Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Morphine in the Brain: Go For It, or Not? | Main | News Flash: I May Not Be a Fool »

June 22, 2005

Fan Mail

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This is the first one of these I've had since I started blogging. It's in response to this recent post, and I thought I'd celebrate by sharing it with everyone:

"You are a shameful individual Mr. Lowe - to make a living in the pharmaceutical industry, whether past or present and then turn around and cast Dr. Rath, who presented clear evidence that his formulations work not only with AIDS but also cancer, as some greedy vitamin pusher when contrasted with the pharmaceutical industry which makes profits over and above 20,000 times the cost of drugs is beyond absurd - it is a baseless slander scheme. You guys may believe you can hide the truth from people, and maybe you might, God will have done what God sees fit to allow, but the day will come when you and your cohorts will have to answer for your lies, deceptions and greed-driven undermining of the health and welfare of many nations - on that Day justice will be served."

Dr. Rath's clinical trials were conducted where, exactly? By whom? With what sorts of controls and in what patient population? And reached what sort of statistical significance against which endpoints? The governments of Switzerland, England, and South Africa disagree with him for what reasons?

Your figure of "20,000 times the cost of drugs" comes from where? Arrived at by what measure? If a drug makes ten billion dollars of profit over its patented lifespan (a mighty fine number, one that most never reach), does that mean, if we divide it out, that the "cost" of that drug was. . .$500,000? On whose planet?

And Dr. Rath's profit margins are. . .what, exactly? The money for his international operation and his high-profile advertisements comes from. . .where?

I'll take my chances with God if and when the time comes, as will Matthias Rath. At least I won't have to explain why I urged thousands of people to forsake the medications that could keep them alive. I can, if I choose to, show my face in South Africa without fear of arrest. Can Dr. Rath?

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases


COMMENTS

1. daen on June 23, 2005 4:51 AM writes...

Looks like you need a new category, Derek; "flame of the week", maybe?

Permalink to Comment

2. William Burke on June 23, 2005 8:03 AM writes...

Derek,

I can carry this on as long as you want and if you want to present it in your forum, then by all means, please do.
Dr. Rath's clinical trials were conducted where, exactly?

Response: Throughout the world, in REAL people, who REALLY were healed and experience science and all it deceptiveness can never change. The man with experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument - a fact you in the scientific mindset who seem to believe without the confines of a clinical environment and controls there are no accurate measures - utter nonsense.

By whom?

Response: By his Foundation and others at the expense of his Foundation. Maybe you've ignored his comments in his June 15th press conference when he promised he would NOT sell his vitamins in South Africa, rather they would be donated through the benevolence of his Foundation and those who support it to any and all in SA who desire them. In sharp contrast to the pharmaceutical industry who is after profits at the expense of lives on EVERY front.

With what sorts of controls and in what patient population? And reached what sort of statistical significance against which endpoints?

Response: Science speak for my rules, my judgement, reality does not matter. View his press conference via his website and you will witness for yourself living examples of his successes, which I'm sure you will classify as irrelevent, unreliable, anecdotal evidence for nothing because it is out of the confines of a double-blind clinical study. NEWSFLASH Derek: British Medical Journal reports that 94% of the claims of pharmaceutical companies about their drugs are NOT SUPPORTED BY CLINICAL EVIDENCE. 94% lies - which is no surprise to me because you guys have taken biology completely out of medicine and tried to make it all about chemistry, chemicals and utter nonsense.

The governments of Switzerland, England, and South Africa disagree with him for what reasons?

Response: You would go to "quackwatch" for your support. Stephen Barrett? Stephen Barrett is an absolute embarrassment to humanity, he has been utterly trounced in court as a meritless in his lawsuits against alternative medicine, the hack won't even respond to any of my emails (to which I do give you credit, albeit deceptive and self-serving and indirect) because he is short on truth and long on slanderous lies. See for yourself of his courtroom follies: http://www.geocities.com/missionstmichael/Quack.html

Your figure of "20,000 times the cost of drugs" comes from where? Arrived at by what measure? If a drug makes ten billion dollars of profit over its patented lifespan (a mighty fine number, one that most never reach), does that mean, if we divide it out, that the "cost" of that drug was. . .$500,000? On whose planet?

Response: Life Extension Foundation with a comprehensive report you can find at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/apr2002_awsi_01.html - but here are a few examples (note: my 20,000% number in many cases was a very kind underestimate) :

Drug/size - Consumer Price for 100 units - cost of generic ingredients - percent markup

Celebrex 100 mg $130.27 $0.60 21,712%

Claritin 10 mg $215.17 $0.71 30,306%

Keflex 250 mg $157.39 $1.88 8,372%

Lipitor 20 mg $272.37 $5.80 4,696%

Norvasc 10 mg $188.29 $0.14 134,493%

Paxil 20 mg $220.27 $7.60 2,898%

Prevacid 30 mg $344.77 $1.01 34,136%

Prilosec 20 mg $360.97 $0.52 69,417%

Prozac 20 mg $247.47 $0.11 224,973%

Of course I know you won't present that in your forum because then people might know why there is such a ferven push for drug therapy over natural remedies, one word, PROFIT!

And Dr. Rath's profit margins are. . .what, exactly? The money for his international operation and his high-profile advertisements comes from. . .where?

Response: The regimen he recommends for cancer is I believe around $70/month, maybe more in more severe cases I'm not sure, but that is from his website at www.drrathvitamins.com - compare that to the prescription drug bill my mothers unsuccessful hospital stay of 35 days came to of $98K +/- a few dollars and another $100K for other services and you have a clear example of why greed on his part is foolish to claim.

