IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags somers , bioidenticals

Reply
Old 27th February 2007, 01:56 AM   #201
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,842
Originally Posted by Hafast View Post
Fine, I'll admit I was a little snarky on this one, and apologize. I still think that without an MD in this specialty, or controlled studies, you're walking a very thin line on credibility.



I say most likely because, as in most cases, there was no definitive cause for her cancer. I'm just going by what the oncologist said. Unfortunately, my current location prevents me from doing more extensive research.

Please, anyone on either "side", I invite you to critique what I have written, and let me know where I went wrong. I have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake. I will also admit that my post was written from an emotional standpoint. However, I still stand by my belief that you are putting the health of these women at risk.

nraden, go ahead and attack me again, I am a fairly soft target. It'll make you feel better, and keep you from answering the harder questions asked of you on this forum.

To the rest of the forum, I apologize if I've steered this discussion in the wrong direction. Again, please let me know where I've gone wrong, I'm still fairly new to this forum, and I am more than willing to learn. Thank you.
The use of "most likely" is perfectly acceptable term in science IMO. Science uses statistical analyses to give probabities of an outcome and therefore what is most likely. It's all a numbers game and it is most likely that a scientist will not give an absolute conclusion.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 02:11 AM   #202
money
Muse
 
money's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 577
Wow. It's amazing all the different dramas going on at the same time in this forum. This thread escaped me until today... good times.

Eos, katana, JJM, Ben Tillly, debv, etc., (sorry to those I missed, of course) thanks for the good posts!

nraden - thanks for the comic relief. I wish you were one of a kind...
__________________
I am the first mammal to wear pants, yeah... - "Do the Evolution" - Pearl Jam

www.stopsylvia.com

Last edited by money; 27th February 2007 at 02:12 AM. Reason: punct.
money is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 05:04 AM   #203
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 09:54 AM   #204
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
Pretty simple answer - she doesn't prescribe anything. She informs the doctors and it's between the doctors and the patients to decide.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQlF0mmAIXk
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 01:52 PM   #205
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
Originally Posted by debv View Post
The rest of the videos...

Yeesh

I like the "gall bladder attack" segment. Huh? What did you have surgery for??? Ohhh, but you said ATTACK.

Hmmm. LEVELS, must pass through the levels...

Hmm. So professional and knowledgeable





Hi money, Thank you
__________________
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!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:34 PM   #206
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by money View Post
Wow. It's amazing all the different dramas going on at the same time in this forum. This thread escaped me until today... good times.

Eos, katana, JJM, Ben Tillly, debv, etc., (sorry to those I missed, of course) thanks for the good posts!

nraden - thanks for the comic relief. I wish you were one of a kind...
Do you have something relevant to add?
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:36 PM   #207
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
The use of "most likely" is perfectly acceptable term in science IMO. Science uses statistical analyses to give probabities of an outcome and therefore what is most likely. It's all a numbers game and it is most likely that a scientist will not give an absolute conclusion.
Nonsense. "Most likely" is used when there is data behind it. In this case, it was just a tossed out "most likely." He presented no evidence.
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:39 PM   #208
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
Just wondering if in those 9000+ posts you've made, if you've added anything to the discussion or just passed judgement on other posts?
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:44 PM   #209
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Don't worry folks, a substantive defense is forthcoming... wait for it...
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:50 PM   #210
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
The "evil" in the blatantly obviously misguided product (and we've said why many many times already) is that people have already been hurt by it. Anyone who follows the misinformation will be hurt by it.

So give it up already.
I have absolutely no evidence of that. For people who castigate Wiley for not having a "gold standard" study behind the protocol, why are you so willing to accept the claims of someone about being "hurt" by the protocol? Where are the doctors? Where are the records, blood work, charts? They have never been produced. I know of at least one of those stories on debv's website that is completely fabricated.

The one person they produced for 20/20 failed the test

Wiley arranged to MD's in Santa Barbara to examione these cases, and the women too, FREE OF CHARGE, but not a single one materialized. There are hundreds (at least) of women that Wiley follows on a regualr basis and these problems have not occured. Go to the website, call a doctor listed there and ask them if their patients experienced these symtoms.

