I think what Wiley is claiming there is that if 20-year-old women are healthy with cycling hormones at those levels, then 70-year-old women will be healthy, women with cancer will be healthy, etc. If it's safe for the young, then it must be safe for everyone.
That's her "clinical study". |
24th November 2006, 12:56 PM | #82 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
|
27th November 2006, 04:58 PM | #83 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
I rest my case. Deb doesn't, and can't, argue about the WIley Protocol on its merits, she only deals in personalities. She hates TS Wiley and only wants to ruin her with no care for the consequences. By association, she wants to ruin Somers too. It's all spite, a little person behind a computer taking down someone.
Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker. I made an offer here, and no one took me up on it. Read Sex Lies and Menopause, talk to a doctor or two who prescribes the protocol. Read some science. Then we can discuss. You aren't acting like skeptics here, you're acting like gossips. |
27th November 2006, 05:06 PM | #84 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
1. "a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question.." What does that mean? Go to the site and question whatever you want. Read the book, too - Sex, Lies and Menopause.
2. I will not debate with Debv, she has no interest in debate. 3. I didn't conspicuously deny it, I am T.S. Wiley's husband, this is my first response to that. I've been gone for a week for the holiday. I chose not to reveal that in my first post. Again, I am very disappointed in this site. Not one "skeptic" has looked for the counter-counter argument - why does DebV hate T.S. Wiley? What are HER motives. Everyone on here has accused me of being a shill, a salesman and I can't remember what else. Bring this up a notch and I'll respond. |
27th November 2006, 05:51 PM | #85 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
Two deliberate rhetorical arguments here. First, the premise is that the decline in sex hormones initiates the diseases of aging. From this came Willey's theory that replacing hormones in the same rhythm as a normal cycle was the key. This is Rhythm in "Rhythmic Living," and Debv and Co. have never acknowledged that Wiley invented the idea. No claim was ever made that the WIley Protocol would cure cancer, for example.
That isn't the "clinical" study, the clinical study is the experience of over 70 doctors that I KNOW OF (all listed on the website) administering the protocol to their patients. There are many other doctors prescribing the protocol through non-registered pharmacies, so their experience is not known. Also, you need to examine Debv's comments carefully. Here is a bit from the Rhythmic Living website about Bent Formby: "He has published more than 100 scientific publications and is a member of several societies including the European Menopause Society, the New York Academy of Sciences and the Danish Academy of Sciences." Fact - on most of those papers, he is not the first author, a charge Debv levels at TS Wiley Fact - In over 25 years in US, Formby has joined exactly one medical/scientific society - The New York Academy of Sciences. Debv derides Wiley for joining that society as one that requires no academic credentials. She considers it a sham, but does not mention it in Formby's credentials. So why, you should ask her, does Debv promote Formby for exactly those things she condemns Wiley? And the money. Wiley makes nothing and has been working on this for 12 years. Her company charges doctors for a manual and a 2-day class and the pharmacies pay a $500 fee which doesn't cover the lawyers' fees to draw the contract. The only income she has is from book royalties, which she splits with Formby. Even Steven. He refuses to separate himself from that "revenue stream." And one more thing about Formby - he says, in print, the most insulting things about Wiley, but Wiley has never said an unkind word about him. As for all the other stuff that Debv points out, the flame notes, the fake names, sure, I did some of that and it was a mistake. I was trying to defend my wife (of 33 years). It was wrong. I don't want to be the center of this discussion. I would prefer that others avail themsleves of some information and toss this around. So far, it's been Wiley-0, not-Wiley-15, but I haven't seen any well-informed arguments. It seems to have started as "Suzanne Somers is a bimbo so let's dismisss her," but I don't think you're doing the subject justice. |
27th November 2006, 05:55 PM | #86 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
27th November 2006, 05:57 PM | #87 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
27th November 2006, 05:58 PM | #88 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
27th November 2006, 05:59 PM | #89 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
27th November 2006, 06:12 PM | #90 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
Fact - compounding pharmacists who compound hormone preparations and the doctors who prescribe them are making a fortune on menopausal women. There is NO clincal evidence about the efficacy of any of it.