I'll take my chances with God if and when the time comes, as will Matthias Rath. At least I won't have to explain why I urged thousands of people to forsake the medications that could keep them alive. I can, if I choose to, show my face in South Africa without fear of arrest. Can Dr. Rath?

Response: The Bible says "all liars will have their part in the lake of fire" Rev. 21:8 states: But the cowardly, unbelieving,[b] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. God will judge the heart and motives and condition of all on Judgment Day, persecution in this life is no indication at all of the truth of ones case, but even if so then I would put myself in Dr. Rath's shoes over yours anyday. Besides, the threats of the TAC against Dr. Rath are toothless and baseless accusations that are based on a foundation of lies which have been clearly documented and presented to the court in SA. Let me give you one statement from a survivor of AIDS that spoke at the Press Conference the media has chosen to ignore - "All around me people on ARV's are dying, while I got better. I don't understand why this information is not getting out and these people are dying?" (paraphrased but available at http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/multimedia/pressconference04.ram ) Your statement was revealing however, your "if" statement about facing God to which I will simply offer this warning from the Bible "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God" Hebrews 10:31 and hebrews 9:27 which confirms that " And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment " - so rest assured your will face Him and will be held accountable - I only pray you (and those in opposition to the truth) will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

William Burke

President

Outreach 2K, Inc.

www.outreach2k.com

Permalink to Comment

3. CatCube on June 23, 2005 9:08 AM writes...

Dude, use paragraphs.

Permalink to Comment

4. WBurke on June 23, 2005 9:54 AM writes...

Derek,
I can carry this on as long as you want and if you want to present it in your forum, then by all means, please do.


Dr. Rath's clinical trials were conducted where, exactly?


Response: Throughout the world, in REAL people, who REALLY were healed and experiences that science and all it deceptiveness can never change. The man with experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument - a fact you of the scientific mindset, who seem to believe without the confines of a clinical environment and controls there are no accurate measures, fail to grasp - what utter nonsense.


By whom?


Response: By his Foundation and others at the expense of his Foundation. Maybe you've ignored his comments in his June 15th press conference when he promised he would NOT sell his vitamins in South Africa, rather they would be donated through the benevolence of his Foundation and those who support it to any and all in SA who desire them. In sharp contrast to the pharmaceutical industry who is after profits at the expense of lives on EVERY front.


With what sorts of controls and in what patient population? And reached what sort of statistical significance against which endpoints?


Response: Science speak for: "my rules, my judgement, reality does not matter." View his press conference via his website and you will witness for yourself living examples of his successes, which I'm sure you will classify as irrelevent, unreliable, anecdotal evidence for nothing because it is out of the confines of a double-blind clinical study. NEWSFLASH Derek: British Medical Journal (BMJ 2/28/04; 328:485) reports that 94% of the claims of pharmaceutical companies about their drugs are NOT SUPPORTED BY CLINICAL EVIDENCE. 94% lies - which is no surprise to me because you guys have taken biology completely out of medicine and tried to make it all about chemistry, chemicals and utter nonsense.


The governments of Switzerland, England, and South Africa disagree with him for what reasons?


Response: You would go to "quackwatch" for your support. Stephen Barrett? Stephen Barrett is an absolute embarrassment to humanity and medicine, he has been utterly trounced in court as meritless in his lawsuits against alternative medicine, the hack won't even respond to any of my emails (to which I do give you credit, albeit deceptive and self-serving and indirect) because he is short on truth and long on slanderous lies. See for yourself of his courtroom follies: http://www.geocities.com/missionstmichael/Quack.html


Your figure of "20,000 times the cost of drugs" comes from where? Arrived at by what measure? If a drug makes ten billion dollars of profit over its patented lifespan (a mighty fine number, one that most never reach), does that mean, if we divide it out, that the "cost" of that drug was. . .$500,000? On whose planet?


Response: Our planet and Life Extension Foundation with a comprehensive report you can find at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/apr2002_awsi_01.html - but here are a few examples (note: my 20,000% number in many cases was a very kind underestimate) : Drug/size - Consumer Price for 100 units - cost of generic ingredients - percent markup Celebrex 100 mg $130.27 $0.60 21,712% Claritin 10 mg $215.17 $0.71 30,306% Keflex 250 mg $157.39 $1.88 8,372% Lipitor 20 mg $272.37 $5.80 4,696% Norvasc 10 mg $188.29 $0.14 134,493% Paxil 20 mg $220.27 $7.60 2,898% Prevacid 30 mg $344.77 $1.01 34,136% Prilosec 20 mg $360.97 $0.52 69,417% Prozac 20 mg $247.47 $0.11 224,973% Of course I know you won't present that in your forum (sorry I didn't know I could post it straight to your forum, sorry dude!) because then people might know why there is such a fervent push for drug therapy over natural remedies, one word, PROFIT!


And Dr. Rath's profit margins are. . .what, exactly? The money for his international operation and his high-profile advertisements comes from. . .where?


Response: The regimen he recommends for cancer is I believe around $70/month, maybe more in more severe cases I'm not sure, but that is from his website at www.drrathvitamins.com - compare that to the prescription drug bill my mothers unsuccessful hospital stay of 35 days which came to $98K +/- a few dollars and another $100K for other services which led to her death from an infection, not cancer, and you have a clear example of why greed on his part is foolish to claim.


I'll take my chances with God if and when the time comes, as will Matthias Rath. At least I won't have to explain why I urged thousands of people to forsake the medications that could keep them alive. I can, if I choose to, show my face in South Africa without fear of arrest. Can Dr. Rath?