And unless you do, don't bring it up, because it's hypocritical. Quit wasting my time.
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 10:56 PM   #211
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
I know of at least one of those stories on debv's website that is completely fabricated.
Which one?
Quote:
Wiley arranged to MD's in Santa Barbara to examione these cases, and the women too, FREE OF CHARGE, but not a single one materialized.
And it was such a sincere offer, hard to imagine that nobody took it up.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 11:03 PM   #212
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
Pretty simple answer - she doesn't prescribe anything. She informs the doctors and it's between the doctors and the patients to decide.
I'd like to see you respond to the charges against this.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2007, 11:37 PM   #213
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
I have absolutely no evidence of that. For people who castigate Wiley for not having a "gold standard" study behind the protocol, why are you so willing to accept the claims of someone about being "hurt" by the protocol? Where are the doctors? Where are the records, blood work, charts? They have never been produced. I know of at least one of those stories on debv's website that is completely fabricated.

The one person they produced for 20/20 failed the test
I'll only speak for myself and say that I wouldn't "accept the claims" of anyone without evidence. You know, like claims that somehow women will live longer and healthier lives thanks to an overdose (at least compared to mainstream recommended minimum and maximum dosages) of female hormones. Trying to shift the attention away from Wiley having no proper scientific evidence to support her protocol probably isn't going to go over in this forum.
Quote:
Wiley arranged to MD's in Santa Barbara to examione these cases, and the women too, FREE OF CHARGE, but not a single one materialized. There are hundreds (at least) of women that Wiley follows on a regualr basis and these problems have not occured. Go to the website, call a doctor listed there and ask them if their patients experienced these symtoms.

And unless you do, don't bring it up, because it's hypocritical. Quit wasting my time.
So, how does this work? Anecdotal evidence works just fine when justifying Wiley's claims, but the other side has to send their medical records to Santa Barbara for review? Given this, how can you in good conscience call anyone else a hypocrite?

In addition to addressing debv's question about your claim that Wiley is not "prescribing" (despite the video evidence), I'd also ask you to address my contention that profit is the primary motive here and that Wiley is, despite your earlier contention to the contrary, providing [expensive] training to both doctors and pharmacists during the "certification" process.

In closing, I'll note that I'm not impressed by the semantical game of "recommending" as opposed to "prescribing." That's a quack's way of avoiding legal trouble and little more.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2007, 01:44 AM   #214
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by debv View Post
And it was such a sincere offer, hard to imagine that nobody took it up.
Neil Raden, 10/30/2006:
Quote:
You guys are finished, but Susie has a graceful out for you because she's worried about the women. Watch her site for details.
11/02/2006 (linked above) -- Susie is worried about... the health of the women who tried her protocol:
Quote:
ATTENTION!! Now that you've decided to spam doctors, the doctors would like you to put up or shut up...

LADIES OF RHYTHMIC LIVING!

THE DOCTORS OF THE WILEY PROTOCOL IN SANTA BARBARA ARE OFFERING YOU A FREE EVALUATION!!

If you can provide any evidence that you were actually on the real Wiley Protocol and suffered because of it, then you could be eligible. You need to provide evidence including: medical records of doctor's reports on your condition on the Wiley Protocol, test results showing "progesterone dominance (?)" or supra-physiological blood levels of progesterone (from a reputable lab) between the dates of 4/05 and 10/05, visits to emergency rooms and their diagnoses, and mental health status reports. You must provide documentation of where you purchased the alleged Wiley Protocol.

For your appointment contact: oncologist@thewileyprotocol.com
Also in the page linked:
Quote:
Doctor Formby speaks english the way he writes this e-mail, so it is impossible that he's ever written anything attributed to him on Rhythmic Living. We're standing up for you Bent, we know you didn't do it.
Odd, because just three days prior, Neil tried to leave a comment on Wiley Watch calling Dr. Bent Formby a "drunken fool". (I didn't let it through.)