Fact - Wyeth, having taken a huge hit over Premarin, has seen a big erosion in its HRT business so that are going after compounding pharmacy by petitioning the government to regulate it. Surprise - Wiley actually agrees with Wyeth. Her experience with some compounders, and the business that supplies them, PCCA in Houston, is that they are a bunch of "tight-fisted, pin-headed mixologists." She could never get a consistent product because they loved to tinker. This is the reasoning behing the Wiley Registered pharmacies - to control the quality, consistency and PRICE of compounded hormones. Wiley pharmacies charge only $37.50/month for a hormone prescription ($75.00 for two). That is down from hundreds of dollars. The fact that she made this therapy affordable is conveniently ignored by her critics. Wiley makes nothing from homones. Zero. Her company only sells the packaging for a small fraction of the cost of the prescription. How can someone on a skeptic site make wild and insulting claims about someone with no evidence, no research? What is wrong with you?? |
27th November 2006, 08:29 PM | #91 |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
|
Tee hee, it came back, and I only wish I had time to play right now
So, just a fly by post to say... LIAR. I'll say why when I have time. |
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it! |
|
28th November 2006, 02:52 AM | #92 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
What do you imagine this means? You would be a better shill for your wife if you had some understanding of the subject.
Progestin is a synonym for progesterone. What, exactly, do you imagine is the difference? "Natural" vs. "synthetic" is not a difference, except to magical thinking. Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims? Surely, a guy writing on a technical topic knows that anecdotes, no matter how numerous, mean nothing, and "a conjugate of 39 substances" is meaningless, and natural vs. synthetic is a difference without a distinction. |
28th November 2006, 07:27 AM | #93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
I think the following points need to be made.
Natural and synthetic hormones act by binding to estrogen receptors. Estrone and estradiol are the hormones that are produced in humans. Exogenous hormones have an estrogenic effect by either being metabolized to Estrone or Estradiol, by sharing an identical core structure (the steroid ring plus a phenolic hydroxy group and a hydroxy group (estradiol) or a ketone group (estrone)), or by imitating the structure of the estrogens. Premarin is a conjugated estrogen which survives the process of digestion to be absorbed and converted to estrone. Phytoestrogens share the core structure or imitate the structure. It is disingenuous (or sometimes even wrong) to claim that plant estrogens are identical to those found in humans or that they are more similar than other pharmaceuticals - Premarin in particular. Also, if one divides hormones (or any chemical) into "those derived from plants", "those derived from animals" and "those synthesized in a lab", one cannot assume any of the relevant characteristics (active, harmful, safe, etc.) can be applied to one group over the other, or to all the members of the group (even if one accepts the use of fuzzy qualifiers like "most" or "many"). There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea. This information is critical to obtain since we know that the placebo effect will have a tremendous influence of the types of symptoms and conditions that she claims to help. The observations of doctors using the medication in an uncontrolled manner fails to be a form of evidence. Regardless of the source, chemicals work by binding to estrogen receptors. This means that these chemicals are not exempt from the assumption that they can lead to the same kinds of harm that endogenous and exogenous estrogens lead to. Without controlled clinical data, we have no idea of the risks or benefits associated with this treatment. In particular, since there is a general concensus (admitedly controversial) that hormone replacement leads to more harm than good in menopausal and post-menopausal women, the assumption in the absence of data has to be that the Wiley Protocol is harmful until proven otherwise. There is no reason to assume that varying the doses of the hormones will avoid harm. It is a reasonable idea to test in a systematic manner, but no assumptions can be made about what the results will be beforehand. The physicians that use the Wiley Protocol are not practising evidence-based medicine. Since the current standard of care is to use evidence-based medicine, they will be unable to defend themselves if legal or professional charges are brought against them. They have been fortunate so far, perhaps helped by the tendency of people that buy into the "natural" fallacy to be uncritical. The credibility of T. S. Wiley is a major issue in this debate as she is making claims that are unsupported by evidence. The credibility of Bent Formby is not relevant except in his role as a witness to her expertise (or lack thereof). Physicians are not compensated for prescribing HRT. There's probably more, but that'll do for now. Linda |
28th November 2006, 01:49 PM | #94 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
Thank you for displaying your ignorance:
"The recognition of progesterone's ability to suppress ovulation during pregnancy spawned a search for a similar hormone that could bypass the problems associated with administering progesterone (low bioavailability when administered orally and local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally) and, at the same time, serve the purpose of controlling ovulation. The many synthetic hormones that resulted are known as progestins. Some examples of progestins that have been used in hormonal contraceptives are norethynodrel (Enovid), norethindrone (many brand names, most notably Ortho-Novum and Ovcon) norgestimate (Ortho Tricyclen, Ortho-Cyclen), norgestrel, levonorgestrel (Alesse, Trivora-28), medroxyprogesterone (Provera, Depo-Provera) and desogestrel." |
28th November 2006, 02:13 PM | #95 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
Thank you for engaging in a discussion of the issues.
