Um....pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death worldwide!!Two...

Um....pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death worldwide!!Two large recent Cochrane studies mirrorred results of one done in the 80's that at best only 10 percent of drugs on the market we have scientific proof that 90 percent of the shit that doctors peddle actually KILLS "which isnt quackery" yet you guys find isolated instances where a natural remedy has purportedly lead to death discounting 1000 other possibilities and pounce all over it...hey....if all these trials have passed most drugs that dont work then isnt science u useless too?And what better way to keep a potential natural remedy as quackery than never testing it in the name of big pharma's altruistic search for the truth and cure to end all suffering...if they keep medicating symptoms and ignore the cause of disease now proven to echo Hippocrates conviction in the gut people never get better and keep buying more drugs...PERFECTO

Do you have a link to these "studies"? Do these "studies" account for improper application and/or administration of medication?

Reply to this post

What James said. You cite studies which you have not linked.

Also, even if I accept your conceit that "90% of drugs don't work" that is not equivalent to "90% of drugs kill people". Furthermore, a lot of alternative medicine has been tested, and failed to demonstrate that it works any better than placebo.

Reply to this post

lord soros will not be pleased with you unraveling his plans=p

Reply to this post

Following because that damn follow post button never works for me.

Reply to this post

I would say obvious troll is obvious, but Poe's Law is very much in effect here.

Did you look at his page?...he's next level crazy

Reply to this post

Haha...lord soros indeed...yep i agree with the above but i can cite them now if you want...ok well if pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death then we can only logically conclude that of the 90 percent that dont work at least a fair amount kill....and Cochrane have passed countless herbs that work not to mention many that actually have been tested with remarkable the scientific community a herb could be sworn in as the grand means squat if a whole scientific community refuse to let go of a dominant paradigm or it cant be patented....when H Pylori was definitively linked to thirty percent of ulcers challenging the paradigm of no acid no ulcer it took fucking thirty years to integrate it in which time they worked round the clock trying to debunk it....oh....why do anecdotes between three doctors allow them to go off label with no evidence using a harsh drug but half the world swearing by garlic is discounted?

Science progresses by attempts to disprove

Yes, please cite them.

Why would you conclude that only the drugs that don't work kill people? I'd say they're less likely to kill people than drugs that do work when misapplied, given to the wrong patient, due to allergies or along with other meds they shouldn't be etc.. I bet anesthesia and coumadin account for a big chunk of them - there is risk in lots of medications. That doesn't mean they don't work or that the risks aren't vastly outweighed by the benefits.

Avi can't cite. None of these bullshitters ever can.

Do your research buddy....if i say the sky is blue u scientists will ad nauseum say "cite"....debunk my points or shut it

You need the spellcheck

Fair enough! Please set us straight and point us to the "two large recent studies" you're referencing so we can research them.

Type in google "pharmaceuticals fourth leading cause of death"...not rocket science..the only pseudoscience is science which has no objective body to oversee its operations leaving researchers free to fiddle and suppress or see what they believe...most constructs in this world exist on a continuum in shades of grey yet a trial demands black and white removing all confounds so construct is has proven most drugs not to work after thousands of purported watertight trials swear by their efficacy?

Help us out here! I typed that in and don't seem to be landing on the studies you're talking about. Can't you link to the specific studies rather and some google keywords? Google tends to tailor its results to the browser's profile anyway.

Your word diarrhea isn't evidence of anything except your gullibility and propensity to believe whatever seems true to you.

"science has proven most drugs not to work after thousands of purported watertight trials swear by their efficacy?"

It has?

Here. Why the fuck did you make ME do your citing Avi, you suck at bullshitting. Also, this fda writing only talks about the US, not the world, you damn foo.

FDA is basically saying there some fuzzy range in with averse reactions to pharmaceuticals cause death. Something you could probably do parameter estimation on if you looked at the studies (which Avi definitely has not).

It does seem high, and this IS a problem, the suggested solution of sticking cinnamon sticks up your ass to cure drug deaths isn't the solution. Better practices within the medical establishment are.

Also, we haven't counted "deaths from pseudo-scientific bullshit" which would also probably be quite high.

I don't think that's it. He stated "two large recent Cochrane studies mirrorred results of one done in the 80's"

There is something to be said for not trusting the medical establishment carte blanche. My sibling was killed by malpractice and my father's cancer was terribly managed leading to a very painful death. So I really hate it when a discussion that should be about "what are your options to getting much better medical care" + "how can we reform the medical system" is hijacked by new age bullshitters.

And whilst citing every word might be your standard of a "non bullshitter" its kinda hard to go back over years of research unless its a particular point which rests on having to do so....for example a recent study showing the first head transplant by a quack of quacks

Yes getting to the truth of phenomenon is hard. But whatever dude, have fun shoving cinnamon sticks up your ass to treat tumors.

Medical practice doesn't always keep up with science, for reasons including inertia, cost, uncertainty. For good info on these problems, and the problems of quackery, I like

And then you and Steve Jobs can talk about the effectiveness of natural remedies when you get to Woo-Woo Western Guy In Thailand Nirvana.

"science has proven most drugs not to work after thousands of purported watertight trials swear by their efficacy?" Ummm...wut? So, what you're saying is science proves drugs don't work, even though science proves they do work? ? Sound logic bro

"..most constructs in this world exist on a continuum in shades of grey yet a trial demands black and white removing all confounds so construct is lost..." No. No it doesn't. Science tries to "increase the contrast" if you will, between shades of grey, but you will never read a single study that purports to have the final, indisputable answer. Cool story though, could've used more quantum ?

Where are your citations, avi7? Other people finding one then proceeding to rip it to shreds doesn't count, you know.

avi7 if you were confident in your "research," you would have cited your sources already. You have lost. Now be an adult and admit it.