Last edited by debv; 28th February 2007 at 02:06 AM. Reason: Clarification: Dr. Bent Formy
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2007, 09:36 PM   #215
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I'll only speak for myself and say that I wouldn't "accept the claims" of anyone without evidence. You know, like claims that somehow women will live longer and healthier lives thanks to an overdose (at least compared to mainstream recommended minimum and maximum dosages) of female hormones.
Do you know what the "mainstream recommended" doses are? Are you aware that most of these doses are oral? The Wiley Protocol is topical. It's what shows up in serum that counts. Can you tell me what recommended mainstream serum levels are? Besides, mainstream and BHRT don't belong in the same sentence. Mainstream is Premarin or Prometrium or nothing at all. But if you want to look at doses, try the Estrasorb patch. The recommended dose of that is very close to Wiley.

Quote:
Trying to shift the attention away from Wiley having no proper scientific evidence to support her protocol probably isn't going to go over in this forum.
You said you speaking for yourself, but now you're speaking for the forum, I guess. What does go over in this forum? Ad hominum attacks on an author whose work you've never read? Wiley has total recall of hundreds of scientific papers, including all the ones referenced in the book. The people here haven't even read the book jacket. So tell me now, who has no proper scientic evidence? You have no idea how much evidence there is.

Quote:
So, how does this work? Anecdotal evidence works just fine when justifying Wiley's claims, but the other side has to send their medical records to Santa Barbara for review? Given this, how can you in good conscience call anyone else a hypocrite?
Dr. Julie Taguchi presented a chart study of 60 patients on the Wiley Protocol for 2-3 years at ACAM a few months ago. What more evidence do you want? Debv has produced nothing. The offer to help those women was indeed sincere. It's still open.


Quote:
In addition to addressing debv's question about your claim that Wiley is not "prescribing" (despite the video evidence), I'd also ask you to address my contention that profit is the primary motive here and that Wiley is, despite your earlier contention to the contrary, providing [expensive] training to both doctors and pharmacists during the "certification" process.
1. Wiley does not train pharmacists, they train each other
2. Doctors do not need to attend Wiley's class to prescribe. They're doctors, they can do what they want. They don't even need to attend the class to appear on the website. They just have to be good doctors, as judged by their patients, which may be the most radical part of Wiley's program
3. What the hell is wrong with making a profit? I know yuour contention is that that is the ONLY motive for promoting this, but you're wrong. Besides, do you have any idea how money all of the doctors make on BHRT, and the pharmacists? Or, for that matter, supplements?

Quote:
In closing, I'll note that I'm not impressed by the semantical game of "recommending" as opposed to "prescribing." That's a quack's way of avoiding legal trouble and little more.
My suggestion is that you read the book and the studies before you call someone a quack. Maybe you're a quack, but I'd reserve judgement until I knoew more about you.
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2007, 10:12 PM   #216
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
Fact: Taking too many hormones as prescribed by an ignoramous doesn't cure anything.
Fact: Your wife has harmed people.
Fact: There is actually no reason to take too many hormones and expect anything but side effects.

I pointed out all this and WHY, wayyy in the beginning of this topic. There has only been evidence of your ignorance, and circular whining.

Why are you still here? You have nothing to post but questions in response to questions.

Quote:
The recommended dose of that is very close to Wiley.
Are you finally admitting that the hormones you guys push, in far too high doses, are NOT different than the standardized and non-overdosed hormones that are prescribed by people who are actually trained to prescribe?

It'd be about TIME.

When are you going to understand that hormones are hormones?

It doesn't matter if you get lactase from a plant or animal source, it is still just going to break down lactose molecules.

It doesn't matter where you get a hormone that does what it does in the human body. It will still do the same thing, no matter where it comes from originally.

