Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Yeah yeah yeah. We all know that drug companiues are purely altruistic and
> only have the very best interest of mankind at heart. Always been that way,
> too. Now have a cookie and some milk and go hug your mommy.
>
> Paul
>
>

The point being missed is that most "antacids", whether over the counter
or prescription, are taken for heartburn, not ulcers. And without losing
that rubbertire and giving up coffee, chocolate, booze, and (in my case)
bananas, people take these for a long time. There are also people with
gastritis who don't get a frank ulcer, but whose life is much better
with chronic reduction of acidity in the stomach. Ditto people whose
reflux gets into their trachea and gives them a chronic cough or
hoarseness. Gastric ulcers are a small part of the PPI or H2-blocker market.
And, lest it is forgotten, duodenal ulcers are a different creature than
gastric ulcers.
blacksalt
who is old enough to remember all those ulcer-reducing surgeries now
largely obsolete, and who is quite sure if a drug company had figured
out a way to horn in on getting the money instead of surgeons, no way
would they have held back.

Boron Elgar wrote:

> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>
> I dun thin so, Lucy.
>
> But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.
>
> Boron

I agree.. but recalling that Paul would vote for a ban to breastfeeding
on airplanes if he had his way. LOL
Goomba

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:52:31 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>>
>> I dun thin so, Lucy.
>>
>> But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.
>>
>> Boron
>
>I agree.. but recalling that Paul would vote for a ban to breastfeeding
>on airplanes if he had his way. LOL
>Goomba


I'd look damn funny breastfeeding my twins on a plane. Of course, I
did it quite regularly 17-18 years ago! That was FUN!

Boron

On 2005-10-25, Nancy Young > wrote:

> Gimme a break, think of *any* possible side effect, it was on
> there. Anyway, it was easier to see online, look up your drug
> and it's side effects.
>
> Just a little advice for next time.


I was put on a high blood pressure beta-blocker. The doc over
subscribed and my heart would go into almost arrest because the dose
was too high. I reduced my own dosage by half and stopped the near
heart attack episodes I was experiencing just sitting on my couch.
After going through a half dozen doctors I ran into the original who
over prescribed in the first place and explained what happened. He
goes, "hmmmm", and prescribes a new supplemental drug to the original
beta-blocker. Amazingly it works. My blood pressure drops like a
rock. 3 mos later on a follow up visit, he asks me if I am
experiencing any unusual coughing. Well, Hell yes I am!! Not a real
hassle, but I thought I had a minor throat irratation that would
eventually go away. NO! ...it's a side effect to the beta-blocker
supplement and neither my doc nor the pharmacist ever said a damn
thing!

So, here's my advice. Grab your doctor by the nuts and squeeze 'em
till he coughs up with the REAL side effects! Then, grab a cane from
your pharmacy's gimp rack and threaten the drug doc with a broken
femur unless he 'splains every long-term effect and contraindication.
Then, cuz they're in it together, look on the web at a buncha fag
natural food wholistic supplement scammers who will be more than
happy to tell you all the bad things about your drug. They'll all
lie like rugs, but it'll give you a good cross section. Then make
your own decision and drink two martinis.

nb

On 2005-10-26, notbob > wrote:

> subscribed....

Oops ...prescribed

nb

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:41:39 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:03:59 GMT, Stark > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >, Nancy Young
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Good for you. I think they get sucked into the 'give them a pill'
> >> >> routine, or maybe patients are 'what pill will fix it' ... who
knows.
> >> >> Next thing you know (just from my observation) you're on the
> >> >> doctor visit/more pills for every little thing/side effect roller
> >coaster.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, I'm a little extreme in my fear of medical types and I
have
> >> >> to say, it's not really all that misplaced in my experience, but if
> >people
> >> >> do need stuff, of course they should take it. I'm just talking
about
> >> >> the quick, okay, you're going to be on this lifetime drug. Woah,
> >> >> back up there, partner.
> >> >>
> >> >> nancy
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Ulcer medication used to be a "lifetime" drug, until their patents ran
> >> >out. Then the medical industry "recognized" a thirty-year-old study
> >> >which proved ulcers were a viral infection and could usually be cured
> >> >in one month using antibiotics and one of those "lifetime" drugs.
> >>
> >> If you are going to complain about the medical profession, I recommend
> >> you have your facts straight. Certain ulcers are caused by bacteria
> >> called heliobacter pylori. The definitive work was done in 1982, by J.
> >> Robin Warren and Barry Marshall. Had the cause and effect been known
> >> 30 years before that, I rather doubt the state of antibiotics in the
> >> early 50s would have made much of a difference in treatment.
> >
> >
> >The treatment involves bismuth and tetracycline. Both very common
> >medications and have been around for decades. So yes, probably even in
the
> >60s ulcers could have been cured with available technology.
>
> The sentence" a thirty-year-old study which proved ulcers were a viral
> infection ..." Was quoted. Since the "proof" came in 1982, a study 30
> years earlier would have been 1952. The patent for tetracycline was
> issued in 1955.
>
> Treatment is complicated, even today. You may refer to the link below
> to see more than my quote:
>
> 'H. pylori peptic ulcers are treated with drugs that kill the
> bacteria, reduce stomach acid, and protect the stomach lining.
> Antibiotics are used to kill the bacteria. Two types of
> acid-suppressing drugs might be used: H2 blockers and proton pump
> inhibitors.'
>
> http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddise...ubs/hpylori/#8
>
>
> >And the whole reason it took so long for this to become a common
treatment
> >is that the drug companies were very effective in suppressing any
research
> >that would have led to treatments not involving their very expensive
> >medications. It is not a coincidence that ulcer cures were finally
approved
> >in this country when patents for ulcer drugs like Zantac ran out and the
> >meds were sold over the counter.
>
> Bullshit. Provide citations or zip it. Ranitidine was still in patent
> when antibiotics were being used for certain ulcers.