Response: The Bible says "all liars will have their part in the lake of fire" Rev. 21:8 states: But the cowardly, unbelieving,[b] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. God will judge the heart and motives and condition of all on Judgment Day, persecution in this life is no indication at all of the truth of ones case, but even if so then I would put myself in Dr. Rath's shoes over yours anyday. Besides, the threats of the TAC against Dr. Rath are toothless and baseless accusations that are based on a foundation of lies which have been clearly documented and presented to the court in SA. Let me give you one statement from a survivor of AIDS that spoke at the Press Conference the media has chosen to ignore - "All around me people on ARV's are dying, while I got better. I don't understand why this information is not getting out and these people are dying?" (paraphrased but available at http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/multimedia/pressconference04.ram ) Your statement was revealing however, your "if" statement about facing God to which I will simply offer this warning from the Bible "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God" Hebrews 10:31 and hebrews 9:27 which confirms that " And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment " - so rest assured your will face Him and will be held accountable - I only pray you (and those in opposition to the truth) will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. William Burke President Outreach 2K, Inc.

Permalink to Comment

5. Chris on June 23, 2005 10:11 AM writes...

Dr. Rath's clinical trials were conducted where, exactly?



Response: Throughout the world, in REAL people, who REALLY were healed and experiences that science and all it deceptiveness can never change. The man with experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument - a fact you of the scientific mindset, who seem to believe without the confines of a clinical environment and controls there are no accurate measures, fail to grasp - what utter nonsense.

If I had been inclined to doubt Derek's characterization of this as quackery, you'd have convinced me.

Permalink to Comment

6. Dr Snowboard on June 23, 2005 10:16 AM writes...

I think someone forgot to take their medication this morning....

Permalink to Comment

7. Elias on June 23, 2005 11:35 AM writes...

The retail cost of pharmaceuticals shouldn't be compared to the actual price of making the drug. Significant amounts of money are needed in the research, development and safety trials of any drug you had mentioned. Vitamins are of course exempt from any of these costs.

The vitamin forumulation used in a study described at http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/open_letters/open_letter_micronutrients_scientific.htm was nothin more than "vitamins, minerals, amino acids and certain other essential nutrients". I feel that $70 for a month of vitamins is overpriced, considering a bottle of multivitamins may cost around $20 for 200+ tablets at Vitamin World.

Permalink to Comment

8. zeek on June 23, 2005 1:06 PM writes...

Wow, this is great. I mainly see this kind of invective self-righteous blogging from the ID people at Evo-Biology sites like Pharyngula and the Loom.

Has anyone seen the 30min "infomercial" shown in the mornings on the USA and TNT where the host states through a pseudo question-answer session that neurological disorders like ADHD, depression, & anxiety (and some other non-neurological disorders) are actually terms, and not real conditions, that were created and now propagated by the biopharma industry. Of course, he can cure these altered states of mind (that you brought upon yourself) with his own vitamin elixir ... at only a small cost. Again, no talk of experimental design, results and statistical analyses of the data. But hey, he mentions this stuff really worked with Esther down the street and she's much happier and healthier now. The sad thing is that a lot of older people in rural America who don't have great health care are buying these elixirs with their monthly checks. I suppose the placebo effect and better nutritional states through vitamin-taking is beneficial, but I'm guessing this guy cares more about making $$ than about Esther. So, let's keep it quantitative when making such important health-related statements and not just say this worked "in REAL people, who REALLY were healed". That just sounds ridiculous on a site that discusses in detail molecular bases for disease, drug actions & targets, clinical trial design and the like.

Great site. Read it every morning with my coffee. Especially like the recent posts regarding reductionist vs. system-level approaches to drug discovery.

Permalink to Comment

9. WBurke on June 23, 2005 1:06 PM writes...

Elias comment: The retail cost of pharmaceuticals shouldn't be compared to the actual price of making the drug. Significant amounts of money are needed in the research, development and safety trials of any drug you had mentioned.


Response: http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/4/drug_industry.htm

The pharmaceutical industry spends about one-fifth of what it says it spends on the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, destroying the chief argument it uses against making prescription drugs affordable to middle and low-income seniors, a Public Citizen investigation has found.


A Public Citizen report reveals how major U.S. drug companies and their Washington lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have carried out a misleading campaign to scare policymakers and the public.


PhRMA's central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund "risky" and innovative research and development to discover new drugs. In fact, taxpayers are footing a significant portion of the R&D bill, which is much lower than the companies claim.


This R&D scare card is built on myths and falsehoods that are maintained by the drug industry to block Medicare drug coverage and measures that would rein in skyrocketing drug costs.


Public Citizen based the study on an extensive review of government and industry data and a report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among the report's key findings:


The actual after-tax cash outlay - what drug companies really spend on R&D for each new drug (including failures) - is approximately $110 million (in year 2000 dollars.) This is in marked contrast with the $500 million figure PhRMA frequently touts.


The NIH document shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to the development of top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists conducted at least 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the five top-selling drugs in 1995.


Public Citizen found that, at most, about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the past two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic advances. Most new drugs were "me-too" or copycat drugs that have little or no therapeutic gain over existing drugs, undercutting the industry's claim that R&D expenses are used to discover new treatments for serious and life-threatening illnesses.


A second report issued today by Public Citizen, The Other Drug War: Big Pharma's 625 Washington Lobbyists, examines how the U.S. drug industry spent an unprecedented $262 million on political influence in the 1999-2000 election cycle. That includes $177 million on lobbying, $65 million on issue ads and $20 million on campaign contributions. The report shows that:


The drug industry hired 625 different lobbyists last year - or more than one lobbyist for every member of Congress - to coax, cajole and coerce lawmakers.


The one-year bill for this team of lobbyists was $92.3 million, a $7.2 million increase over what the industry spent for lobbyists in 1999. Drug companies took advantage of the revolving door between Congress, the executive branch and the industry itself.


Of the 625 lobbyists employed in 2000, more than half were either former members of Congress (21) or worked in Congress or other federal agencies (295).