I would like to read them, Avi. Please at the very least give title and the names of authors. Otherwise, I don't know if I'm reading the same research.


bradley503 passes you the ranch dressing=p

I believe it's been in the sun so long that it's word soup. I'll send oyster crackers.

"When H Pylori was definitively linked to thirty percent of ulcers challenging the paradigm of no acid no ulcer it took fucking thirty years"

Actually, it didn't. It was identified in 1982, first mentioned in the medical press in 1983, full paper in 1984, and in 2005 the discoverers got the Nobel Prize in Medicine for it. In the interim... within a few years multiple research groups had verified the association of H. pylori with gastritis and, to a lesser extent, ulcers. It takes time to set up the studies, run the study and evaluate the results. Within a few years is actually record-breaking speed.

I suggest you read this, which explains why you are wrong. H. pylori's history is perfectly normal... the initial "have you replicated that?" was followed by a trickle and then a flood of replications and studies.

Reply to this post

Also, tf is with people seeing Soros as the Final Boss of late-stage capitalism?

Well you can't just say the jews control the world, you have to use Soros as a bogeyman to hide antisemitism

Latest bogeyman. I'm only in my thirties, yet I still remember the go-to proxy used to be the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers not so long ago.... But that window-dressing became too transparent for everybody, I guess

Reply to this post

Also, Avi, you just made not a single valid point. Hell, you were mostly incoherent.

Reply to this post

Using the results of a scientific study to claim it proves science is useless.

And still not cited the studies.

Reply to this post

drugs may not work for various patients for various reasons whether it be the side effects are affecting them more than they would affect someone else all this means is for this one person the drug is not a solution to the problem and they need to consult with their doctor to find a better solution. are drugs a perfect cure-all NOPE but with proper usage and oversight they can either outright solve a problem or help a patient control a problem. to sit here and assume that if a drug does not work for a small group it should be pulled from the market is insane

Reply to this post

Well, yes, one should do due diligence on their doctor's recommendations but turning to foo-foo bullshit isn't the answer.

but it smells pretty and it has cinnamon listed among the ingredients how can you go wrong with cinnamon??!!!=p

Cinnamon? Well then I'm sold!

james4 can i also interest you in some chemtrail vaccines?

Makes a nice garnish

Do chemtrail vaccines also get you pregnant? Asking for a friend.

How in the world does a person "fall" pregnant? What do they do, trip on a condom?

Reply to this post

Also Avi, you're fucking wrong, here are the top 10 leading causes of death. Even if you group these you get it being.

  1. Heart Ailments
  2. Respiratory Ailments
  3. Diabeetus
  4. Old-Timers
  5. Diarrhea
  6. TB

if only we had some sort of medicine that could control some of these problems=p

Don't listen to your satanist doctor. You can cure diabeetus by shoving cinnamon sticks up your ass.

I thought that was butter sticks

It was butter sticks last week, but now butter sticks R BAD.

mike4 you learn something new everyday=p


You can cure old-timers by licking tumeric sticks every 15 seconds. I sell them on my etsy for only $99.99 a stick

james4 you want citations about putting butter up your butt?=p

You're right, the Citation was a crappy car.

Here you are, all my citations from Dr. Ass. Which you can trust because he calls himself a doctor.

I'd rather have the car.

My chosen method of death would be mythbusters explodiating me in some awesome way.

That would be epic! Imagine being behind the wheel of the cement truck they obliterate?

Cinnamon sticks for diabetes?! Bah, that's nothing! You can cure anything by shoving horse radish sticks up your ass... or, at the very least, you will feel SO MUCH MORE ALIVE even if you're not cured!?

I love the humour instead of wasting time showing him where he is so wrong.

I’ve been doing it wrong apparently. I thought the cinnamon stick went up your pee hole for diabetes. Dammit...

Reply to this post

That was aggressively stupid

Reply to this post

OP has failed to cite a source for this claim because there was no Cochrane review that said such a thing. The claim was made in a polemic published by the Safra Center, a corporate ethics scold that says all kinds of crazy stuff. See

Reply to this post

In 1900, US life expectancy was less than 40 years, but today it's more than 80. Why did this happen if drugs don't work?

because magic!

The anti-vaxxers say it's because of soap, which was invented in 2800 BCE but didn't matter until about 1920 for some reason.

richard40542 while i do recommend a liberal usage of soap i do not believe to be a cure-all=p

It doesn't go well with red wine.

Reply to this post

That’s funny because my fathers life was prolonged 10 years because of medications and my grandfathers heart function has gone from low to normal thanks to surgery and medication!

My grandfather is a remarkably healthy and active man in his early 80s - without modern medicine he would have been dead at 55 after his heart attack

Same for my dad, he passed away In 2012 but after his first heart attack at 41, his heart was functioning at 20%. The doctors couldn’t explain how he survived it but thanks to modern medicine he was able to live 10 more years after that and this person thinks it’s funny Smh!

Reply to this post

If you are in a position where pharmaceuticals will kill you, your health is already in danger enough to actually need pharmaceuticals. Before the pharmaceuticals kill you, they have probably saved your life a dozen times or more. IF they kill you at all.

Reply to this post

OP is actually quite pro-drug, prefers the smoking kind.

Reply to this post

Yep typical scientists flinging personal insults yet havent got a shred of evidence or even logic to debunk one point...are u scientologists?im bored shitless

Sure, go ahead and ignore the evidence presented to you, and instead play the victim and pretend "we haven't got a shred of evidence"!

I did not fling any personal insults. Now staying on point, my life has been saved by pharmaceuticals at least a dozen times. Even if pharmaceuticals did wind up killing me, that's a dozen wins for pharmaceuticals to one loss.