Citations? Look around. The whole ulcer therapy story has been around for
quote some time and it exemplifies the profit motives of todays' "health"
care system.

> >Cures are not nearly so profitable as the disease. Keep the patient sick
by
> >only treating symptoms and you have a customer for life. That is the way
it
> >works in this country and many others. Not to digress too far but this
is
> >also why marijuana is a long way from being legally prescribed despite it
> >having proven and valuable therapuetic properties. It's just too cheap
to
> >make, it's just a simple plant and you can't patent it.
>
> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?

Yes. The drug companies call the shots. The AMA is deeply tied to the drug
companies. All a statement of fact and for somebody to not know it is a
sign that they simply don't know very much. It's all about money.

> I dun thin so, Lucy.

Think what you want to but it changes nothing.

> But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.

Yeah yeah yeah. We all know that drug companiues are purely altruistic and
only have the very best interest of mankind at heart. Always been that way,
too. Now have a cookie and some milk and go hug your mommy.

Paul

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
...
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> > Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> > researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> > cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
> >
> > I dun thin so, Lucy.
> >
> > But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.
> >
> > Boron
>
> I agree.. but recalling that Paul would vote for a ban to breastfeeding
> on airplanes if he had his way. LOL

In fact I'd ban all children unless drugged into unconsciousness, too.

Paul

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:04:27 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>

>>
>> Bullshit. Provide citations or zip it. Ranitidine was still in patent
>> when antibiotics were being used for certain ulcers.
>
>Citations? Look around. The whole ulcer therapy story has been around for
>quote some time and it exemplifies the profit motives of todays' "health"
>care system.

What "ulcer therapy story"? Can to offer a few facts or are you too
busy slinging bullshit?
>

>> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>
>Yes. The drug companies call the shots. The AMA is deeply tied to the drug
>companies. All a statement of fact and for somebody to not know it is a
>sign that they simply don't know very much. It's all about money.

You're a flaming idiot.
>
>> I dun thin so, Lucy.
>
>Think what you want to but it changes nothing.

I am not really worried about changing the mind of a conspiracy
theorist who despises children. You're now at the top of TWO of my
shit lists.
>
>> But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.
>
>Yeah yeah yeah. We all know that drug companiues are purely altruistic and
>only have the very best interest of mankind at heart. Always been that way,
>too. Now have a cookie and some milk and go hug your mommy.

And you lie.

Now go have some hemlock and go **** yourself.

boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:04:27 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
> >> Bullshit. Provide citations or zip it. Ranitidine was still in patent
> >> when antibiotics were being used for certain ulcers.
> >
> >Citations? Look around. The whole ulcer therapy story has been around
for
> >quote some time and it exemplifies the profit motives of todays' "health"
> >care system.
>
> What "ulcer therapy story"? Can to offer a few facts or are you too
> busy slinging bullshit?

I first read of ulcer cures being perfomed in Australia when I was a senior
in college in 1984. So there is nothing new about it. The doctor
interviewed expressed frustration that the AMA would not so much as even
begin clinical testing of his procedure. The AMA finally relinquished
around 1992 if I recall my timeframe properly. But even then they only
allowed extremely limited testing of what they called a "purely anecdotal
connection." They claimed it was to safeguard public health. Bismuth and
tetracycline? Public health? Palease!!!!!

>
> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
> >
> >Yes. The drug companies call the shots. The AMA is deeply tied to the
drug
> >companies. All a statement of fact and for somebody to not know it is a
> >sign that they simply don't know very much. It's all about money.
>
> You're a flaming idiot.

No I rather think you are pr at very least hopelessly naive. Examples
abound of drug company collusions with researchers and the AMA. They are
quite commonplace.


> >> I dun thin so, Lucy.
> >
> >Think what you want to but it changes nothing.
>
> I am not really worried about changing the mind of a conspiracy
> theorist who despises children. You're now at the top of TWO of my
> shit lists.