The industry's $20 million in campaign contributions and millions more in issue ads attacking candidates opposed by the industry aided its army of lobbyists in gaining access to congressional representatives.


The drug industry is stealing from us twice:

First it claims that it needs huge profits to develop new drugs, even while drug companies get hefty taxpayer subsidies.


Second, the companies gouge taxpayers while spending millions from their profits to buy access to lawmakers and defeat pro-consumer prescription drug legislation.


Final note: Don't believe all you read in your industry propoganda guys - the truth hurts, huh?


Elias comment: I feel that $70 for a month of vitamins is overpriced, considering a bottle of multivitamins may cost around $20 for 200+ tablets at Vitamin World.


That, elias, is $70/month for an effective, noninvasive and multifaceted approach that will empower a body AND fight the cancer with the likelihood of victory compared to $30,000 to $180,000 for cancer therapy - not for a multivitamin alone, which I purchase for around $20/month and have for 12 years. This enabled me to present myself as a diabetic in "tremendous condition" (a doctors own words, not mine)considering the length of my condition at the time (18 years as a Type 1 diabetic). As I stated earlier, my mothers insurance co. was fleeced by the hospital in which she died - from an infection, as a result of chemotherapy destroying her body's ability to ward off infection - for nearly $200K for a mere 35 days of treatment, $96K of which was for prescriptions alone. Given an alternative I believe most families would follow Dr. Rath's route - if only they were given the facts, the science and the prognosis from a learned member of his staff or any other professional with experience and understanding of the mechanisms through which the vitamins+ therapy works.

Permalink to Comment

10. Jason on June 23, 2005 2:25 PM writes...

Hey Derek, he's right. 130.27/.6 equals 21,712%.

:)

Permalink to Comment

11. Derek Lowe on June 23, 2005 2:46 PM writes...

Mr. Burke, I invite you to check out the "Drug Pricing" category over on the right-hand side of this blog to see my take on the Public Citizen reports. And even if you take them as revealed truth, which I most certainly do not, you're talking about factors of five or ten in cost, not factors of 20,000, as you originally stated.

I've worked in the industry for nearly sixteen years now, and not once have I worked on anything that's made it to market. How do we make up those costs? The entire research site where I'm employed now has yet to take a drug to market. How do we pay for that?

I despair of arguing these points with you, since you are so far removed from the reality of where I work. The same applies to your claims of multivitamin efficacy: call me stubborn, but unless you can show me some real data, with some real statistics, I will remain very, very hard to convince. We walk away from once-promising therapies, often at the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, because of evidence like this.

Yammering on about "taking all the biology out of medicine" and about "science and all its deceptiveness" is unlikely to convince me of much, either. Except of a few things you're probably not intending, that is.

Permalink to Comment

12. WBurke on June 23, 2005 3:52 PM writes...

Derek says: Mr. Burke, I invite you to check out the "Drug Pricing" category over on the right-hand side of this blog to see my take on the Public Citizen reports. And even if you take them as revealed truth, which I most certainly do not, you're talking about factors of five or ten in cost, not factors of 20,000, as you originally stated.


Response: The fact that drugs are profitable is not my concern, I’m all for companies making a profit. The fact that they are very profitable doesn’t disturb me Derek, not in the slightest as I applaud the entrepreneurial spirit of man. But when you lie, cheat, steal and deceive and then on top of all that present a bogus picture of why you have to charge exorbitant prices for drugs (you know governments and now private donations pick up a huge portion of your R&D – well maybe not your company in particular, but your industry) that causes me to lose my patience and strike back. The really devastating numbers that you will not talk about I’m sure are the lobbyist $’s spent on 600+ DC lobbyists who must be very well worth their money because they have written one of the most lucrative bills ever enacted out of the den of thieves in Washington. I stand by their assessment (Public Citizen's) as their record of accuracy and integrity is nearly perfect when contrasted to that of the pharmaceutical industry.

Derek says: I've worked in the industry for nearly sixteen years now, and not once have I worked on anything that's made it to market. How do we make up those costs? The entire research site where I'm employed now has yet to take a drug to market. How do we pay for that?

Response: Then apparently you and your department must not be that good or like government work no matter how many failures you have you’re still able to climb the ladder to higher office and keep your job. I can think of very few areas that could afford to support such an ineffective and failure prone department record as yours and still top the industry charts when it comes to profitability for over 30 years. That is amazing. How do you make up those costs? In a way that is truthful, non-life threatening, non-hazardous to human health and certainly not based on bogus studies, signed by highly non-participatory doctors, where the conclusions rarely match the raw data. But that seems to be the case as your failures and those of your industry mount to create a vacuum when it comes to new potential Blockbuster drugs.

Derek says: I despair of arguing these points with you, since you are so far removed from the reality of where I work. The same applies to your claims of multivitamin efficacy: call me stubborn, but unless you can show me some real data, with some real statistics, I will remain very, very hard to convince. We walk away from once-promising therapies, often at the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, because of evidence like this.

