Forum menu
Oh yes, the GMC love Dr M! Actually they hate anyone who thinks outside the box hence her being hauled up so many times.
Personally I'm very happy with them to be hard on practitioners "thinking outside the box", that's what properly trained medical researchers are for.
mogrim - Member
Oh yes, the GMC love Dr M! Actually they hate anyone who thinks outside the box hence her being hauled up so many times.
Personally I'm very happy with them to be hard on practitioners "thinking outside the box", that's what properly trained medical researchers are for.POSTED 29 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Pretty much my thinking as well.
Actually they hate anyone who thinks outside the box
In this context, thinking outside the box is just speculation without sufficient evidence.
And as above - everyone has to be hard on everyone else in the scientific world, especially where health and lives are at stake. That's how we get good science.
The infographic geoffj posted has been updated: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-supplements/
On that link you can select only vitamins. You'll then notice that some vitamins appear on it more than once, some above and below the 'worth it' line. Then you'll discover that they are rated worth it or not in relation to specific things like cancer or immune system, based on specific studies.
So they are saying that no, niacin does not help with heart disease. But the 'not worth it' rating then only applies to those seeking to take it to help with heart disease. If you are deficient in it, then it surely is worth it. Same goes for any of the vitamins.
The problem with rating something generically using studies is that studies address a very specific question like 'does this affect X' rather than 'is this generally good for you' or 'should I take this?'
I started taking Vit D about a month ago.Within a few days I began to get minor sharp pains firing off in random parts of my body. Not massively painful, more like very localised cramp. I didn't connect it with the Vit D and actually went to the doc who said it was due to stress. I began to wonder about the Vit D and stopped taking it. The pains disappeared after a couple of days. Possibly coincidence of course.
Was it D3? How many iu? Are you usually sensitive to medication?
CG they were Sainsbo's one-a-day D3 tablets. 25 ug. I don't think I'm sensitive to anything at all 😐
jambalaya - Member
Balaned diet and sunshine ! Vit D quite commonly prescribed ime in France
for where the sun don't shine i guess? are the french still over enthusiastic about suppositories?
youngest takes steroids - supposed just to replace natural production but doesn't quite balance and is a bit immune suppressed - blood tests often show low vit D
Personally I'm very happy with them to be hard on practitioners "thinking outside the box", that's what properly trained medical researchers are for.
Dr M is a leading authority on CFS/ME and has authored research papers, written books etc. From what I understand there is little in the way of 'conventional' help available if you're unfortunate enough to have one of these conditions. I know there are some on here who have/had these conditions so would be useful if they're able to comment.
I would also say that 'evidence-based medicine' can be thoroughly misleading in that research papers can be ignored by those who wish to maintain the status quo. This happens in the thyroid world where egos and a refusal to shift position are more important than patients' health. I'll stop there!
And as above - everyone has to be hard on everyone else in the scientific world, especially where health and lives are at stake. That's how we get good science.
I disagree molgrips, sorry. It's all about money, Pharma only fund research where they know that the findings will fit their agenda.
Currently reading this by Professor Peter Gotzsche, a terrifying but essential read:
CG they were Sainsbo's one-a-day D3 tablets. 25 ug. I don't think I'm sensitive to anything at all
Could be worth trying another make? Do you know your level? Perhaps if you're taking other medication there was a reaction.
Cinnamon girl- what do you mean by "Pharma only fund research where they know that the findings will fit their agenda."?
CG:
Pharma only fund research where they know that the findings will fit their agenda.
This is bolleaux. Pharmas fund research where they think that there is a need for an improved treatment, where they consider they cn provide that, and where they can make some money. It doesn't always work. Big pharma companies have spent billions on looking for Alzheimer treatments, so far without success. Merck stopped a Ph III trial on verubecestat only last week - that trial was running since 2012, and earlier development work for about 5 years before that.
I was recommended to take Vit D by my cancer consultant after prostate C treatment. He said that the evidence wasn't in his eyes, conclusive, but that it was sufficient for him to believe that his patients may benefit from it. So I've taken it through the winter for the past 4 or so years. Still no proof of anything, but no detected ill effects either, and still cancer free.