Oh, no, phillip9, what actually happened is that pharmaceuticals failed to kill you a dozen times, don't you know! It's your immune system that saved you each and every time in spite of the drugs... helped along by whatever "natural remedy" you happened to use at the time, even inadvertently (lemons and other exotic fruits, cinnamon or any of three dozen other spices, baking soda, salt, vinegar, plant oils, etc.).

armand81 so it was the dozens of cinnamon donuts I was eating?

phillip9: I guess. Just how it must've been the yogurt (or maybe the lemonade?) that got me rid of some nasty tumors at some point, not the chemotherapy.

And when that chicken was deep fried in sunflower oil? That also saved me?

Only if the sunflower oil was cold-pressed from organic, non-GMO sunflower seeds... obviously!

avi7 you have yet to provide evidence to support your claims. Remember, that which is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence

Reply to this post

crap posts are crap

Reply to this post

What pile of B*ST. "Alternative Medicine" MIGHT make you feel better (most likely the placebo effect)... There is NO such thing as 'Alternative Medicine" - there is real Medicine -you know, the stuff that works and quackery. Plain & simple. Will Alternative medicine save a person who has a severe anaphylactic episode (I had one and almost died). Will Alternative medicine save you if you contact a severe infection like cellulitis or e-coli?? Will alternative save you if you get bitten by a rabid animal or a poisonous insect/snake.

I always correct people that use the phrase "alternative medicine" and should be better said as "alternative TO medicine" since medicine is what medical doctors practice. Everyone is homeopathy not medicine.

Homeopathy is defined as being based on Samuel Hahnemann's doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. This make homeopathy a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.

True scientific medicine should never be confused with the pseudo scientific homeopathy, the homeopaths would cringe being but in the same class as the doctors they despise.

Well, Victoria did use the phrase properly: enclosed in scare quotes.

Reply to this post

"you guys find isolated instances where a natural remedy has purportedly lead to death discounting 1000 other possibilities and pounce all over it". Well... quite interestingly this very sort of line of thinking is rather widespread on the "alternative" side, when it comes to go at length on whatever could be asserted as "death/injury by pharmaceuticals/vaccines". If it wasn't about issues that may be quite serious, this sort of "gaslighting" could be funny.

"they keep medicating symptoms and ignore the cause of disease".. this is rather as well a sort of standard argument. Well, as if that was a preference, or any evidence that the alternative world may have anything better to offer on the matter... this goes often mentioned next to some pretense about some "holistic" approach of the individual and touting about "individually tailored cure/treatment/regimen". Quite oddly, this may even be done by people who disproportionally seem likely to offer some unique reason to all diseases and offering what might be basically one unique "fitting all" "treatment".

Reply to this post


naturopathic and holistic gaslighting could also be very funny if it was not so pathetic. Everybody dies of something is not the issue that is so funny. it the belief you people have in what can cure the illness that is so funny.

Medicine treats both the disease and the symptoms of diseases and knows the difference. Medicine even advocates methods to keep from getting the diseases in the first place such as exercise, proper nutrition and avoiding detrimental habits aka a healthy lifestyle, with disciplines within conventional medicine like psychiatry and psychology modern medicine is far more holistic than the greed homeopathic practice.

Today medicine is well aware that there are no shotgun - one treatment fits all as exemplified by the vast number of different drugs that treat the same condition. dr. will work hard with any patient that is willing to work with them to find the best treatment for them out of all the medical choices.

This cannot be said for homeopathy which believes that everyone with a specific condition can be cured if they would only do the same thing that worked for the other person. Yet each homeopath has their favorite cure. Ironically you can alway purchase the prefered cure from them at a very high price.

When a doctor does not know what causes a symptom they at least will keep treating the symptom to make the patient as comfortable as possible. This contrary to the homeopath that says you need to treat the cause and then the symptoms will go away making people spend large sums of money with zero relief.

Reply to this post

avi7 wrong place, bro. Lots of nonsense pages to misunderstand things on.

Reply to this post

OP troll wants to report back to the bros at the crossfit gym that he got the science nerds all riled up.

Reply to this post

Another lie that refuses to die, and quackaloons seem to think we've never heard it before.

Quite the same could be behind that post statement. Consider how "pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death worldwide" could basically have been inspired by such sort of extracts within official sources (so it is not that hidden, denied or unknown): "However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs [Adverse Drug Reaction]. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%.2 If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths." (see first link) This is about the USA, not "worldwide". Have a look at this as well: "the rate of ADRs increases exponentially after a patient is on 4 or more medications"

It would not appear within such lists as "ten first causes of death of the USA", for, as one may expect, there may be other underlying reasons why people taking drugs, several ones, and then may be likely to face adverse reactions, including due to poorly understood or not easily preventable interactions, may quite disproportionately be in poor conditions to start with, and die: why would anyone stay as a patient in a hospital, for pleasure? It is not exactly a holiday resort. You may still find indications about risks associated to drugs and to adverse reactions or over-dosing. It is typical for heart related issues. At this point it could be considered as accident. And then could be, combined with all other accidents, counts as potential third cause of death in the US. But would still be well behind heart diseases and cancers.

About the Cochrane mention and the question of "the poor efficiency of new drugs", i have the impression this could point to two reviews in 2009, but i could not find them (paywall issue). Instead i found something else, a book (2010), again about adverse reactions linked to prescribed drugs: "The Risks of Prescription Drugs describes how most drugs approved by the FDA are under-tested for adverse drug reactions, yet offer few new benefits. Drugs cause more than 2.2 million hospitalizations and 110,000 hospital-based deaths a year. Serious drug reactions at home or in nursing homes would significantly raise the total. Women, older people, and people with disabilities are least used in clinical trials and most affected."