Response: I’m not out to convince you Derek, merely to point out the fraud within your industry, the way you defame legitimate scientists in such an elitist manner that presents the impression, if they’re not one of us they’re a quack. You guys haven’t even got the integrity to stand on real science but rather manipulate the studies to confound the reviewers and all the while people are dying or being maimed by therapies that are hardly necessary and profoundly risky to their health. Our bodies were not meant to ingest chemicals at the levels you guys push doctors to prescribe, your studies are hardly trustworthy because many facets are done on individuals dissimilar from the potential patients and are rarely done to present an improvement of therapy, which would be a side to side, drug vs. drug study. Why is it Derek, that despite the fact there is a patent on CoQ10/statin therapy (by Merck I believe) that your industry does not promote it or even raise awareness of the fact that statins cause Coenzyme Q10 depletion which ultimately results in cellular inability to produce energy and the threat of heart failure? The fact that there is a patent confirms that there is prior knowledge of the danger of statin use to Coenzyme Q10 production. Contrast that with Dr. Rath’s well-studied and incredibly safe alternative, Melaleuca’s safe and effective ProvexCV which is the patented and highly studied product of Dr. John D. Folts, the same doctor who studied aspirin in the 70’s making it one of the more common ideas with regard to cardiovascular health. These safe alternatives though do not get media coverage due to the interests with money in Big Pharma, due to this fact millions of lives are lost because of ignorance about safe alternatives to expensive and risky drug therapies. And at least be honest Derek, no matter how much data I provide you with, the most integritous studies in the world would not change your view because you’ve got your whole life wrapped up in a certain mindset from which you could not remove yourself without abandoning your way of life. Most are not willing to even consider that, thus it matters not how much info I provide so let’s at least resolve that empty promise of a potential to be convinced, even if it is ever so slight.

Derek says: Yammering on about "taking all the biology out of medicine" and about "science and all its deceptiveness" is unlikely to convince me of much, either. Except of a few things you're probably not intending, that is.

Response: Why is it Derek that drug companies and doctors for the most part have ignore the very basics about cell function, structure and development when it comes to medicine? Because when all is said and done the battle of health begins and ends at the cellular level, something most drugs do damage to because they are foreign chemical formulations that do not assimilate well, thus the myriad side effects from an average prescription in contrast to virtually no side effects from vitamins, minerals and amino acids. The reason they have (ignored it) is clear in that people like myself, who eat right and supplement to make sure their body has sufficient nutrition to function properly and prevent common chronic illnesses, are not highly profitable patients due to the fact that they/we rarely need medical attention. Less profit and small earnings potential for drug companies = no jobs for you, many doctors, hospital staffs, insurance workers, etc… The entire industry would be thoroughly minimized were people told the truth about natural health and what a body needs. Final note Derek – It takes a man of incredible character and decency to admit they’ve been wrong, wronged others and profited in the process and then spend their remaining life in an attempt to correct those errors, Zaccheus did it and Jesus Christ chose him out of all to dine with on one fateful night, many others do it unbeknownst to others, consider it Derek – the life you save may be your own.

Permalink to Comment

13. kodi on June 23, 2005 4:34 PM writes...

Ooh. More fun than bear-baiting, even.

Burke wrote:
Throughout the world, in REAL people, who REALLY were healed and experiences that science and all it deceptiveness can never change. The man with experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument - a fact you of the scientific mindset, who seem to believe without the confines of a clinical environment and controls there are no accurate measures, fail to grasp - what utter nonsense.

---

Then Burke wrote:
I’m not out to convince you Derek, merely to point out the fraud within your industry, the way you defame legitimate scientists in such an elitist manner that presents the impression, if they’re not one of us they’re a quack. You guys haven’t even got the integrity to stand on real science but rather manipulate the studies to confound the reviewers and all the while people are dying or being maimed by therapies that are hardly necessary and profoundly risky to their health.

---

Am I the only one who has a hard time reconciling these two viewpoints? Is Dr. Rath an enemy of science, or the best scientist of them all?

Permalink to Comment

14. PsychicChemist on June 23, 2005 4:40 PM writes...

Mr. Burke,

have you taken your vitamins recently.....

Permalink to Comment

15. Mike M on June 23, 2005 6:27 PM writes...

Youv'e got to love the nuts. "Foreign chemical formulations" that do not "assimilate well". It looks like I will have to get that ole' assimilation assay back up and running. Thanks for the laugh.

Permalink to Comment

16. qetzal on June 23, 2005 6:59 PM writes...

Funny thing - if you go to Mr. Burke's outreach2k web site and click on his 'Online Presentation' link, it turns out that the good Mr. Burke would like to help you start your own home-based business. He will apparently even be your "success coach."



It may not surprise you to learn that this home-based business involves bringing in new "clients" for which you will earn monthly dividends, plus a percentage of the clients' gross. (Can you say 'pyramid scheme?').



Now, can you guess what sorts of products (among others) are involved in this amazing opportunity? Well, if you guessed 'Nutritional Supplements' ("so effective that they are protected by patents!"), you win a free Amway gift pack!



Maybe Mr. Burke's real gripe with big pharma is just jealousy over the sales figures.



;-)

Permalink to Comment

17. Derek Lowe on June 23, 2005 9:25 PM writes...

I'll end my presence in this comment thread with this question posed to me:

Why is it Derek that drug companies and doctors for the most part have ignore the very basics about cell function, structure and development when it comes to medicine?



That's a stumper, all right. Makes me wonder about all those cell biology papers I'm reading now to get up to speed on my new project, and about all those people we pay to. . .culture cells. And all those assays that we run on. . .yep, cells. Ay yi yi.

Mr. Burke, I'll be the first to admit that you're entertaining, but it's becoming clear that what you don't know about the drug industry - or about drugs, for that matter, or biology, or chemistry - would choke a terabyte hard drive. Neither of us could convince the other about anything more complicated than whether it's raining outside. We're wasting each other's time.

Since you're fond of quoting Biblical texts, let me just say that you remind me of the people in 1 Timothy 6-7, who "have turned aside unto vain jangling. . .understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Good day.

Permalink to Comment

18. WBurke on June 23, 2005 10:07 PM writes...

Yeah, just what I'd expect Derek, even with all your buddies chiming in on your side you duck and run for cover, because the fact is and always will remain that Mattias Rath has accomplished something with his studies that benefits people,heals people, he worked with a two-time Nobel Prize winner and is clearly the one who has carried on the work of Linus Pauling, achieving things medicine and your industry claim have not been achieved (cures for AIDS and Cancer) whereas you haven't, in what 16 years, produced anything that has made it to market? I would say that it is time for you to quit fooling yourself with believing that you have the potential to benefit society and find a new career - say maybe teaching seals how to clean up after themselves. I'm certain that wouldn't be too difficult for you to at least have some success at.