What you blather on about is about as logical as saying water isolated from a cow is BAD for you compared to water from grass.
__________________
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!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2007, 06:16 AM   #217
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
Do you know what the "mainstream recommended" doses are? Are you aware that most of these doses are oral? The Wiley Protocol is topical. It's what shows up in serum that counts. Can you tell me what recommended mainstream serum levels are? Besides, mainstream and BHRT don't belong in the same sentence. Mainstream is Premarin or Prometrium or nothing at all. But if you want to look at doses, try the Estrasorb patch. The recommended dose of that is very close to Wiley.
Well, there are many brands and dosages of estradiol patches, none of which carry the brand name Estrasorb (which is an "estradiol topical emulsion" - you know, a cream, which is something you should know) so I'll give a couple examples - note that I'm looking at doses for "vasomotor symptoms" which in layman's parlance means "hot flashes"; doses for osteoporosis prevention vary only slightly, if at all:

1. Climara comes in a patch applied weekly, delivering 0.025 mg (note those two zeros, they appear often in estradiol dosing) daily. Not only is more than that not recommended except in cases where women have severe symptoms, but the recommendation is to reevaluate every 3-6 months and determine whether or not treatment should be continued. In other words, it's not intended to be used indefinitely.
2. Alora and Estraderm patches are applied twice weekly, delivering 0.05 mg daily. Cautions [obviously] similar to above.
3. Vivelle patch is also applied twice weekly, delivering 0.0375 mg daily.

Note: The above numbers come from my "Ready Reference Bookshelf" drug reference, by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005 edition (in my job - medical transcription - I use the web to supplement when necessary on newer drugs).

But, why don't we deal with creams?

1. We'll start with Estrasorb since you mentioned it, despite being incorrect about its delivery mechanism. Each packet of Estrasorb contains 1.74 gm of drug product, providing systemic delivery of 0.05 mg of estradiol per day. The daily recommended dosing is two packets, effectively delivering 0.1 mg of estradiol. Note that this is the maximum tested dose of the product, at least as reported by Esprit Pharma in their "prescribing information." Further, check out the precautions section of the prescribing instructions for a great deal more information on the number of complications possible, which also provides good reasons why someone without a medical degree shouldn't be making "recommendations" to patients.
2. Most other estradiol creams that I can find are intended for vaginal use, specifically for vulvar/vaginal atrophy, so I'll cover Estrace (perhaps the most common) as an example. The cream itself is the same as that described in the excerpt debv posted earlier, 0.1 mg per gram of cream. The "usual dosage" of Estrace is to apply 2-4 gm vaginally daily for one or two weeks, then reduce to half initial dosage for one or two weeks and, if necessary, a maintenance dosage of 1 gm 1-3 times per week.

There's a pattern here. The goal is to minimize the dosage of such hormones because they can be dangerous, and it doesn't matter whether they're bioidentical or not (hello, "identical"). I watched the videos debv posted and they show Wiley "recommending" dosages three or more times the above properly tested recommendations. Further, these hormones aren't intended, nor should they be used, as a "cure-all" and there's no evidence that a woman on said hormones will live longer than one who doesn't take them. In fact, considering the risks of complications, it would seem very wise to minimize a woman's reliance on them.
Quote:
You said you speaking for yourself, but now you're speaking for the forum, I guess. What does go over in this forum? Ad hominum attacks on an author whose work you've never read? Wiley has total recall of hundreds of scientific papers, including all the ones referenced in the book. The people here haven't even read the book jacket. So tell me now, who has no proper scientic evidence? You have no idea how much evidence there is.
Wiley can have total recall of all scientific papers for all that matters. She hasn't completed a BA, let alone a PhD or MD, so her medical "recommendations" are immediately suspect. Further, when I spoke "for the forum," I was referring to a desire for solid scientific evidence - I'm perfectly comfortable with my assertion given the origins of this forum and everything I've read written by the "old hands" here so far.