I'm not qualified to argue this point.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3. There is, however, some "clinical" evidence. Dr. Taguchi did a chart review at ACAM a few weeks ago of her 58 cancer patients who have been on the Wiley Protocol for up to three years. I won't characterize the results, because the flamers here will not believe it. Check with ACAM. I think there will be a release by Dr. Taguchi to the media. Not sure, she is part of a large medical practice, not in private practice, and she is an onocologist. Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented. [/quote]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, there is a notion in BHRT that each patient needs a "customized" hormone preparation. The doctors charge an arm and a leg to do this, which usually results in a Rx from a short list of templates that they've worked out with their pharmacist. Thanks for your thoughts Linda. |
28th November 2006, 02:14 PM | #96 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
[bold added]
I am trying not to be ignorant. But, you do not answer my questions: for example "a conjugate of 39 substances." What does this mean? Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims? What is the difference between natural and synthetic? And how are phytoestrogens "bio-identical" to mammalian estrogens? You note "... local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally" how do parents exacerbate the harm. A lot of menopausal women do not rely on their parents. Where did that come from? (And, yes, I know the question ends in a preposition). By the way, where did you get the quote? |
28th November 2006, 02:16 PM | #97 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
|
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell |
|
28th November 2006, 02:38 PM | #98 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
That is the idea that I'm referring to.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
28th November 2006, 03:11 PM | #99 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
|
I'll start by addressing something that I should have covered earlier:
You clearly know nothing about IVF. Estrace is used in IVF during the luteal phase (following embryo transfer). As for these natural bioidentical hormones of which you speak, are these the ones? Gonal-F® RFF (follitropin alfa injection) is a prescription medication containing FSH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. Follistim® AQ (follitropin beta injection) is a pure FSH preparation manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. Bravelle® (urofollitropin for injection, purified), is a highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) derived from urine. Repronex® (menotropin for injection, USP) is a purified preparation of urine-derived gonadotropins, FSH and LH. Pregnyl® (chorionic gonadotropin), a highly-purified preparation derived from the urine of pregnant women, was introduced in Europe in 1932 as the first hCG preparation drug and still continues to be one of the leading hCG therapies manufactured and sold today. Ganirelix Acetate Injection (formerly called Antagon™) is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Cetrotide® (cetrorelix acetate for injection), is a synthetic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Which hormones were you talking about?
Originally Posted by nraden
Quote:
Don't expect to come here, make claims, throw up your hands to the fact that we would have to read her book to understand them, and act surprised that we are less than convinced. You are not arguing the Wiley Protocol on its merits. You are making claims supported by anecdotal evidence at best and trying to deflect attention from yourself by bringing up the evils of Big Pharma and Deb. Why don't you go back to the topic at hand and start making some evidence-based arguments for Wiley's claims if you can?
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by nraden
And do not condescendingly tell us to read some science when you cannot or refuse to do the same. And, as for who is acting like what, you are acting like a pouty politician who, finding himself backed into a corner, can do little but insult his challengers. Rather than addressing the issues raised against your statements, you would rather send everyone on a wild goose chase. What does it mean? It stems from your own comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nraden
Why do you continue to deflect attention from yourself? We didn't need Deb's help to see through your claims. I am not interested in your history with her nor is anyone else. It is clear that you two have been traveling together much to your dismay, no doubt. You are both passionate about your causes. You move through forums, and she tails you. Do you think that any of us thought that your arrival at roughly the same time was just a coincidence? There now. So why don't you stop deflecting and start addressing the questions that have been directed at you (and your wife's claims)? |
28th November 2006, 03:36 PM | #100 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
|
I won't address everything from this post because fls is doing a fine job.
Is that why she says this?
Originally Posted by her own website
I'm actually surprised that she would use the WHI in the same way that the media did to spread fear of HRT. I would have thought that she would be more critical of the obviously-flawed study. Then again, I suppose that it is too great a temptation to misrepresent it for personal gain.
Originally Posted by nraden
Quote:
2) That part about the "especially, birth control pills"? You are aware, aren't you, that the reason why birth control pills work is that they create an "unnatural" hormonal state? If all they did was mimic perfectly the body's natural hormonal fluctuations, they would have no contraceptive properties.