As for your mangling of scripture, that is unfortunate because in the text you supposedly "know" (and I'm assuming you meant chapters 6 and 7 because 1 Tim. 6:7 reads: For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it) but you overlooked the context of the passage 1 Tim 6:7-10 which reads: But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.


How ironic that you would quote the very scripture that describes the love of money - God sure works in amazing ways, huh?


Read on people, he's struck a wonderful passage, that continues:


11But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 12Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.


17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Pursue righteousness! Pursue godliness! Pursue faith! Faith in the one true and everlasting God who Created all that is - to think that man could improve on the Creation of God is to elevate oneself above the majesty and wisdom of Him who will utterly crush His enemy. As He so eloquently put it in Isaiah 29:13-15:


13 The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men. [a]

Note His power in this next passage, how He deals with even those who worship Him in vain


14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish. And this one should chill those in your industry to the very bone


15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"


And with that Derek I bid you a very healthy and hearty Good Night!

Permalink to Comment

19. Jason on June 24, 2005 2:05 AM writes...

That was grimly fascinating, like watching a train wreck.

Permalink to Comment

20. SRC on June 24, 2005 4:24 PM writes...

Interesting to hear from the Thorazine placebo group.

Very reminiscent of the Kevin Trudeau infomercials (e.g., "All Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You to Know About"), which fascinate me. They consist of a farrago of half-understood scientific principles, outright misrepresentations, and gross oversimplifications, leavened with dashes of paranoia and low-IQ populism. Now Trudeau makes a point of saying he doesn't sell any supplements, a policy that the FTC helped him to evolve.

For those of a malicious temperament, one highly effective counter to people talking about, e.g., "real science" is to ask what, precisely, they understand by the term "science," and how are we to recognize sound vs. unsound science.

Permalink to Comment

21. WBurke on June 24, 2005 6:09 PM writes...

Scientific Method according to Websters:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


You geniuses in the “scientific” world have virtually thrown this standard out, what with your
a) clinging to the Darwinian Macro-evolution ideas in the face of no reliable evidence sans some mighty good “science fiction”,
b) the pharmaceutical industry having virtually eliminated it from your processes in the name of selling patented chemical compounds for something or really anything they might be able to be “shown” to benefit.
c) Scientific “experts” ignoring experience as a validation of scientific information (see below)

The process REQUIRES that if you are unable to prove a hypothesis that the hypothesis be changed, modified or thrown out and the theory dismissed as invalid. To the contrary you consistently find “scientists” who manipulate raw data in the pharmaceutical realm to fit a hypothesis and support a desired end result or else they simply make outlandish “conclusions” without basis from the raw data of the study. This is why you guys can’t stand anything else outside of your house of cards to be allowed consideration, because by comparison you’re revealed as frauds, liars, murderers and extortionists – to name a few. Creationism or ID vs. Darwinian Macro-Evolution and your world of Big Pharma vs. Nutritional Supplements and Natural Medicines. In both, the truth is, that you wouldn’t stand a chance head to head in the chronic health arena were they fairly judged side by side. The side effects and ineffectiveness of prescription drugs, which one of your own said were only around 30% effective, if even that, would cause people to reconsider their options - if only they were offered the option and informed about it. Which your industry use its coffers to make sure does not happen.

That is why you guys are so aggressive about silencing the opposition – it is not that you have some kind of corner on the market of “real science” – the only corner you have is on the market of “science fiction.”

Let me just remind you once again – BMJ Feb. 28, 2004; 328:485 reported that “94% of claims made in pharmaceutical drug advertising material is NOT backed by scientific evidence”

That being the case then how is it that the FDA continues to approve these drugs and they continue to stay on the market when they are found to be killing and blinding people in such incomprehensible numbers as 200,000/year in the US in hospitals alone?

Yeah, just reread the above comment on the lobbyists and money they throw to pollute the process and get what they want. It is money that continues this decline in the health and wealth of nations - not sound science or anything like that. It's a bunch of theater, nothing more.

I know I’m not going to convince you of that – but a little reminder every once in a while, a little dose of REALITY, serves the genuine individual who is tired of failures, deceptions and lies to reach for something better, something that will not leave them feeling soiled after they recognize the damage they’ve caused to society by their blind allegiance to the greed and corruption that is modern day health care/medicine.


So we’re on the same page I’ll provide you the source for my science definition which I find most revealing and most damaging to your cause here “src” - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science there is the definition of science – take a look at it because you seem to not know what it really means.


Notice definition #4 – Knowledge especially that gained through experience. Yet you guys want to convince people that their experiences with natural alternatives to drugs, in this case Dr. Rath’s formula to overcome AIDS, don’t matter because they are not in the confines of a double-blind clinical study – that they are not scientific findings, that it was only coincidental that the illness disappeared and you cannot trust your experience, that is ridiculous and goes against the very definition of science. You are an embarrassment to the field of science and the true scientists out there like a Dr. Rath, Dr, Abram Hoffer and Dr. Humphrey Osmond, a Dr. John D. Folts or 2-time Nobel Prize winner, the late great Linus Pauling.

Permalink to Comment

22. The Novice Chemist on June 24, 2005 8:02 PM writes...

SRC -- I too love to watch Kevin Trudeau. His ads both mesmerize and infuriate me; he is a testament to the strength of the 1st amendment.

Permalink to Comment

23. SRC on June 24, 2005 8:05 PM writes...

Whoa. Where to begin?