As for not having any "idea how much evidence there is," you can shut me up right now by providing one properly controlled, double-blinded, peer-reviewed study of the Wiley Protocol, particularly in comparison to "traditional" hormonal therapy. While I'd expect more than one (many) to be done over time, all it would take is one and I won't say another word.
Quote:
Dr. Julie Taguchi presented a chart study of 60 patients on the Wiley Protocol for 2-3 years at ACAM a few months ago. What more evidence do you want? Debv has produced nothing. The offer to help those women was indeed sincere. It's still open.
Stop pretending that anecdotal evidence is a substitute for proper testing. I'm sure acupuncturists, homeopaths, chiropractors and Healing Touch practitioners can provide 60 examples where they've accomplished a particular result. It's not proper testing, especially when dealing with pharmaceuticals. On top of that, I'd be just as critical of Dr. Taguchi herself if she was the one selling this as the "Taguchi Protocol" without proper testing.
Quote:
1. Wiley does not train pharmacists, they train each other
You mean Wiley uses a pharmacist to train other pharmacists. Who trained Mr. Nelson (the "training pharmacist" on the Wiley Protocol webpage)? And those pharmacists still have to buy "The Pharmacy version of the “Symptoms and Answers” Manual" for $325 from Wiley. While your claim may be technically true, it is, similar to your other claims, disingenuous.
Quote:
2. Doctors do not need to attend Wiley's class to prescribe. They're doctors, they can do what they want. They don't even need to attend the class to appear on the website. They just have to be good doctors, as judged by their patients, which may be the most radical part of Wiley's program
Wow, because patients couldn't decide for themselves before? Every health plan I've been involved in encouraged me to choose my own doctor from their list. And what is the nature of the patient's judgement that gets their doctor listed on the website? The doctor's willingness to prescribe an untested "protocol" for patients who may not need it? To me, that seems like criteria to eliminate listed names from a pool of "good doctors." But, that's my opinion.
Quote:
3. What the hell is wrong with making a profit? I know yuour contention is that that is the ONLY motive for promoting this, but you're wrong. Besides, do you have any idea how money all of the doctors make on BHRT, and the pharmacists? Or, for that matter, supplements?
a) I specifically stated that I don't think it's wrong to make a profit, unless one is making a profit from dishonesty, which covers quackery. Prescribing untested doses of medications for purposes other than those for which they have been tested is quackery, except in extreme cases such as in terminal cancer patients. It is, of course, also often acceptable in the actual testing process - such processes typically being approved/monitored by the FDA and conducted in a responsible manner.
b) You've made that assertion before, that doctors are raking in the bucks on prescribing non-bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. It's way past time for you to start providing evidence for this Wyeth/Premarin/doctor/pharmacist conspiracy or drop it.
Quote:
My suggestion is that you read the book and the studies before you call someone a quack. Maybe you're a quack, but I'd reserve judgement until I knoew more about you.
I've never recommended anything more toxic than aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen. I've never recommended or practiced acupuncture, psychic surgery or any other unproven or mystical pseudomedical therapy. I'd call any doctor a quack who insists on prescribing unproven treatments in any but the most extreme (particularly terminal) cases. When the "recommendations" are coming from someone who hasn't even completed an undergraduate degree, my judgement would simply be louder.

Again, I'll restate what I said above. Give proof of real testing as opposed to simply considering anyone on the "protocol" as a study participant. Short of that, it's just snake oil...dangerous snake oil.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2007, 07:42 PM   #218
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post

1. We'll start with Estrasorb since you mentioned it, despite being incorrect about its delivery mechanism. Each packet of Estrasorb contains 1.74 gm of drug product, providing systemic delivery of 0.05 mg of estradiol per day.
A daily dose of Estrasorb is 3.5gm on the skin. The baseline dose for Wiley is 8gm. It escalates rapidly for a few days around day 12, then drops back, but over a period of a month, the total APPLIED TO THE SKIN amount is 248gm or roughly 8gm per day. Keep in mind that the women on debv's list routinely use much more estradiol than this. We don't know what the delivered amount means, that is just a statistic. Women are not flat, their levels fluctuate. Wiley measures serum concentrations at the peak, Day 12, and looks for levels in the 200-400 range. That is not high for a healthy adult woman.

So Wiley is roughly twice the applied amount of Estrasorb, at the recommended level, but given the political environment around HRT, those levels are low. Wiley is not "supra-pharmalogical" as reported elsewhere and quoted here, WITHOUT FACT CHECKING.


Quote:
Further, check out the precautions section of the prescribing instructions for a great deal more information on the number of complications possible, which also provides good reasons why someone without a medical degree shouldn't be making "recommendations" to patients.
Every Wiley prescription from a registered pharmacy comes with a complete packet insert with precautions and a host of other important facts. We know of no other BHRT that does this. Once again, evidence that you condemn something you know nothing about. The packet insert can be read on the Wiley website. Why don't you have a look at it?