It's always a CT theory isn't it? I'd call it good old fashioned
capitalism. We're dealing with huindr4eds of billions of dollars per year
here. The greed is systemic.

And as for your shit list, yawn.

> >> But have yourself a jolly ride in a black helicopter.
> >
> >Yeah yeah yeah. We all know that drug companiues are purely altruistic
and
> >only have the very best interest of mankind at heart. Always been that
way,
> >too. Now have a cookie and some milk and go hug your mommy.
>
> And you lie.

No I don't. You are ignorant and cannot accept your own limitations so you
brand everything contrary to be a CT theory. Very common and typical ploy
of an ignorant ass with their back up against a wall and no way to prove
*their* theory.

> Now go have some hemlock and go **** yourself.

I'll have some spiced tea instead and I have a date on Friday so I'll pass
on the latter.

Paul

"kalanamak" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > Yeah yeah yeah. We all know that drug companiues are purely altruistic
and
> > only have the very best interest of mankind at heart. Always been that
way,
> > too. Now have a cookie and some milk and go hug your mommy.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
> The point being missed is that most "antacids", whether over the counter
> or prescription, are taken for heartburn, not ulcers. And without losing
> that rubbertire and giving up coffee, chocolate, booze, and (in my case)
> bananas, people take these for a long time. There are also people with
> gastritis who don't get a frank ulcer, but whose life is much better
> with chronic reduction of acidity in the stomach. Ditto people whose
> reflux gets into their trachea and gives them a chronic cough or
> hoarseness. Gastric ulcers are a small part of the PPI or H2-blocker
market.
> And, lest it is forgotten, duodenal ulcers are a different creature than
> gastric ulcers.
> blacksalt
> who is old enough to remember all those ulcer-reducing surgeries now
> largely obsolete, and who is quite sure if a drug company had figured
> out a way to horn in on getting the money instead of surgeons, no way
> would they have held back.


One, surgery like that nets the doctor perhaps a few grand. Now 30-40 years
on a prescription med can get you upwards of a quarter million or even more.
Do the math.

Doctors cannot just do anything they want to whenever they want to. They
have extremely limited guidelines set up by the AMA which is also very
closely associated with the drug companies. The latter 2 tell doctors what
they can or cannot do. Any doctor who goes against this risks losing their
license to practice.

Seems pretty obvious who benefits from a one-time cure versus lifetime
alleviation of symptoms. It's all about money and in this case billions and
billions and billions of it.

Paul

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote in
> :
>
> > I take this stuff, and I just get sicker and sicker.
>
> Strange, I was on Zocor for three months after the cardiac event and I
> had no side effects. However, the GP assigned to follow my case for


I Emailed my doc to say I was stopping it. He replied, saying that I
should stop, but start again once I'm feeling better. He said that
there is a nasty stomach virus hitting a lot of people, and perhaps that
was the problem. I think he's right since I haven't taken the Zocor for
two days and I still feel pretty bad.

ObFood: My wife made cinnamon rolls this morning. She is making scones
for tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, since I'm on the left coast and
she is on the wrong coast ( oops, right coast), I'm not getting any. Of
course, I'm also not getting any, but when you're sick, you aren't all
that interested anyway.

:-)

The place she is staying is all vegetarian. It sounds really, really
good , though, even though we aren't vegetarian. She said that you can
ask for Extra Protein, but she didn't think that she would. I think
that she is going to have a major meat craving by this weekend, though.


http://www.rowecenter.org/

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

> wrote in message
...
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> snip
> >So he goes over the other stuff and it's OK. But then he hits the
> >cholesterol. Now, it's a little high, but I though it was OK based on
> >what They wanted a year ago. No, they changed the goals. As a
> >diabetic, They now want the LDL below 70. Excuse me? At this rate,
> >it's going to be a goal of "negative" in a few years.
> >
> Mmmmm, let see if we can figure this out. Seven of the nine on the
> FDA advisory group that recommend the lower figure were connected to
> the drug industry. Those lower figures were discounted by the medical
> industry right after the truth came out. Tell your doctor to get with
> the truth.


Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!

Shame on you. To even imply the drug industry put profits above people is
shameless and unamerican. You rat-commie *******!

Paul

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puester" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> > The problem isn't so much with the doctor, it's with getting old.
> >> I don't advise it.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, but it sure beats the alternative!
> >
> > If I don't wake up with joint pain, I have to pinch
> > myself hard to make sure I'm alive.
> >
> > FWIW, I have taken Zocor in the past and now Lipitor
> > without side effects that I'm aware of. My diuretic
> > did give me gout but, hey, there's a pill for that, too....
> >
> > :-(
> > gloria p
>
> Ya me too gout that is - In order, the things that aggravate the uric acid
build
> up (AKA The Gout)
>
> Alcohol
> Coffee
> Not enough water
> Diet. (shellfish etc)

Don't forget tomatoes. I gave myself a bad case of gout 3 years ago while
feasting on a glut of really good tomatoes.