Have Big Pharma started researching antibiotics again, now that resistance is spreading against nearly all of the current range?
SOG, some have, yes. There are also several biotechs working on new antibiotics including RedX in Alderley, and university groups funded by industry.
The financial problem is that any new antibiotics will be the treatment of last resort (to stop resistance developing to the new drug), so sales will be very low which makes this an unattractive area to work in.
The FDA is considering incentives to get more companies interested in the area.
Yes they have, slowoldgit. I have been working on a couple in clinical development.
The problem is that new antibiotics against resistant organisms are kept for limited use to minimise development of resistance. Limited use means that they don't earn much money for the company that's spent tens of millions developing them.
Thanks, both. There was an article in New Scientist two or three weeks ago about Pharma companies giving up on Alzheimer's research, as you said above. I've seen comments about bacteria being found in the plaques of AD, not sure if it's proper peer-reviewed sourced, one would hope Pharma have seen the same.
I wish they could develop a good antidepressant, but that area is really tricky to study 🙁
are the french still over enthusiastic about suppositories?
There's nothing "over enthusiastic" about it, it's just that Brits have hang-ups about their arseholes, along with a few other things.
Suppositories can make perfect sense - fast direct absorption into the blood stream without causing an upset tummy.
It's certainly a very sensible way to take Voltaren, for example.
ernie, diclofenac (voltaren) can still irritate your stomach indirectly irrespective of being a suppository.
Voltaren suppositories can help massively. But I know that even the gel over a period of time can irritate the stomach.
It's all about money, Pharma only fund research where they know that the findings will fit their agenda.Currently reading this by Professor Peter Gotzsche, a terrifying but essential read:
You are right that with big pharma "It's all about money." But...
It's important to recognize though that Gotzsche has not just written about the corrupt pharma industry but orthodox medicine in general (with their various NON-drug interventions and treatments).
As an example, Gotzsche has been a very prolific opponent of mammography. Besides the book "[url= http://www.supplements-and-health.com/mammograms.html ]The Mammogram Myth[/url]" by Rolf Hefti, Gotzsche's book "[url= http://amzn.to/2llhUh4 ]Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy[/url]" are the only two really extensive, independent works on the deep fraud of mammography.
As such Gotzsche really exposes the business of conventional allopathic medicine and the medical establishment as highly criminal.
benzskit- what do you mean with "allopathy"? The opposite of homeopathy? Is homeopathy your alternative to conventional medicine?
benzskit- what do you mean with "allopathy"? The opposite of homeopathy? Is homeopathy your alternative to conventional medicine?
Sounds more like you're TRYING to pin me down on the idea that allopathy=the opposite of homeopathy rather than you trying to truly wanting to know the truth.
Because anyone can easily search for what "allopathy" is. And anyone who looks more closely will recognize that it is a misleading fact distortion to call allopathy "the opposite of homeopathy."
Your SEEMINGLY innocent sort of questions, or rather suggestive innuendoes, are typically used by dishonest members of the medical allopathy or their equally dishonest apologists to mitigate the public's awareness of the medical holocaust the allopathy business engages in year after year. Meaning criminal minds employ such bogus.
The psychology of propaganda recognizes these types of deceptive tactis as resorting to "damage control"...
Interesting 1st/2nd posts there benzskit. Welcome to the forum. What and where do you ride?
benzskit- you made a controversial post criticising conventional medicine and using the term "allopathy", which is not particularly an everyday word. I asked because I'm aware that some people use it to mean the opposite of homeopathy but other people have a different definition but I don't know what it is.
So don't come barging in here with challenging comments and then getting aggressive when you get asked a simple question.
In fact, having given it a little more thought, you are a very presumptuous person, benzskit!
I am generally in favour of conventional medicine, but there are aspects of it that I disagree with. Although they have their place, I think that pain medications and antidepressants are over-used, for example, with people then developing opioid addiction, or being left for decades on antidepressants, and some people with cardiovascular disease could ditch their drugs if they were to manage their condition through diet and exercise.