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by her own website
|
28th November 2006, 03:53 PM | #101 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
|
This is a flat out falsehood. There are several hormone treatments given to prostate and breast cancer patients. You can review the types of hormone treatments for cancer patients here. Please know what you're talking about before making false claims. In fact, you can go read this paper nicely summing up the literature on HRT for women with either a history of breast or endometrial cancer. I'll quote a little for you, if you like:
Quote:
|
28th November 2006, 04:37 PM | #102 |
Happy-go-lucky Heretic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,655
|
|
__________________
Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge |
|
28th November 2006, 05:10 PM | #103 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
28th November 2006, 05:14 PM | #104 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
|
28th November 2006, 05:27 PM | #105 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
Estrace is a brand name. It contains estradiol, a "natural" hormone.
[/quote] As for these natural bioidentical hormones of which you speak, are these the ones? Gonal-F® RFF (follitropin alfa injection) is a prescription medication containing FSH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. Follistim® AQ (follitropin beta injection) is a pure FSH preparation manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. Bravelle® (urofollitropin for injection, purified), is a highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) derived from urine. Repronex® (menotropin for injection, USP) is a purified preparation of urine-derived gonadotropins, FSH and LH. Pregnyl® (chorionic gonadotropin), a highly-purified preparation derived from the urine of pregnant women, was introduced in Europe in 1932 as the first hCG preparation drug and still continues to be one of the leading hCG therapies manufactured and sold today. Ganirelix Acetate Injection (formerly called Antagon™) is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Cetrotide® (cetrorelix acetate for injection), is a synthetic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Which hormones were you talking about?[quote] I wasn't referring to all of the LH, FSH, etc hormones. I was referring to Estrogen and Progesterone. Women don't take LH or FSH in HRT.
Quote:
Quote:
snip |
28th November 2006, 05:35 PM | #106 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
There are many people who have been on this protocol for years. Untested in the sense of a randomized clinical trial? True. Do you have any idea how many things you use in a day that have not been through such a trial?
However, you are right, it has not been put through that kind of test, hopefully it will soon. But my question for you is why do you think it "has a good chance of causing harm?" What evidence do you have for that?
Quote:
I receive no compensation and neither does T.S. Wiley. I've already explained that. At some point, if the WP is very popular, her company that provides training and branded packaging could provide a nice income, but it hasn't for 12 years. It is pointless for all of you to look for a big payoff motive here, it doesn't exist. |
28th November 2006, 05:40 PM | #107 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
So here is a question: why does someone who takes a position get filleted here for every little thing? Huntsman, go kick your dog.
I put quotes around it, so anyone who isn't blind could see I was quoting something. I put in the link to Wikipedia, but it was bounced because I didn't have 15 posts. Now, am I working against a tide of negative opinion or what? Is anyone here interested in getting to the bottom of this or this just a fun game people who have nothing better to do? I've already agreed that I've made some errors, conceded some points. I'm trying to have a real discussion. Is anyone else? |
28th November 2006, 06:01 PM | #108 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
|
I'm a little surprised that Neil would goad me into telling the story behind this.
Shortly after Wiley Watch relaunched, a couple of anonymous comments were posted: "You guys are idiots with too muh time on your hands. Give up. Get medicated . Go away." and "Laurel is a [defamatory term] who started this web site when T.S. Wiley wouldn't let her be businiss partiners in the Wiley Protocol." Here are the log entries ("http" and "www" part removed because forum won't let them through): Code:
72.205.193.253 - - [15/Oct/2006:16:08:55 -0400] "POST /comment/reply/5 HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "wileywatch.org/comment/reply/5" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)" Code:
72.205.193.253 - - [15/Oct/2006:16:11:41 -0400] "POST /comment/reply/5 HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "wileywatch.org/comment/reply/5" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)" From the headers: Code:
Received: from momofficenew ([72.205.193.253]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id akEP1V00T5UVtWo0000000 Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:14:23 -0400 From: "TS Wiley" <tswiley@hiredbrains.com> A few days later Neil left a comment apologizing, saying that he suspected one of his "silly kids" must have left those comments. Amused, I responded, "You didn't ask how dared I to put your wife's name on those comments. I guess you knew where they came from as well as I do. What a surprise." He then insisted it was specifically their daughter. (EDIT: His comment and subsequent e-mails originated from the same IP address above.) Do I believe this story? Of course not. But if they're capable of pinning this sort of thing on one of their kids, I think the world should know about it. So I substituted in "T.S. Wiley's daughter" and explained why on the site.