Paul

In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:



> What lifetime drugs were prescribed for ulcers before then? The
> general treatment was palliative, along with diet and lifestyle
> changes.
>
Tagamet and Zantac.

In article <lsC7f.7331$tl5.2728@trnddc02>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:


> One, surgery like that nets the doctor perhaps a few grand. Now 30-40 years
> on a prescription med can get you upwards of a quarter million or even more.
> Do the math.


I was an accounting student. I never became an accountant, though (I
just retired from 25 years as a computer person). One of my accounting
teachers always lectured:

"Follow the money".

Don't just count it, trace it. Where did it come from and most
importantly, where is it going?

The doctor who intially recommends surgery doesn't get paid anything.
It's the doctor who does the surgery who gets some money. Neither
doctor gets paid directly for prescribing medicine.


> Doctors cannot just do anything they want to whenever they want to. They
> have extremely limited guidelines set up by the AMA which is also very
> closely associated with the drug companies. The latter 2 tell doctors what
> they can or cannot do. Any doctor who goes against this risks losing their
> license to practice.


I think that there's a lot of room for debate as to just how close
things are, and how much power any group has.


> Seems pretty obvious who benefits from a one-time cure versus lifetime
> alleviation of symptoms. It's all about money and in this case billions and
> billions and billions of it.


It's all about money. That's the American Way (and the "A" in AMA
stands for American). Our friends in Canada, some of whom are reading
this thread, do things differently. Prescription drugs in Canada, from
what I understand, are much different.

And of course, there's even people who live in other countries besides
the US and Canada.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:


> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>
Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
wing nut; just need to indict 'em.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:

>In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>
>> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>>
>Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
>course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
>wing nut; just need to indict 'em.


You have definitive proof? Let's see it.

I have provided facts, not tin-foil hat ravings. If you have facts to
back up your claims, then present them. Until then, you offer
unsubstantiated nonsense.

Boron

There's that GOUT thing again.

Is it common to guys in RFC ?
I've also experienced the "roofing nail in the foot".

I have a list of forbidden foods; turkey, sausage, beans etc.
Mr Gout only visits after a "stack-up"
ie; Bean soup, sausage next day, leftover bean soup,
turkey sammich next day, GOUT !

And just when nutritionists are saying;
"Eat more beans... eat more turkey !"



On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:47:08 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"Dimitri" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Puester" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Dan Abel wrote:
>> > The problem isn't so much with the doctor, it's with getting old.
>> >> I don't advise it.
>> >>
>> >> :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, but it sure beats the alternative!
>> >
>> > If I don't wake up with joint pain, I have to pinch
>> > myself hard to make sure I'm alive.
>> >
>> > FWIW, I have taken Zocor in the past and now Lipitor
>> > without side effects that I'm aware of. My diuretic
>> > did give me gout but, hey, there's a pill for that, too....
>> >
>> > :-(
>> > gloria p
>>
>> Ya me too gout that is - In order, the things that aggravate the uric acid
>build
>> up (AKA The Gout)
>>
>> Alcohol
>> Coffee
>> Not enough water
>> Diet. (shellfish etc)
>
>Don't forget tomatoes. I gave myself a bad case of gout 3 years ago while
>feasting on a glut of really good tomatoes.
>
>Paul
>

<rj>

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark wrote:

>In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>
>> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>>
>Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
>course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
>wing nut; just need to indict 'em.

The problem of all conspiracies is that some one on the inside all
ways talks. And I think that if this conspiracy has been going on
since the 50s ( per your statements), there should have been a whistle
blower by now.

Now if you were to state that you were the man on the grassy knoll,
you might add some weight to your arguments.

Pan Ohco

> And of course, there's even people who live in other countries besides
> the US and Canada.


Got any cites to support that allegation?

Paul

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
> >>
> >Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
> >course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
> >wing nut; just need to indict 'em.
>
>
> You have definitive proof? Let's see it.
>
> I have provided facts, not tin-foil hat ravings. If you have facts to
> back up your claims, then present them. Until then, you offer
> unsubstantiated nonsense.

You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a fact.
The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug industry.
Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking bismuth
and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.

Paul

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:40:17 GMT, Paul M. Cook wrote:

>
>
>Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!
>
>Shame on you. To even imply the drug industry put profits above people is
>shameless and unamerican. You rat-commie *******!
>
>Paul
>
Paul, Paul,Paul. Please watch your language. That Rat ******* Commie!
Not rat commie *******. :-)

Pan Ohco

In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
> >>
> >Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
> >course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
> >wing nut; just need to indict 'em.
>
>
> You have definitive proof? Let's see it.
>
> I have provided facts, not tin-foil hat ravings. If you have facts to
> back up your claims, then present them. Until then, you offer
> unsubstantiated nonsense.
>
> Boron

Bullshit!