So it is not that it might not be quite a serious issue, or that there could be some reasons to question the industry or the medical practices, but one might be then better assessing those dimensions quite seriously, and not like or as if one would be a troll struggling with delusions and conspiracy paranoia (as the OP sounds).

Reply to this post

Avi likes his medicine like his facts...alternate.

Reply to this post

isnt Cochrane owned by Zionists?

Reply to this post

Cochrane is a fairly reputable group. The OP is claiming Cochrane issued a report that it never issued. When spreading lies, it's often a good strategy to attribute them to a reputable source. But then people check and find that you're lying, hence no reason to argue the point the liar is spreading. This is one such case.

yes i was trying to feed his conspiracy thoughts

Well played.

Except if you don't provide any refutaiton, the people who are READING, not the actual dimwit, may think the OP was correct.

Think of the lurkers!

if the lurkers are so far down the rabbit hole that they believe that someone being Jewish is a reason to ignore evidence.. I dont think there is much hope for them

Yes, those are the InfoWars and CounterPunch loons.

Reply to this post

we all fed the troll today...we have failed the internet

but at the same time did we not have a good conversation about medicine?

matt41417 it was thoroughly entertaining

bradley503 see some good did come of this

Reply to this post

I’m thinking either Seoquel or Risperal would help the OP.

Reply to this post

Yeah, the new anti-psychotics are great for conspiracy disorders.

only the 10% that work of course

And they kill the other 90%.

Eh...check out his FB page. He is either a masterful troll or a very ill individual. I’m guessing paranoid schizophrenia with rampant drug abuse.

Reply to this post

Yes, farmaceutical companies are the main causes of death. Death at 90 instead of 50.

Reply to this post

Nah bro i have hit gold....i love trying to burst the blissful bubble of ignorance of morons

Reply to this post

Hey...why is "alternative medicine" trying natural things like exercise,yoga and SCIENCE based herbs?shouldnt harsh drugs that do nothing but weaken your system or scalpals be the last alternative

Harsh drugs and scalpels ARE the last alternative, i.e., what's used when all else fails – including exercise (which in its turn includes yoga and yoga-like exercise, minus the spiritualistic bullshit) and even herbs (which are used, but for very good reasons used as such only where a mild effect is required).

And just for the record, "harsh drugs that do nothing but weaken your system" are NOT used in medicine precisely because they do nothing useful. They're not even produced because by definition they fail clinical trials of efficacy.

Science based herbs? That's totally incorporated into the conventional pharmacopea. It is not alternative medecine. Yeah, there are natural elements in drugs, including chemotherapy (many chemotherapy products genuinely were based on elements extracted from plants, then several of those elements were synthetised, but not all of them). Now, if you insist on doing some exercise or yoga in parallel and call it integrative medecine, then thanks solely the "alternative part" of that "integrative approach" for whatever betterment that could seem to be, then that's up to you. You wouldn't be the first one to do so.

Now if you want to know why people turn their back on "cut-burn-poison" (as could be said on the alternate side), that may have much to do with the fact that while they may be afraid of dying, they may as well be afraid not just of the disease but of the treatment itself. Not only the alternate side may quite often promise to cure/heal but as well that it could be done relatively painlessly (if they do not mention that, overall, it would be way less expensive).

In some way, it could even be quite the last alternative for people that conventional medecine may have little hope of recovery to suggest. Not then in effect an alternate efficient remedy or effective cure, but a sort of placebo relief from anxiety or stress. One might as well point to the false hope dimension, but when the prospect is gloomy one may understand not only that people could embrace it but that their relational environment may let them do so, and even contribute to them being able to do it (and that may be quite an investment, in time and money). In quite a few cases, this could be seen as rational or to the least as understandable.

For others it is a way to negotiate a compromise, between going full on alternative or full on evidence-based. Not only for the patients, but also for the medical staff. Some take that way as a way to not see patients loosing themselves to alternate world delusions. So they compromise and may let patients do their stuff on the side, or may even give it some room within the medical context, while trying to keep some monitoring on it (including because there could be still question of adverse interactions between conventional drugs and alternative therapies products; for example: it is counter-indicated to take StJohn's wort based tinctures or extracts while undergoing quite many chemotherapy protocols, as it may alter the potency of the later).

Do you need other reasons?

Reply to this post

Bullcrap?how so elaborate?and the microbiome and gut brain connection is now indisputable...fix dysbiosis and get some good fucking yoghurt into ya...ciao big pharma

«and the microbiome and gut brain connection is now indisputable» [citation fucking required]

Also... "gut brain"?! That's something that exists only in the fantasy of scientifically-illiterate morons who subscribe to antique superstitions rebranded for the modern man in a sciency-sounding language.

Reply to this post

Microglia activation and inflammation underly most and supplements tested and proven...welcome the quack hippie naturopaths to replace dr death..YAY

«Microglia activation and inflammation underly most diseases» [citation required]

«diet and supplements tested and proven» ... are used in medicine where they've been proven efficacious.

And then, of course, they're use in the so-called "alternative medicine" for pretty much everything under the sun, from mild indispositions to fucking cancer, regardless of the results of testing them – more to the point, in spite of no proper testing showing any efficacy.

Reply to this post

U want me to cite?Um...NO...educate yourselves not my job to waste my time

I want you to substantiate your quite outlandish assertions. THAT's what "citation needed" means. Otherwise, it's just hot air and farts in the wind.

Or, to put it another way, we shall simply apply Hitchens' Razor: that which is asserted without evidence (i.e., your assertions) can be dismissed without evidence; end of story.

You are the one making the claims, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

Reply to this post

If u disagree why and how not just bullshit arguements and insults

I disagree because your can't provide evidence to support your claims. And remember, anecdotes and opinion are not evidence.