In the interests of not wasting time on a point by point refutation, let me choose one exemplar that proves my point.

The process REQUIRES that if you are unable to prove a hypothesis that the hypothesis be changed, modified or thrown out and the theory dismissed as invalid.

No hypothesis is ever proven; hypotheses can only be disproven. (That you think otherwise speaks volumes.) A hypothesis is either consistent or inconsistent with experimental result, but the former case leaves open the possibility that the experimental results don't validly speak to the issue.

For example, a survey of the eating habits of Death Row inhabitants would yield results consistent with the hypothesis that eating potatoes causes murderous behavior. That result, while consistent with the hypothesis, doesn't really speak to its validity; the apposite experiment, of course, would be the converse: how many people ate potatotes and didn't become murderers?

So, how to decide whether an experiment meaningfully speaks to the validity of the hypothesis? The crucial piece here is the role of positive and negative controls, i.e., does something work when it should work, and not work when it shouldn't? That's an essential tool in application of the scientific method, because it differentiates between positive results that happen not to contradict the hypothesis from those that necessarily do not contradict it.

Applying this tool to the anecdotal evidence so beloved of nutritional supplement marketers, we don't know what would have happened if the person hadn't taken (or known he was taking) the supplement. (That is, there's no negative control.) Subjective impressons are always suspect; that's why we insist on blinded trials, so that respondents don't know what result to expect.

Anyone to whom this is terra incognita has little grasp of science, ability to look it up in a dictionary notwithstanding. Put it another way: if Rath's stuff works, why not prove it in a blinded trial? Just like they did with Thorazine...

Permalink to Comment

24. WBurke on June 25, 2005 12:10 AM writes...

Thanks src - you've cleared up much for me. I now know why you all seem clueless to me and so utterly stupid to the point of infuriation. I really appreciate how you explained that you believe a hypothesis can not be proven. In your world maybe not. In mine and any other person outside of the brainwashed realm of science fiction - it happens regularly.


While Dr. Rath is wasting his time and money in an effort to appease the unappeasable people are dying. Every patient who does not recieve his therapy has been denied access to hope, a future and a life restored (as is evident in the patients presented in his press conference that has yet to hit major media). ARV's do not cure, they do not even promise long-term successful treatment, in fact they promise that missed dosages may even cause one to become immune to the drug and need other drugs, putting them on a drug carousel that may NEVER end with untold side effects to deal with. This leads to real life deaths while on the drugs and at best a promise of maybe a few more years. But in what condition? A body fighting of the toxic effects of a substance that your group and the group that run the programs throughout the medical world are so closed up that you sacrifice millions of lives due to your greed alone.


You say you want to continue researching to find a "cure for cancer" - but what then? What happens then to all the industries that are now making BILLIONS on cancer research and treatments? They won't allow that to die out without a fight and Dr. Rath's plight confirms that in the clearest sense. No media coverage because hte media is bought and sold out to the Big Pharma drug cartel.


You say you want to find a cure for AIDS and TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent in just such a cause, but you will NEVER pay to have Dr. Rath's regimen tested because the profits then would not go to the right people and again how many industries would dry up because of closed markets?

It is not good for business, which is exactly why he calls it the Pharmaceutical "Investment Business with Disease"


You wouldn't go to an auto mechanic who told you, "I don't know how your car works or what is causing the problem or if this thing I'm gonna recommend and do to it will work but let's give it a try - that'll be $250 and make another appointment for 2 weeks to see how it's doing" That's absurd - but that's modern medicine.

You wouldn't go to a computer guy to fix your computer who said I don't know if this software will fix it, it may cause you to lose all your files, ruin your ability to produce copies of anything and could damage other programs while slowing you computer down to a fraction of what it now runs - pay the clerk $300 on the way out." But people accept that same type of ignorance speak from doctors and drug companies on a regular basis.

Contrast that with the presentation given on Dr. Rath's website and the amount of information you will get from a natural health practitioner regularly - information about what is likely to be causing the problem, what foods or activities may reduce the symptoms and what deficiencies in your nutritional level could be exacerbating the condition. Then they will give you a program that can remedy the situation that will not cause you to lose your life savings, life or mental health, or your ability to procreate.

One final thought for you src - you probably think, like many doctors have stated, that all this nutritional stuff is a bunch of baloney - tell you what, next time your car needs gas, drink a gallon of water and fill 'r up yourself and see how long it runs. It is made for gas consumption, just like our bodies are made to receive certain nutrition and without it disease and illness present themselves. It's that simple.

Permalink to Comment

25. qetzal on June 25, 2005 10:32 AM writes...

Oooh! I like Burke's car analogy. Here's another one:



Next time your car breaks a timing chain, try a tank of premium gas. That'll fix 'er right up.



(You could even add a nice can of STP 'nutritional supplement.')

Permalink to Comment

26. WBurke on June 25, 2005 11:05 AM writes...

That's it qetzal - a totally absurd response to send a discussion completely out of the realm of reality. Nice one!


Prevention in the mainstream is diagnosing diabetes, HBP, high cholesterol, cancer, etc...

Websters defines prevent as:

1. To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.


2. To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning.


3. Archaic. To anticipate or counter in advance.


4. Archaic. To come before; precede.


Again your industry has tried to redefine words in an effort to profit through deception.

Whereas nutritional supplementation truly prevents the onset of illness as evidenced by countless studies your industry errantly contends do not exist. Dr. Rath has posted numerous PUBLISHED studies that support his supplements, but again to hear one of you talk it isn't true. All anyone has to do is to look for it, but your industry preys on the fact that most of the population (including doctors) are either too lazy to do so or don't avail themselves to access or unwisely ignore the warnings.