In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark wrote:
>
> >In article >, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
> >>
> >Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
> >course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
> >wing nut; just need to indict 'em.
>
> The problem of all conspiracies is that some one on the inside all
> ways talks. And I think that if this conspiracy has been going on
> since the 50s ( per your statements), there should have been a whistle
> blower by now.
>
> Now if you were to state that you were the man on the grassy knoll,
> you might add some weight to your arguments.
>
> Pan Ohco
>

No grassy knoll, whatever that is, but I have seen a swift boat, once.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:58:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:

>In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, Boron Elgar
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>> >>
>> >Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
>> >course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
>> >wing nut; just need to indict 'em.
>>
>>
>> You have definitive proof? Let's see it.
>>
>> I have provided facts, not tin-foil hat ravings. If you have facts to
>> back up your claims, then present them. Until then, you offer
>> unsubstantiated nonsense.
>>
>> Boron
>
>Bullshit!


Refute anything I said. I have provided dates and names. Try proving
me wrong.

Boron

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:40:17 GMT, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!
>>
>>Shame on you. To even imply the drug industry put profits above people is
>>shameless and unamerican. You rat-commie *******!
>>
>>Paul
>>
> Paul, Paul,Paul. Please watch your language. That Rat ******* Commie!
> Not rat commie *******. :-)
>
> Pan Ohco

Oh come on - Where's your sense of adventure. Have you never participated in
KCFCW?

Kill a Commie For Christ Week - Hell it's great fun - now that the cold war is
over they've taken all the fun. Maybe we can find another enemy to replace
those Rat Commie *******s.

What do you think?

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

> Kill a Commie For Christ Week -
> Dimitri
>
>
No no, it's "Nuke a *** Whale for Jesus"

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:59:24 GMT, Dimitri wrote:


>>>
>>>Shame on you. To even imply the drug industry put profits above people is
>>>shameless and unamerican. You rat-commie *******!
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>> Paul, Paul,Paul. Please watch your language. That Rat ******* Commie!
>> Not rat commie *******. :-)
>>
>> Pan Ohco
>
>Oh come on - Where's your sense of adventure. Have you never participated in
>KCFCW?
>
>Kill a Commie For Christ Week - Hell it's great fun - now that the cold war is
>over they've taken all the fun. Maybe we can find another enemy to replace
>those Rat Commie *******s.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Dimitri
>

Yeah, but who Dimitri? This group is too international for us to pick
who the next target is to be. Or we could pick, but we could not
announce it here. People tend to become violent, if you target
them.(damm sore heads)


Pan Ohco

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:58:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:

>In article >, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:45:52 GMT, Stark > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, Boron Elgar
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do you really think there is collusion among all the medical
>> >> researchers, the govts of the world and the big pharmas to suppress
>> >> cures for things like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and heart disease?
>> >>
>> >Probably. But the peptic ulcer case is definitive proof, unless of
>> >course you persist with your "faith-based" facts. Can't argue with a
>> >wing nut; just need to indict 'em.
>>
>>
>> You have definitive proof? Let's see it.
>>
>> I have provided facts, not tin-foil hat ravings. If you have facts to
>> back up your claims, then present them. Until then, you offer
>> unsubstantiated nonsense.
>>
>> Boron
>
>Bullshit!


Still waiting for you, sugar....

Boron


"Refute anything I said. I have provided dates and names. Try proving
me wrong."

Pan Ohco wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:59:24 GMT, Dimitri wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>Shame on you. To even imply the drug industry put profits above people is
>>>>shameless and unamerican. You rat-commie *******!
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>>Paul, Paul,Paul. Please watch your language. That Rat ******* Commie!
>>>Not rat commie *******. :-)
>>>
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>Oh come on - Where's your sense of adventure. Have you never participated in
>>KCFCW?
>>
>>Kill a Commie For Christ Week - Hell it's great fun - now that the cold war is
>>over they've taken all the fun. Maybe we can find another enemy to replace
>>those Rat Commie *******s.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Dimitri
>>
>
>
> Yeah, but who Dimitri? This group is too international for us to pick
> who the next target is to be. Or we could pick, but we could not
> announce it here. People tend to become violent, if you target
> them.(damm sore heads)
>
>
> Pan Ohco
>
They already have become violent, even before they were targeted.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Dimitri wrote:

>
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yeah. The problem isn't so much with the doctor, it's with getting old.
>> I don't advise it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dan Abel
>
> No kidding Dick Tracy where did you get the clue.
>
> To the middle aged out there do your best to avoid getting old. It ain't
> all its cracked up to be.
>
> Dimitri

I believe the technical term is "sucks."

---jkb

--
"Damn you, brocolli!"
-- Stewie Griffin

In article <y5Q7f.16009$Io4.7733@trnddc06>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
> You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a fact.
> The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
> because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug industry.
> Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
> Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking bismuth
> and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.
>
> Paul

That's interesting. How do you know this?

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article <y5Q7f.16009$Io4.7733@trnddc06>,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >
> > You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a
fact.
> > The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
> > because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug
industry.
> > Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
> > Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking
bismuth
> > and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.
> >
> > Paul
>
> That's interesting. How do you know this?