Talking to the mirror, Avi? YOU are the only one who came with nothing but bullshit arguments and insults from the get-go.

armand81 Yep classic case of projection

Bullshit....yes i agree i didnt cite but some things are easy to type in google and disprove if u so may point is that even if i did u would find some magical way of trying to get around what is a general statement...most people know the micobiome is now at the forefront of medical u want every conceivable study cited?Pretend i have cited and try debunk my statements without always resorting to cite when u have nothing in the tank

Just cited

What next

We should pretend you have "cited" (by which, I suppose, you mean presented some sort of rational argument and evidence in support of your nonsense)? Really, that's what you're going with?!

Well, if that's the game we're playing, why don't you pretend we've shown your nonsense to be pure, unadulterated bullshit... Oh, wait, you don't have to pretend in this case. OK, how about this: why don't you pretend you have better things to do than troll this page with scientifically illiterate fantasies?!

Cited what?

I just cited list of 13 leading causes of death and a link or type in "cochrane snake oil scientific evidence" in google for table of countless effective natural remedies

Whats irrational about my arguement in what way and how

Projection is more the case of saying i talk bullshit but not elaborating or negating my points with anything

Oh, you mean that 20-year-old list of dubious construction, and that piece from Information Is Beautiful that you either didn't bother to read or, more likely, failed to understand?!

If that is what you mean, no wonder you fall for all the long-disproved crap that passes for info and education in the alt-med world.

Fact...comment on the fact most pharmaceuticals sold are proven not to work yet western medicine and the science behind it isnt QUACKERY?provide me with ANYTHING besides your incessant dribble

List provided with reference

Forget the cochrane link

And here's a free hint: as a first step in making a point, you should try to avoid using words whose meaning you don't understand -- like, say, citation (to cite), projection, education, information, etc.

Most pharmaceuticals sold are proven not to work, you say?!


You made a lot of assertions in this sense. I, or anyone else for that matter, don't have to prove shit unless and until you start substantiating them.

The burden of proof is on you. That's the game of rational discourse, not spewing a heap of stuff, then going, "prove it ain't so"! NEWS Five out of six new prescription drugs don't work, doctor claims

Doctor conducted secret clinical trial prescribing hayfever tablets for neck pain and earache Chloresterol-lowering statins were a classic example of the drugs industry overselling a product as a wonder-pill to prevent heart attacks Picture: GETTY IMAGES By Stephen Adams 7:00PM BST 17 Aug 2010 Five out of six approved drugs offer "few if any new benefits" to patients, according to a leading critic of the pharmaceutical industry.

Large firms hyped-up patented medicines, spent vast amounts on getting doctors to prescribe them and underplayed serious side effects, said Prof Donald Light, a sociologist and professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, US.

When the "toxic side effects" of prescription drugs were taken into account, and their misuse, he claimed they were "a signficant cause of death".

Chloresterol-lowering statins were a classic example of the drugs industry overselling a product as a wonder-pill to prevent heart attacks, despite evidence that they could do more harm than good, he claimed.

In a paper that he presented to the American Sociological Association (ASA) on Tuesday, he said pharmacuetical companies were guilty of creating a "market for lemons" - one in which the seller knows much more than the buyer about the product, and takes advantage of this fact.

He said: "Sometimes drug companies hide or downplay information about serious side-effects of new drugs and overstate the drugs' benefits.

ADVERTISEMENT "Then, they spend two to three times more on marketing than on research to persuade doctors to prescribe these new drugs.

"Doctors may get misleading information and then misinform patients about the risks of a new drug. It's really a two-tier market for lemons."

He claimed it was the "most dangerous market for lemons in modern society", with toxic side effects and misuse of prescription drugs making them a significant cause of death in the US.

"Neither wars nor used car injuries come close," he said.

His allegations have been dismissed by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), which said he was "long on accusation and woefully short on hard evidence",

But Prof Light, who has also written articles for the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, said data from independent reviewers suggested that five out of six (85 per cent) of new drugs provided few, if any, new benefits.

His claims are outlined in the paper and also a book, The Risk of Prescription Drugs, due to be published this autumn.

With statins, he said drugs companies had boiled down complex set of relationships between heart disease and saturated fats and cholesterol into the over-simplistic message that "cholesterol kills".

Yet two major trials of statins found little evidence they reduced the risk of heart attacks. One major meta-analysis of a number of studies, found that "statins were not associated with reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality", he said.

Prof Light argued: "Current incentives for research produce a few [drugs] that substantially improve patients' chances of getting better or avoiding death but a large number of barely innovative drugs each year.

"These new drugs of little benefit consume about four-fifths of all drug costs."

He accused companies of swamping drugs regulators with large numbers of "incomplete, partial, sub-standard clinical trials".

"The result is that drugs get approved without anyone being able to know how effective they really are or how much serious harm they will cause," he said.

When patients complained of adverse reactions, studies showed doctors were likely to dismiss them, he said.

However, the ABPI issued a stern defence of the sector. A spokesman said: "Millions of people are alive today thanks to medicines. Medicines have transformed the management of conditions which previously caused death, impaired the quality of life or required hospitalisation.

"There is still great unmet medical need and the pharmaceutical industry is actively researching new cures to address these illnesses.

She noted there was now "much greater transparency in clinical trial results" with companies registering their results on websites such as

"The UK pharmaceutical industry also adheres to a strict code of practice on the sales and marketing of its products."

A spokesman for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority said it recognised the need to expand knowledge of new drugs' possible side effects in the wider population after clinical trials.

"For this reason the safety of all medicines is monitored closely by the MHRA," she said.