Quote:
.

There's a pattern here. The goal is to minimize the dosage of such hormones because they can be dangerous, and it doesn't matter whether they're bioidentical or not (hello, "identical").
Read the book and you'll understand the difference. The WP is not about relieving symptoms. Any idiot can do that, and many do.

Quote:
Further, when I spoke "for the forum," I was referring to a desire for solid scientific evidence - I'm perfectly comfortable with my assertion given the origins of this forum and everything I've read written by the "old hands" here so far.
If you haven't read her book, you're just full of it. You don't know if there is evidence or not, you just don't want to find any because you've already made up your mind. As far as I'm concerned, that makes YOU the quack.

Quote:
As for not having any "idea how much evidence there is," you can shut me up right now by providing one properly controlled, double-blinded, peer-reviewed study of the Wiley Protocol, particularly in comparison to "traditional" hormonal therapy. While I'd expect more than one (many) to be done over time, all it would take is one and I won't say another word.
That's the problem, it takes a lot of time and money to do that. First you have to have a product to test, and its taken Wiley years to get to the point that she has a standard product and process. Then there is fund raising. A full blown study of the kind you suggest cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a decade or more. You heard me right. But it's starting with two small studies that are going through IRB this month. If your desire for these studies is authentic, let me know. I'll put you in touch with the fund-raisers

Quote:
You mean Wiley uses a pharmacist to train other pharmacists. Who trained Mr. Nelson (the "training pharmacist" on the Wiley Protocol webpage)? And those pharmacists still have to buy "The Pharmacy version of the “Symptoms and Answers” Manual" for $325 from Wiley. While your claim may be technically true, it is, similar to your other claims, disingenuous.
What are you. a trust fund kid? If you have a problem with Wiley's company charging $325 for a manual that is produced for a limited audience, you're just out of touch. You're really fishing here, and it just idiotic.

Quote:
. I'd call any doctor a quack who insists on prescribing unproven treatments in any but the most extreme (particularly terminal) cases. .
I'd call anyone who tries refute someone without even reading their material a quack. I know I haven't responded to everything in this note, but I will if you come back and tell me you read the book.
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2007, 08:05 PM   #219
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
I see. You're just hanging around for the last word. That's another thread though.
__________________
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!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2007, 09:41 PM   #220
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
Keep in mind that the women on debv's list...
Not that it matters, but I don't have a list. I don't run Rhythmic Living. I do refer Wiley victims there for their accumulated experience recovering from the protocol, but I don't represent any alternatives.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2007, 10:46 PM   #221
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
I see. You're just hanging around for the last word. That's another thread though.
Aren't you embarrassed to just be a Greek chourus around here? Why don't you go dig out the Augean Stable for a while if you don't have anything relevant to add?
nraden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2007, 07:45 PM   #222
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,749
You need me to add more relevance? The threads and information at the beginning weren't enough?

What about you? same old nonsensical circular whining with absolutely no answers to questions posted over and over again.

It's yourself and Wiley that should be embarrassed.
__________________
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!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2007, 01:11 AM   #223
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Wiley's Wikipedia Page

Our compatriot, nraden, created a Wikipedia page for T.S. Wiley a while back. Sometimes he makes contributions as Wikipedian Nraden (though he hasn't so far declared his affiliation with T.S. Wiley -- namely, that he is her husband) and sometimes anonymously as 72.205.193.253 (evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2133249#post2133249) -- though to be fair, those contributions could conceivably have come from anyone in the Wiley household.

He seems to want to suppress certain information, like the fact that his wife has been claiming a B.A. in anthropology, even though she never got a college degree.

I've contributed some details that never came up in this thread, including what Wiley actually claims in her book, Sex, Lies, and Menopause.

Just thought you might want to know.

Last edited by debv; 20th April 2007 at 01:16 AM. Reason: Fixed link
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2007, 11:14 PM   #224
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Last Thursday, T.S. Wiley appeared as a witness before the Senate Special Committee on Aging for their hearing, Bioidentical Hormones: Sound Science or Bad Medicine?