It's been around since I first read it 21 years ago. It's not new, it was
almost a scandal. The AMA capitulated finally and allowed limited trials.
It was only when the trials produced exceptional results that they finally
approved the therapy. And this is just one example of many. How many
people had to endure a medical condition that was treatable? Why did it
take 20 years for the treatment using common and proven safe (also very
cheap) drugs to be approved? Public safety has to be preserved sure but
this was just ridiculous.

There is the case of an invention that safely removed plaque from the walls
of severely clogged arteries. It required a simple surgical procedure very
much like an angioplasty (which itself is not entirely safe) but it is
permanent in that it removes the plaque by turning it into a loose
suspension using high frequency sound and then suctioning it away. It was
shelved by the FDA and the AMA without reason and some researchers insisted
it was because the drug companies were pushing and lobbying against it
because it would have affected sales of their plaque reducing drugs.

Then we have the case of marijuana. Here is a plant that has proven medical
benefits. It treats glaucoma, it alleviates severe nausea in chemo
patients, it has been shown to be an effective anti-depressant, it has
helped cure fibromyalgia, it has shown promise in helping patients with
chronic pain syndrome. And the list goes on. Yet it is not even considered
as a potential therapy because everything it does is also done by incredibly
expensive drugs already on the market many of which do no perform nearly as
well as marijuana does. The drug companies have the most lobbyists in
Washington and this is no coincidence.

There are plenty more stories like these. It's all out there one just has
to do a little research.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> It's been around since I first read it 21 years ago. It's not new, it was
> almost a scandal.

A lot of things change over time. We treat many disorders differently
now than we did 21 years ago. That doesn't mean a thing, except we're
always learning and using evidence based practice. Do you see conspiracy
in each and every change of protocol? Adding beta blockers to a heart
attack patient's early treatment must have sent you over the edge, eh?


> There is the case of an invention that safely removed plaque from the walls
> of severely clogged arteries. It required a simple surgical procedure very
> much like an angioplasty (which itself is not entirely safe) but it is
> permanent in that it removes the plaque by turning it into a loose
> suspension using high frequency sound and then suctioning it away. It was
> shelved by the FDA and the AMA without reason and some researchers insisted
> it was because the drug companies were pushing and lobbying against it
> because it would have affected sales of their plaque reducing drugs.

Alarms going off in my head here. What were the outcomes? Didn't that
procedure send a lot of emboli into the circulation that causes
additional life threatening risks? Yup.. sure could. Perhaps it was a
conspiracy by the stent manufacturers! We have drug eluding stents now,
as well as drugs yet we still learn more daily.

>
> Then we have the case of marijuana.

Hmmmm.. methinks thou hast an ax to grind here?
I'll tell you straight. I recieve NO benefit from the use of one
treatment over another in my patients. I DO see results. We treat PUD
totally different now and it is because we know more, not because of
who's lobbying for it.
Goomba

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:21:48 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:

>
>"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <y5Q7f.16009$Io4.7733@trnddc06>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> >
>> > You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a
>fact.
>> > The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
>> > because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug
>industry.
>> > Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
>> > Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking
>bismuth
>> > and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>> That's interesting. How do you know this?
>
>It's been around since I first read it 21 years ago. It's not new, it was
>almost a scandal. The AMA capitulated finally and allowed limited trials.
>It was only when the trials produced exceptional results that they finally
>approved the therapy. And this is just one example of many. How many
>people had to endure a medical condition that was treatable? Why did it
>take 20 years for the treatment using common and proven safe (also very
>cheap) drugs to be approved? Public safety has to be preserved sure but
>this was just ridiculous.

There is nothing in the literature about this. I have been around for
56 years and doing research with physicians and hospitals for 33 of
them. Find this anywhere and prove it. If it was so scandalous, why
isn't it written up anywhere in the medical literature?

http://www.tallpoppies.net.au/cavalcade/warren.htm

The above article is about the Aussies who cultured Helicobacter
pylori in 1982. Within 5 years of this, and further experiments by
them, the idea had been thoroughly tested & treatment patterns
changed. You are completely misinformed and incorrect in your claims.

First of all, the AMA cannot "suppress" anything. It is a professional
organization with no legal enforcement powers whatsoever. The AMA does
not "allow" clinical trials. These "trials" as you call them, are
done at hospitals, universities, pharmas, and other places that have
business or academic interest in the field of medicine.


>There is the case of an invention that safely removed plaque from the walls
>of severely clogged arteries. It required a simple surgical procedure very
>much like an angioplasty (which itself is not entirely safe) but it is
>permanent in that it removes the plaque by turning it into a loose
>suspension using high frequency sound and then suctioning it away. It was
>shelved by the FDA and the AMA without reason and some researchers insisted
>it was because the drug companies were pushing and lobbying against it
>because it would have affected sales of their plaque reducing drugs.

The AMA does not shelve anything. The FDA can deny approval to a
procedure, certainly, though with your usual inaccuracies and
broad-stroke description, you are making no sense.