RELATED ARTICLES Drug shortages cause delays for cancer patients PROMOTED STORIES If you're getting a tax refund, your credit score could be in for a treat. Find out how. If you're getting a tax refund, your credit score could be in for a treat. Find out how. (Finder)

Welcome To Paradise: A Stone's Throw From Australia Welcome To Paradise: A Stone's Throw From Australia ( Why People in Wollongong Are Going Crazy For Marley Spoon Why People in Wollongong Are Going Crazy For Marley Spoon (Marley Spoon)

4 actions you can take to lower your electricity bill right now 4 actions you can take to lower your electricity bill right now (Compare The Market) Why a House and Land Package in Calderwood Valley Could be Perfect for You Why a House and Land Package in Calderwood Valley Could be Perfect for You (lendlease)

Illawarra's largest Display Home Village Now Open Illawarra's largest Display Home Village Now Open ( Living in Wollongong? Find out what your property is worth Living in Wollongong? Find out what your property is worth (

ATO has $14 billion worth of Australian superannuation funds. Recover yours quickly. ATO has $14 billion worth of Australian superannuation funds. Recover yours quickly. (Lost Super) Recommended by TOP NEWS GALLERIES Woody Allen Woody Allen's 30 best one-liners

Jeremy Corbyn The best British political insults

Culture stars who died in 2016

Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, Barack Obama and George W Bush US Presidents: 30 great one-liners

Timeless comedy: a lot of what used to be funny has gone out of date, but not Tommy Cooper 100 funny jokes by 100 comedians

History's greatest conspiracy theories

Grand stand views of London

Russia's abandoned space shuttles at the Baikonur Cosmodrome Russia's abandoned space shuttles

Fifty-year-old farmer Chen Lianxue with his homemade plane on the roof of his house in Qifu village of Pingliang, Gansu province, China. The plane took Chen about 28,000 yuan (£2,900) and over two years time to make, local media reported. Home-made in China

Vehicles following a cave-in of car park in Meridian, Mississippi Sinkholes around the world

BACK TO TOP HomeFootballVideoFantasy FootballUK NewsSportWorld NewsRugby UnionCommentCricketPoliticsTennisBusinessLifestyleCultureWomenTravelMenTechnologyFashionMoneyLuxuryObituariesCars Dating Jobs Shop VIEW DESKTOP VERSION Contact us Terms and conditions Privacy Policy

Yep its looking good for big pharma

An editorial from the Torygraph?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

Oh well, suppose it could've been worse... Could've been the Sun or some other even crappier red top.

i only believe the daily mail

Reply to this post

Leading cause of disease in US 1996 1 All cancer 2 Heart disease 3 Medical drugs 4 Stroke 5 Infections in hospitals 6 Lung disease 7 Accidents I8 Pneumonia/Influenza 9 Iatrogenic disease 10 Diabetes 11 HIV Aids 12 Suicide 13 Liver Disease The Washington Post,Wednesday,April 15,1998 on page A1 titled: "Correctly Prescribed Drugs Take Heavy Toll," by Rick Weiss

STILL not a link and a 20 year old story.

It’s not 1996 anymore???

Reply to this post


and it's a dead link...dick

Leading cause of disease in US 1996 1 All cancer 2 Heart disease 3 Medical drugs 4 Stroke 5 Infections in hospitals 6 Lung disease 7 Accidents I8 Pneumonia/Influenza 9 Iatrogenic disease 10 Diabetes 11 HIV Aids 12 Suicide 13 Liver Disease The Washington Post,Wednesday,April 15,1998 on page A1 titled: "Correctly Prescribed Drugs Take Heavy Toll," by Rick Weiss

And this....oops drugs are 3 not 4 and doctors killing patients eight WOW your failproof science is groovy

"failproof science?" Avi, are you for real or just trolling?

From the cited WaPo tale: "More than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year because of toxic reactions to correctly prescribed medicines taken properly, and 106,000 die from those reactions, a new study concludes. That surprisingly high number makes drug side effects at least the sixth, and perhaps even the fourth, most common cause of death in this country....

"We're not saying, Stop taking drugs,' " said Bruce H. Pomeranz, the University of Toronto neurophysiologist who initiated the study. For example, he said, blood thinners may cause fatal bleeding in some but also save countless lives by preventing heart attacks.

Pomeranz called for additional research to determine which drugs are most problematic and which patients are most at risk -- information that the current analysis did not try to gather."


richard40542 to be clear no one is claiming that drugs are completely safe in any way, in fact, i think people should talk more often with their doctors about the side effects of any medication they are on. in some regard yes we have gotten a bit too complacent with the use of medication as a whole

but to claim the entire thing is a conspiracy is simply insane

Yup. Some people have reactions to some drugs, that doesn't mean nobody should take any drug ever.

richard40542 exactly there are people who will have reactions that almost no one else will to a drug now and again this is why your doctor keeps in close contact with you when he or she gives you a new prescription to use such situations to promote woo and other b.s. is annoying to say the least (for the record i am not accusing you of anything like that)

People have bad reactions to "all natural" cures as well. Atropine can kill or cure depending on dosage.

Reply to this post

While there are risks associated with drugs, every drug is sold with potential side effects readily available and a consumer can make an informed decision. Not so with natural and organic supplements.

Reply to this post

Im sorry i will reply to the above comments a bit later....i would like to actually be corrected on some of the stuff i write which could be bullshit....please try explain to me why and im happy to capitulate...a battle of egos is childish so give me a chance before cutting me down

Really? Well, here we go:

«pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death worldwide»

No, they're not. And not only are they not #4, but they don't even make the top 10. According to the most recent data from WHO (2015), that is, not to some misguided speculations put up by a crank on a blog or in an opinion piece in dubious publications.

