Mon, Aug-15-05, 03:17
|
|
Thank you Dr Atkins!
Posts: 4,146
|
|
Plan: Atkins induction
Stats: 311/250/220
BF:45%/20%/15%
Progress: 67%
Location: North Carolina
|
|
AMA against supplements
At least once per month there is a news article about some supplement not working and it is down right dangerous! Applying FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to supplements. If you dig you can trace it back to the prescription drug company or the AMA (American Medical Association). IMHO AMA = prescription drug companies (where do you think the AMA gets most of their funding from and many individuals on the AMA also get "consulting" fees directly from pharamaceutical companies).
Even I can manipulate the results of supplements -- and I am by no means any expert. But here is an interesting article by Jon Barron:
http://www.jonbarron.org/newsletters/news050815.htm
Quote:
The medical establishment has a clear agenda to brand natural remedies as both useless and dangerous. Don't take my word for it. Check out Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97), which can be found on the AMA website.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html
Two statements from the study's recommendations are worth looking at:
There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious.
Patients who choose alternative therapies should be educated as to the hazards that might result from postponing or stopping conventional medical treatment.
If you actually read those statements carefully, what they say is that:
Nothing natural is of any proven benefit.
In fact, anything natural is most likely harmful.
The only things that have "proven" benefit are medical procedures and prescription drugs.
Are these people out of their minds? Quite possibly.
And while we're at it, let me touch briefly on the media. Why are they so quick to jump on the bandwagon and run with any negative story concerning alternative health? Are they part of some vast medical/media conspiracy?
I don't think so. But there are two circumstances that make them unwitting (although not necessarily unwilling) participants.
Their fear of exposure. If they report on a medical study and that study is subsequently debunked, the press can claim "plausible deniability." After all, they relied on recognized experts. But if they report information provided by people in the alternative health community that is subsequently found to be erroneous, they will be held liable for even acknowledging information from such "unreliable" sources, let alone printing it.
Prescription drug companies provide more advertising dollars than health supplement manufacturers. ( I'm guessing that Merck spends at least twice as much promoting their prescription drugs through the media as I do promoting alternative remedies -- maybe even more.) In fact, prescription drug companies now spend over $3 billion dollars a year on media advertising -- much of it focused on the very news shows that report on health. It has an influence, and three billion dollars is a lot of influence.
Given these reasons, the media as a whole freely goes along with the nonsense put out by the prescription drug companies and their partners in the medical community helping to spread and perpetuate urban myths designed to diminish the use of alternative therapies -- at the same time, many individuals in the media are open to and personally use those very same therapies. As a side note, individuals from all of the major television networks, a number of radio talk shows, and even many newspapers including the Wall Street Journal are on the subscription list for this newsletter. Unfortunately, the personal interest of reporters, editors, and producers does not yet equate to evenhanded reporting.
|
Note that Jon Barron is not a big low carber but his advice on supplement is usually pretty good.
Last edited by kebaldwin : Mon, Aug-15-05 at 03:22.
|
Linear Mode