By the way, it is only recently that statins have been proven to
reduce plaque, so what drugs are you talking about the drug companies
trying to protect at some time in the past?

Ultrasound is certainly used to visualize plaque. The whole thing you
are talking about is absurd. Nothing removes plaque in any
"permanent" way. If lifestyle and pre-disposition still exist, it can
re-deposit. Of course angioplasty is not entirely safe. Neither would
your suctioning system. You go into heart arteries & you have an
inherently dangerous procedure.
>
>Then we have the case of marijuana. Here is a plant that has proven medical
>benefits. It treats glaucoma, it alleviates severe nausea in chemo
>patients, it has been shown to be an effective anti-depressant, it has
>helped cure fibromyalgia, it has shown promise in helping patients with
>chronic pain syndrome. And the list goes on. Yet it is not even considered
>as a potential therapy because everything it does is also done by incredibly
>expensive drugs already on the market many of which do no perform nearly as
>well as marijuana does. The drug companies have the most lobbyists in
>Washington and this is no coincidence.

No one doubts the efficacy of marijuana in certain medical cases you
twit. The Feds will not allow it to be reclassified. Go smoke a big
one & perhaps the clarity will come to you in a pipe dream.

Boron

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:53:45 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>
>
>Alarms going off in my head here. What were the outcomes? Didn't that
>procedure send a lot of emboli into the circulation that causes
>additional life threatening risks? Yup.. sure could. Perhaps it was a
>conspiracy by the stent manufacturers! We have drug eluding stents now,
>as well as drugs yet we still learn more daily.
>

http://www.ptca.org/nv/desnews.html

There are some interesting and not-so-terrific news bits about those
stents.

(My brother has one of the stents in question. He & his surgeon have
had a nice little chat about it)

Boron

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
news
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > It's been around since I first read it 21 years ago. It's not new, it
was
> > almost a scandal.
>
> A lot of things change over time. We treat many disorders differently
> now than we did 21 years ago. That doesn't mean a thing, except we're
> always learning and using evidence based practice. Do you see conspiracy
> in each and every change of protocol? Adding beta blockers to a heart
> attack patient's early treatment must have sent you over the edge, eh?


YOU see a conspiracy. I see business as usual. And don't forget the
Australians were employing that treatment in the 70s. And it hasn't changed
either since then. There is nothing new about drig company and AMA
collusion.

>
> > There is the case of an invention that safely removed plaque from the
walls
> > of severely clogged arteries. It required a simple surgical procedure
very
> > much like an angioplasty (which itself is not entirely safe) but it is
> > permanent in that it removes the plaque by turning it into a loose
> > suspension using high frequency sound and then suctioning it away. It
was
> > shelved by the FDA and the AMA without reason and some researchers
insisted
> > it was because the drug companies were pushing and lobbying against it
> > because it would have affected sales of their plaque reducing drugs.
>
> Alarms going off in my head here. What were the outcomes? Didn't that
> procedure send a lot of emboli into the circulation that causes
> additional life threatening risks? Yup.. sure could. Perhaps it was a
> conspiracy by the stent manufacturers! We have drug eluding stents now,
> as well as drugs yet we still learn more daily.

Nope. It was shelved and no explanation given. We'll never know, and if it
did cause embolii it would have been a perfectly good reason to not approve
it.

> > Then we have the case of marijuana.
>
> Hmmmm.. methinks thou hast an ax to grind here?
> I'll tell you straight. I recieve NO benefit from the use of one
> treatment over another in my patients. I DO see results. We treat PUD
> totally different now and it is because we know more, not because of
> who's lobbying for it.

No axe other than I live in a country that is owned and operated by big
business which has a a direct effect on the quality of life for us all
whenever public needs interfere with private profits.

Paul

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:21:48 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article <y5Q7f.16009$Io4.7733@trnddc06>,
> >> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a
> >fact.
> >> > The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
> >> > because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug
> >industry.
> >> > Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
> >> > Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking
> >bismuth
> >> > and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >>
> >> That's interesting. How do you know this?
> >
> >It's been around since I first read it 21 years ago. It's not new, it
was
> >almost a scandal. The AMA capitulated finally and allowed limited
trials.
> >It was only when the trials produced exceptional results that they
finally
> >approved the therapy. And this is just one example of many. How many
> >people had to endure a medical condition that was treatable? Why did it
> >take 20 years for the treatment using common and proven safe (also very
> >cheap) drugs to be approved? Public safety has to be preserved sure but
> >this was just ridiculous.
>
> There is nothing in the literature about this. I have been around for
> 56 years and doing research with physicians and hospitals for 33 of
> them. Find this anywhere and prove it. If it was so scandalous, why
> isn't it written up anywhere in the medical literature?
>
> http://www.tallpoppies.net.au/cavalcade/warren.htm
>

As I recall it was Time Magazine, 1984. Pardon me for not knowing which
issue. And it was written about in other publications over the years as
well.