There you have it, Top 10:

  1. IHD (ischaemic heart disease)
  2. Stroke
  3. Lower respiratory infections
  4. COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
  5. Trachea, bronchitis, lung cancers
  6. Diabetes mellitus
  7. Alzheimer's and other dementia diseases
  8. Diarrheal diseases
  9. Tuberculosis
  10. Road injury (i.e., road accidents)

He can't share a link to Cochrane studies on this because there aren't any. He made this shit up.

richard40542, I don't actually think he made it up. It's more likely he read it in some place like Natural News or Mercola or other such crap hole.

armand81 Yeah it's probably something from a crap site, but to me sharing low quality claims without any links is the same as making it up.

To continue, Avi: «so we have scientific proof that 90 percent of the shit that doctors peddle actually KILLS "which isnt quackery"»

Again: NO, we don't. We have an assertion. An assertion which, unless and until you present us with actual DATA confirming this quite outlandish statement, is just that – an unsupported assertion (or, to put it in Harlan Ellison's words, only so much "hot air and farts in the wind"). And as such, we can apply Hitchens' Razor ("that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence") and simply disregard it!

«if all these trials have passed most drugs that dont work»

WHICH trials for WHAT drugs? And WHAT PERCENT of all drugs in current use do the make up?!

You said something about 90% of drugs not working. Well, there are a few thousand drugs in CURRENT use. Where is the data showing that, say, at least 1800 drugs out of 2000 (i.e., at least 90% of them) in current use don't work, as you said a little earlier?

«And what better way to keep a potential natural remedy as quackery than never testing it in the name of big pharma's altruistic search for the truth and cure to end all suffering...»

Easy, EASY with the conspiracy theories on these stairs, especially with that tone of voice! Nobody – and I do mean NO BODY – keeps the purveyors of "natural remedies" from testing them. THEY either don't do it, or they fail the tests. (I.e., the properly conducted tests, with double blinding and all other precautions taken in proper clinical trials to eliminate bias from the testing process as much as possible.)

And it's not like they don't have the money, as some would have us believe. The "natural remedies" industry is a multi-billion-$/year market, just like the supplements industry, and the homeopathic industry, and much of the rest of "alt-med". (And, unlike the pharmaceutical industry, they don't even have to bear the (huge) costs of R&D – and we're talking of upwards of $1 billion (that's "billion" with a ? for each new drug that passes clinical trials and gets approved – because they rarely, if ever, do anything that would actually constitute research.)

A homeo company pays for Seralini's fake research. Real research isn't any more expensive.

Richard: «A homeo company pays for Seralini's fake research. Real research isn't any more expensive.»

Well, if you only test for the efficacy and safety of a given "something" (i.e., clinical trials)... they're pretty much the same – because they involve the exact same steps and procedures (if the testing is done properly, that is). Which is not to say it's cheap in common terms. It's certainly nothing any Average Joe could afford to pay out of his own pocket – but it's peanuts to a company dealing in the tens or hundreds of millions yearly. (And let's not fool ourselves, "natural remedies" and "supplements" companies aren't the mom & pop small local shops some would have us believe!)

«if they keep medicating symptoms and ignore the cause of disease »

That is an outright lie. And I do mean LIE, because I find it really hard to accept anyone could be so ignorant in this day and age as to actually believe such nonsense.

In any case: NEWSFLASH • antibiotics treat the CAUSE of the disease (i.e., they attack the bacteria that produce bacterial infections, in anything from strep throat to tuberculosis). • (curative) cancer therapy (all of it: surgery, chemo- and radio-therapy) seeks to eliminate the CAUSE of the disease. There are other examples, of course, but two should suffice, especially since they're the better-known ones. (And even ONE, in fact, is enough to prove false your assertion that "they" ignore the cause of the disease.)

Now on the other hand, I also take issue with the way you talk about "medicating symptoms" as though it were a bad thing. Well, I'm sorry, but if you think that, you're an idiot!

Whether we like it or not, there are cases where treating symptoms is either a matter of comfort or even THE ONLY THING we can do (ignorant bullshit spewed by "alt-med" adepts notwithstanding). Because, basically, the human body is very complicated machine and medical science hasn't yet progressed to the point where we can know and treat the cause of every way it could go wrong.

An example where we know the cause but more often than not can't do shit to treat them are viral infections – from the common cold to fucking rabies. There are antivirals that work for some viruses, but they're still few and far between. For some others, there are vaccines we can take to prevent the onset of the disease in case of contamination, but not for all – and vaccines are a preventative measure, not a curative one. (Rabies would be one of the exceptions, but only because the progress of the infection is so slow that if we take the vaccine early enough after the contagion, the body is able to produce antibodies and defeat it. However, in this case, too, if you wait for the onset of the symptoms... well, you're pretty much fucked given that mortality rates in such cases are very close to 100%.)

Now, I said treating symptoms is often a matter of comfort. I find no pleasure in going even through a cold without taking some aspirine or ibuprofen and a decongestant – so that, even though I can't do shit about the cause except wait for my body to clear the infection, at least I don't have to go through a whole week feeling like I've been beaten with sandbags by a troop of crazed gorillas after working in a coal mine the whole night!

And to that, I would add my Ventolin spray without which (or some other stuff with the same effect) I literally suffocate even when I don't have any infection to boost the inflammation in my bronchia. Yes, symptomatic treatment, but since we're not in Star Trek, that's all there is to keep my asthma in check – especially as when an attack sets on, and I need something to make the bronchospasms go away NOW or else I'm left like a fish out of water! (It's no fun, I assure you. If you're really curious, try breathing through a cocktail straw – one of the narrower ones! – for a few minutes and you just might start to have an idea how an asthma attack feels like. And not even a very severe one; those can literally kill you by suffocation.)

I'm also blessed with some recurring migraines that pop up about for a few days in a row every 3 weeks or so. Is your – surely informed and pertinent! – opinion that I should go about for up to a week feeling like I have my head firmly planted in an industrial press because I've had the "fortune" to fall in the ~50% of people whose headaches are "idiopathic" (fancy medical jargon for "no fucking clue what causes this")? Not to mention nausea and photophobia?