Quote:
|
28th November 2006, 06:11 PM | #109 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
28th November 2006, 06:27 PM | #110 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
|
28th November 2006, 08:29 PM | #111 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
|
|
28th November 2006, 08:33 PM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
Yes. Zero. That is not relevant to this discussion. Deflecting criticism by attacking others gives the impression that you cannot support your position otherwise.
Quote:
Quote:
The money issue simply undermines your credibility. Linda |
29th November 2006, 04:27 AM | #113 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
|
29th November 2006, 06:59 AM | #114 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
|
Then what was your point in bringing up IVF?
Again, your statement:
Originally Posted by nraden
I listed the other hormones used, which I doubt fall into your classification of bioidentical hormones. All of them fall into your "patentable junk" category. What are these bioidentical hormones of which you speak that are used in IVF?
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by nraden
|
29th November 2006, 07:23 AM | #115 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
|
Just who are these doctors in the "HRT business"? I don't know any. You make sweeping generalizations like this, and then make comments like this to clarify:
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by nraden
Originally Posted by nraden
No. It's not pointless to look for your profit motive. If you were really interested in helping women, you wouldn't make false accusations about physicians, misrepresent the information that is out there such as that in the WHI while also acting like there is no good non-Big-Pharm studies showing HRT's benefits, you wouldn't provide inaccurate information here or on the website, and you would have established the efficacy and safety of Wiley's protocol before avocating it publically. Maybe it is a desire to elevate your own importance which is at the root of this. Put a wedge between women and those who really wish to help them and then ingratiate yourselves with women by portraying yourselves as coming to their rescue with your own, untested but natural remedy. If it's not a profit motive driving this, then perhaps it's a hero complex. |
29th November 2006, 08:19 AM | #116 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,457
|
|
__________________
"Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney |
|
29th November 2006, 08:35 AM | #117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
|
29th November 2006, 10:12 AM | #118 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
|
GROAN. The question, fls, is whether he knows what we are going on about? The nerve of someone who knows nothing about medicine arguing with, at least one, doctor here. Maybe TS would like acting lessons from the doctor …
But, seriously, I note that debv refers to Erika Schwartz (MD) as an opponent of Wiley. However, Dr. S has her own form of bioidentical hormone therapy (as I recall), and my understanding is that all of it is hokum. http://www.ncahf.org/digest05/05-45.html “ACOG warns against "bioidentical hormone therapy" and saliva testing.” The ACOG press release: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-31-05-1.cfm “There is no scientific evidence to support claims of increased efficacy or safety for individualized estrogen or progesterone regimens prepared by compounding pharmacies, according to a new Committee Opinion released today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Furthermore, hormone therapy does not belong to a class of drugs with an indication for individualized dosing.” [italics added] http://www.pharmwatch.org/strategy/bioidentical.shtml Steer Clear of "Bioidentical" Hormone Therapy |
29th November 2006, 10:37 AM | #119 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
Go ****** yourself
There, now that we've both acted like children, quoting without identifiying the source was pointed out, because this is a violation of forum rules, the ones you must agree to before posting here. And a simple "From Wikipedia:" at the beginning of the statement is all that's required, there is an edit function. But apparently taking 15 seconds to add attribution was too much. And, as an aside, Wikipedia is hardly an authorative reference source. I'm as likely to accept "some guy in a bar said" as Wikipedia. Use fact-checked references rather than Internet popularity contests and they'll be recieved better. I'[m not trying to have a real discussion. Your level of ignorance is too high to even make this possible. I have absolutely zero interest in listening to the tripe you're shilling. You do not have the background knowledge to understand your claims, the counter-arguments, or to even present the claims in a manner that does not include inherit logical contradictions. As such, you aren't worht a debate, because the claims are nonsense at face value. No "natural" treatment would produce un-natural levels of hormones, so you've shot yourself in the foot before you begin. Now, others here may be trying to have a discussion. Good for them. I am not, nor do I see anywhere that I ever implied, stated, or hinted that I was. I am here to laugh at the funny man, much as one might laugh at the poo-flinging monkeys in the zoo. I see no reason to have a "discussion" with an obviously delusional, uninformed person who is doing nothing more than spreading propoganda for an unnatural, unproven, , highly questionable, logically inconsistent, and likely dangerous medical treatment for his own profit. Have a nice day. |
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell |
|
29th November 2006, 12:05 PM | #120 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|