> The above article is about the Aussies who cultured Helicobacter
> pylori in 1982. Within 5 years of this, and further experiments by
> them, the idea had been thoroughly tested & treatment patterns
> changed. You are completely misinformed and incorrect in your claims.

I am not aware that the Australian therapy has changed. I do know the final
treatment approved here is different than the one initially used in
Australia.

> First of all, the AMA cannot "suppress" anything. It is a professional
> organization with no legal enforcement powers whatsoever. The AMA does
> not "allow" clinical trials. These "trials" as you call them, are
> done at hospitals, universities, pharmas, and other places that have
> business or academic interest in the field of medicine.
>

The AMA sets guidlines about what a doctor can or cannot do. It does not
matter if the treatment is harmless they cannopt prescribe it unless it is
an approved treatment. The AMA is very much a factor in this *especially*
when it involves using pre-approved drugs for ailments not initially
approved.

> >There is the case of an invention that safely removed plaque from the
walls
> >of severely clogged arteries. It required a simple surgical procedure
very
> >much like an angioplasty (which itself is not entirely safe) but it is
> >permanent in that it removes the plaque by turning it into a loose
> >suspension using high frequency sound and then suctioning it away. It
was
> >shelved by the FDA and the AMA without reason and some researchers
insisted
> >it was because the drug companies were pushing and lobbying against it
> >because it would have affected sales of their plaque reducing drugs.
>
> The AMA does not shelve anything. The FDA can deny approval to a
> procedure, certainly, though with your usual inaccuracies and
> broad-stroke description, you are making no sense.

I noted it was the FDA and the AMA. You have a triad working here. FDA,
AMA and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

> By the way, it is only recently that statins have been proven to
> reduce plaque, so what drugs are you talking about the drug companies
> trying to protect at some time in the past?

Good question. I'll see if I can retrieve it.

> Ultrasound is certainly used to visualize plaque. The whole thing you
> are talking about is absurd. Nothing removes plaque in any
> "permanent" way. If lifestyle and pre-disposition still exist, it can
> re-deposit. Of course angioplasty is not entirely safe. Neither would
> your suctioning system. You go into heart arteries & you have an
> inherently dangerous procedure.

Permanet was probably a bad choice of words. But it did remove plaque
rather than merely compress it. And I suppose iof proper steps were taken
afterwards it would not return or to nearly as severe a degree.

> >Then we have the case of marijuana. Here is a plant that has proven
medical
> >benefits. It treats glaucoma, it alleviates severe nausea in chemo
> >patients, it has been shown to be an effective anti-depressant, it has
> >helped cure fibromyalgia, it has shown promise in helping patients with
> >chronic pain syndrome. And the list goes on. Yet it is not even
considered
> >as a potential therapy because everything it does is also done by
incredibly
> >expensive drugs already on the market many of which do no perform nearly
as
> >well as marijuana does. The drug companies have the most lobbyists in
> >Washington and this is no coincidence.
>
> No one doubts the efficacy of marijuana in certain medical cases you
> twit. The Feds will not allow it to be reclassified. Go smoke a big
> one & perhaps the clarity will come to you in a pipe dream.

I don't smoke dope. But marijuana does work. And if "no one" doubts it
then why are we decades away from it being approved? We know the Feds won't
reclassify it and that was my point. I've been arguing that big money
dictates public health and often that is neglected for money. You are the
twit if you can brush off pharmaceutical lobbying, hundreds of millions a
year in loibbying costs, not to mention millions given in legal bribes to
politicians and still live in your little secure world safe from any fears
that maybe something isn't quite right.

And being a secretary in a hospital does not make you an authority.

Paul


> Boron
>

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:10:41 GMT, "Paul M. Cook"
> wrote:


I'm sorry. Really. I tried. I posted facts. I posted citations that
corroborated the facts. I posted more facts and more corroboration.

You keep babbling on as if you are in some sort of hyperactive lying
contest. The whoppers get bigger and bigger as if the more you
reiterate the same lie, somehow it will become fact. It won't.

YOU are wrong.

YOU are misinformed.

YOU do not know what you are talking about.

YOU are out of your depth.

Go make yourself a nice cup of tea. Take a pill. Get a grip on
reality.

Tie that tinfoil tiara on real tight, Tootsie, as I am tossing you
into the Bozo Bin.


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Boron

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:11:46 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article <y5Q7f.16009$Io4.7733@trnddc06>,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>
>> You presented not one fact. You provided an emotional reaction to a fact.
>> The fact being that the AMA suppressed a cure for ulcers for 20 years
>> because it would have had a direct and severe impact on the drug industry.
>> Even in the 1980s the cure rate from the treatment being employed in
>> Australia was in the 10s of thousands and nobody fied from taking bismuth
>> and a common antibiotic. Yet the AMA stonewalled.
>>
>> Paul
>
>That's interesting. How do you know this?

A little birdie told him...a cuckoo.

Boron