What about terminal cancer patients – are they allowed symptomatic treatment? Or should we let them suffer, because "medicating symptoms" is a moral evil or whatever?

Or cancer patients in general, for that matter, since it's known that both chemo- and radiotherapy can have some very nasty side effects. (And I don't mean the temporary hair loss – that's at most an inconvenience.) Should they be refused symptomatic treatment for those side effects and told they have to endure the pain and nausea etc., because... well, you can't very well eliminate the cause, in this particular case, without condemning them to certain death?

«yet you guys find isolated instances where a natural remedy has purportedly lead to death discounting 1000 other possibilities and pounce all over it»

This is simply a gross distortion of the facts. What "we guys" find is that "natural remedies" as a whole were not proven to be efficacious. And a minority of them, beyond doing shit, are actually damaging and dangerous.

The "1000 other 'possibilies'" mean jack shit when they're just "theoretical" possibilities (where by theoretical I actually mean speculative). If they were worth anything as treatments, they would pass clinical trials for efficacy – and would by this very fact become part of MAINSTREAM medicine.

Which isn't to say they would necessarily be in current, let alone widespread use, especially if there are other treatments that are more efficacious and cost less or have fewer side effects, but they would be included in the "mainstream" pharmacopoeia – along with other such "natural" remedies like, say, digitalis extracts for some heart disease or morphine and other opiates. (Yes, morphine. It actually costs less to extract it from opium poppy capsules than to synthesize it – just as is the case with MANY other drugs obtained from natural sources.)

And while we're at it, it's actually the "alt-med" rhetoric that constantly brings ups the 1 case in 1000 where, to put it in your words, some drugs have been proven harmful, while ignoring the other 999 where they fucking work. (And don't even think about bringing up people's abuse of drugs and the ensuing overdosing or intoxication, because that's a totally different kettle of fish!)

PS: There's no effect without side effects. When you hear "no side effects", what that actually means is one of two things: • either "no 'problematic' side effects when taken according to the guidelines (which usually means 'as prescribed')"; • or "no (relevant) pharmacological effects at all, full stop".

«Two large recent Cochrane studies mirrorred results of one done in the 80's that at best only 10 percent of drugs on the market we have scientific proof that 90 percent of the shit that doctors »

Actually, UNLESS AND UNTIL you point out the "two large recent Cochrane studies", we only have an unjustified assertion.

Or... do you expect us to be content with your waving of hand in the general direction of the Cochrane Collaboration, and then go do the legwork and thrall through hundreds if not thousands of studies in the hopes of finding something that might or might not be what you had in mind? It literally takes SECONDS to copy&paste a link or a DOI. (That is, if you actually know which are the studies that supposedly showed that... But I have a feeling you're just parroting a line from some "alt-med" source. If not – I dare you to prove me wrong, and link the studies!)

Reply to this post


Reply to this post

I will let you beat on this nut longer


I am guessing this a Master Level Triple Platinum troll. Either that or someone with Paranoid Schizophrenia in desperate need of help (medication). I hope it’s the former and not the latter.

robert4 it could easily be someone who has been misinformed from all the b.s. "news" sites out there


«Robert Roane it could easily be someone who has been misinformed from all the b.s. "news" sites out there»

... AND, most important, who doesn't even bother in the least to do any check on what he gets from there. I mean, FFS, his very first phrase[*] is something anyone can find out is nonsense in much under a minute on google.

[*] "pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death worldwide"

I'm through. My patience came to an end. I haven't written so much at once about these alt-med fantasies since my last blog post some 5 years ago. (Really, 1500 words would count as a rather long blog post by any measure except Orac's.) To put it in the words of one of Asimov's characters from the Foundation, I'm tempted to use an atom-blaster to crack this nut. Lucky for him, we don't have those... yet.

robert4 I don't know I'm going to say he was a schizophrenic troll.

Reply to this post

I removed Avi Aronstan

now what are we gonna do for fun?=p

No clue. Wait for the next.

Thank you

matt41417 There willl be more. I promise.

tsu1746 YAY!!

Awww..I was really starting to enjoy playing with our new toy. Can we have another one? Pretty please?

yeah i promise we will not break it=p

or maybe a puppy!!!!!!

We will share, we promise!

I will let the next fool in that says yes they believe

tina4 yay

Now I can't get his – surely very rational and pertinent – feedback on what I last answered him!

Oh, well, I guess I'll just have to move on with my life... after an appropriate period of mourning, of course!?

Reply to this post

Lol so many people have posted sources debunking every part of your claim in which YOU have not provided any evidence for yourself. Oh and btw, i hear that chile powder helps with dry eyes. Just shake some in there and you will name nice watery eyes again!

the op has since been banned fyi ?

Good ?

kayti1212 that being said there is a subthread (you liked my posts on it) where he did attempt a defense and failed horribly

so he was given a fair chance to defend himself but he was throwing rocks at a tank basically lol

I didnt count that pathetic attempt of quackery as evidence lol!

kayti1212 neither did the rest of us lol but he was given multiple chances to prove his claims

Reply to this post

I banned this nutter, Avi, FYI

and promised to get us a new chew toy as well i might add=p

Yeah! You promised!!!!

Aww, I wanted to ask him how many lives are saved by pharmaceuticals. You know, to put a bit of perspective on the issue.

rosalind275 the answer of course is fnord

Reply to this post

This person is bat shit crazy.

Reply to this post

Reply to this thread

This site uses cookies and other tracking technologies to differentiate between individual computers, personalized service settings, analytical and statistical purposes, and customization of content and ad serving. This site may also contain third-party cookies. If you continue to use the site, we assume it matches the current settings, but you can change them at any time. More info here: Privacy and Cookie Policy