Video

Her testimony begins at about 1:19:48. Given what has come up in this thread, you might find particularly curious her statement at 1:38:33: "I don't ever involve myself with individual patient response. That belongs to their doctor." There is also her assertion that the only adverse events reported from the Wiley Protocol have been just two blood clots.

And one might wonder what progesterone treatment of people with head trauma has to do with treatment of climacteric symptoms.

See also: http://wileywatch.org/letter_to_senator_smith.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2007, 03:28 AM   #225
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
Originally Posted by debv View Post
Last Thursday, T.S. Wiley appeared as a witness before the Senate Special Committee on Aging for their hearing, Bioidentical Hormones: Sound Science or Bad Medicine?

Video

Her testimony begins at about 1:19:48. Given what has come up in this thread, you might find particularly curious her statement at 1:38:33: "I don't ever involve myself with individual patient response. That belongs to their doctor." There is also her assertion that the only adverse events reported from the Wiley Protocol have been just two blood clots.

And one might wonder what progesterone treatment of people with head trauma has to do with treatment of climacteric symptoms.

See also: http://wileywatch.org/letter_to_senator_smith.
Actually, what I'm really wondering is why she was allowed to speak at a Senate hearing. Why was she even given an audience?

Unbelievable.

ETA: I hope that the message in that letter gets through to the good Senator Smith.

Last edited by Katana; 23rd April 2007 at 03:32 AM.
Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2007, 01:27 PM   #226
osmosis
Critical Thinker
 
osmosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
True, I did not use people from the natural sciences, but I could always mention Charles Darwin and Rachel Carson, who come to mind.
Your wife may be a lot of things, but she's no Charles Darwin.
__________________
"Democracy is the worst form of government.. except for all the others"

-- Winston Churchill
osmosis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2007, 04:08 PM   #227
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Also, recall what nraden wrote on November 28:

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.
Present tense, "is conducting". But, pressed, he positively refused to provide any details that could be used to verify this -- and just to spite me, ostensively -- beyond that it's the University of Texas.

T.S. Wiley's testimony, April 19:
Quote:
We are also waiting for our “study number” from the University of Texas at Tyler’s Nursing School’s IRB Committee.... The proposed study is a longitudinal, observational study measuring many of the parameters of the WHI in women currently using the Wiley Protocol.

Last edited by debv; 23rd April 2007 at 04:11 PM.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 12:16 AM   #228
osmosis
Critical Thinker
 
osmosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Am I the only one here who thinks Ms. Wiley should be thrown in jail?

OK, that was a rhetorical question.
__________________
"Democracy is the worst form of government.. except for all the others"

-- Winston Churchill
osmosis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 04:42 AM   #229
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
Originally Posted by osmosis View Post
Am I the only one here who thinks Ms. Wiley should be thrown in jail?

OK, that was a rhetorical question.

Well, it has crossed MY mind that what she is doing is a criminal act. She is knowingly providing women with what I believe to be harmful, if not potentially life-threatening, compounds. She is deliberately providing them with inaccurate information, is deceiving them about her credentials, and is making a profit in the process. The first woman who got a blood clot should have sued the pants off this [rule 8].

It just bothers me to no end that the FDA permits this kind of practice, and I feel the same way about the way that it turns a blind eye to the supplement/herbal remedy industry. Why did it take people dying from taking ephedra for them to step in? Why is our friggin' Senate listening to this fear-mongering fraud committing what amounts to, in my humble opinion, medical malpractice?

Oh, that's right. It's our stupid government.



OK. End of rant (for now ).
Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 05:44 AM   #230
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by Katana View Post
It just bothers me to no end that the FDA permits this kind of practice, and I feel the same way about the way that it turns a blind eye to the supplement/herbal remedy industry. Why did it take people dying from taking ephedra for them to step in? Why is our friggin' Senate listening to this fear-mongering fraud committing what amounts to, in my humble opinion, medical malpractice?

Oh, that's right. It's our stupid government.
As for why the FDA waited, I think the record shows that state and federal health offices tried to ban ephedra and they were blocked by courts and, eventually, the US Congress. See Dan Hurley's book Natural Causes.
JJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 05:58 AM   #231
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
As for why the FDA waited, I think the record shows that state and federal health offices tried to ban ephedra and they were blocked by courts and, eventually, the US Congress. See Dan Hurley's book Natural Causes.

Oh, I know that the issue is more complicated than I probably realize, but I thought that there was almost a decade of reported adverse events that accumulated before the FDA became involved. However, I do need to read that book.
Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 09:44 AM   #232
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Last night T.S. Wiley issued an e-mail responding to the letter to Senator Smith. And I responded to T.S. Wiley.

http://wileywatch.org/t_s_wiley_responds

I hope that answers your question, osmosis.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 10:19 AM   #233
bluess
Illuminator
 
bluess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,431
debv, hurrah for keeping on this.
__________________
'Lord Emsworth, that amiable but bone-headed peer, stood at the window drooping like a wet sock.'
-PG Wodehouse, The Crime Wave at Blandings
bluess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 05:06 PM   #234
Ysidro
I'm watching you
 
Ysidro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,320
Originally Posted by Katana View Post
Well, it has crossed MY mind that what she is doing is a criminal act. She is knowingly providing women with what I believe to be harmful, if not potentially life-threatening, compounds. She is deliberately providing them with inaccurate information, is deceiving them about her credentials, and is making a profit in the process. The first woman who got a blood clot should have sued the pants off this [rule 8].

It just bothers me to no end that the FDA permits this kind of practice, and I feel the same way about the way that it turns a blind eye to the supplement/herbal remedy industry. Why did it take people dying from taking ephedra for them to step in? Why is our friggin' Senate listening to this fear-mongering fraud committing what amounts to, in my humble opinion, medical malpractice?

Oh, that's right. It's our stupid government.



OK. End of rant (for now ).
No, please. Rant some more. Some of us like that sort of thing.
Ysidro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 05:08 PM   #235
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
Originally Posted by Ysidro View Post
No, please. Rant some more. Some of us like that sort of thing.



Really? Do you mean it?

I love this forum.

Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 09:54 PM   #236
osmosis
Critical Thinker
 
osmosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by Katana View Post
Well, it has crossed MY mind that what she is doing is a criminal act. She is knowingly providing women with what I believe to be harmful, if not potentially life-threatening, compounds. She is deliberately providing them with inaccurate information, is deceiving them about her credentials, and is making a profit in the process. The first woman who got a blood clot should have sued the pants off this [rule 8].
She also flat-out lied at the senate hearing when she claimed she's never dealt with her patients individually.
__________________
"Democracy is the worst form of government.. except for all the others"

-- Winston Churchill
osmosis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2007, 11:42 PM   #237
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
I neglected to point out that the study mentioned by nraden on November 28, the (proposed) trial that "has no connection to Wiley at all," is to be headed up by Julie Taguchi, MD, a long-time pillar of T.S. Wiley's Oz-like credibility.

I know it must seem like I never get tired of pointing out Neil Raden's lies, but it seems he never gets tired of accommodating me.

Last edited by debv; 24th April 2007 at 11:52 PM.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2007, 12:13 AM   #238
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Oh and thank you bluess.
debv is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2007, 04:54 AM   #239
Ysidro
I'm watching you
 
Ysidro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,320
Originally Posted by Katana View Post


Really? Do you mean it?

I love this forum.

I never lie.

OK, I rarely lie.

OK, I only occasionally lie.

But that wasn't a lie. Ranting is the only thing making this thread worthwhile. Especially when done by the ever popular Katana.

If I'm dirty enough, can I call you Miss Katana?
Ysidro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2007, 05:01 AM   #240
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
Originally Posted by Ysidro View Post
I never lie.

OK, I rarely lie.

OK, I only occasionally lie.

But that wasn't a lie. Ranting is the only thing making this thread worthwhile. Especially when done by the ever popular Katana.

If I'm dirty enough, can I call you Miss Katana?



Well, I suppose that remains to be seen. That's a big "if".
Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.