John 3:19-21 states

And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

Hiding in the shadow created by the media and controlling forces(organizations and governments) for your protection may prevail in this age but all things are to be shown before Him on Judgment Day.

www.needgod.com

Permalink to Comment

27. PsychicChemist on June 25, 2005 12:04 PM writes...

OK, here is one way Mr. Burke can convince me and maybe some other people of the value of his magic medicine. Procure an especially virulent strain of HIV - of course you have to believe that HIV does exist in the first place. After that infect yourself with the virus and go on a diet of nutritional supplements. If you are still around after a couple of years you will have convinced the world of the effectiveness of your magic potion.

Permalink to Comment

28. WBurke on June 25, 2005 5:29 PM writes...

Posted here due to Mr. Hu's no comment trackback.


You guys really spend an inordinate amount of time propping yourselves up with mesh-like professions that are about as easy to dispel and dismiss as a two-year old on a basketball court against NBA Finals MVP Tim Duncan. The challenge has completely fallen out of discussing with you gents and fem-gents because reality has no bearing on your foundations - what a pity indeed.


TAC suing for defamation when they’ve been captured on camera in a revival like setting pushing individuals in a brainwashing session the likes of which can only be compared to a Jim Jones meeting of loyal to the death followers - wonder if they passed out any kool-aid laced with AZT or ARV’s for the guests flied in at the expense of drug pushers.


NEWSFLASH to you Hu - “shaking their heads at Pauling” in the ‘70’s does not amount to a discrediting or undermining of his incredible findings during his 94 years of life. I find it interesting that doctors, who on average expire at the ripe young age of 57 would assail the works of Linus Pauling who was active into his 90’s and died at the age of 94. That Mr. Hu is comical.


Paulings final resting place, were he to die an atheist, is of no consequence to the voracity of his findings and discoveries while here on earth. Ironic I’ll admit but not hardly dismissive in any sense. And the idea that Paulings inventing of the “field of molecular evolution” is again inconsequential to the voracity of his studies on Vitamin C and Heart Disease among many other findings in the field of orthomolecular medicine.


As for your take on Hoffer and Osmond - again a narrow and unimpressive accounting of anything dismissive in any way. Hoffer is the founder of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry due to the fact that despite many previous publications in mainstream journals up to the mid-1960’s they began denying his submissions as they began to focus solely on patented pharmaceutical formulations for psychiatry and other disciplines of medicine - choosing to ignore and silence vitamin proponents as much as possible.

A few examples for you Hu - so you know that I don’t go into battle unarmed:

Osmond H & Hoffer A. Massive niacin treatment in schizophrenia. Review of a nine-year study. Lancet 1:316-320, 1963.

Smith CM, Hoffer A, Dantow MD & McIntyre S: Nicotinic acid in old age. The placebo effect and other factors in the collection of valid data. J Amer Geriat Soc 11:580-585, 1963.

Hoffer A. Nicotinic acid: an adjunct in the treatment of schizophrenia. Am J Psychiat 120:171-173, 1963.

Hoffer A. Single case design and double blind comparison studies for drug evaluation. Mind. Psychiatry in General Practice, 2:119-120, 1964.

Osmond H & Hoffer A. A comprehensive theory of schizophrenia. Int J Neuropsychiatry 2:302-309, 1965.

Hoffer A. The effect of nicotinic acid on the frequency and duration of re-hospitalization of schizophrenic patients; A controlled comparison study. Int J Neuropsychiatry 2:234-240, 1966.


More are viewable at http://www.doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html but beware there are in excess of 500, many with links and reading the material may cause you to rethink your point of view about pharmaceutical necessity in many different areas of medicine.


As for Dr. Folts, I certainly can’t speak for him but I would tend to believe he’d be honored to be in the same company as he is the man behind the research and development of ProvexCV which is light years ahead of medicine regarding the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Receiving patent #89907317 - The patent includes 28 separate claims directed towards Melaleuca’s ProvexCV technology. The majority of these claims concern dietary supplements, some of which recite particular ingredients such as a grape seed extract, grape skin extract, quercetin, bilberry extract, ginkgo biloba extract, and an enzyme blend. Melaleuca’s ProvexCV technology is important because it can reduce LDL ("bad") cholesterol oxidation in the bloodstream and it can inhibit blood platelet aggregation (which can lead to bloodclotting). The patent also includes a discussion of heart disease, aspirin therapy, and flavonoid research.

Meanwhile all mainstreams focus has been of late is on cholesterol reduction which is no guarantee of longevity - in fact more people die from heart attacks with normal or low cholesterol than from high cholesterol - explain that one.

So wonder all you want on that Mr. Hu - he hit a home run for a competitor which speaks volumes vs. your mere speculations.

Permalink to Comment

29. SRC on June 25, 2005 5:42 PM writes...

I’m going to join Derek in sitting out the rest of this after this final comment.

That you think any hypothesis can be proven in itself establishes my point, that the nature of science, and how it works, is terra incognita. In a sentence, the problem is there may be more than one hypothesis that fits the existing data; there is no way to know whether we’ve thought of all the possible hypotheses.

That’s why we can never prove a hypothesis; there may always be another, one, mutually exclusive of the first, that also fits the data, whether we’ve thought of it yet or not.

Once someone does think of such a hypothesis, we then (ideally) design an experiment that will distinguish which of them, if either, predicts the result of the experiment. We then modify or discard hypotheses, as appropriate. That is the essence of the scientific method.

To your comment

Contrast that with the presentation given on Dr. Rath's website and the amount of information you will get from a natural health practitioner regularly - information about what is likely to be causing the problem, what foods or activities may reduce the symptoms and what deficiencies in your nutritional level could be exacerbating the condition. Then they will give you a program that can remedy the situation that will not cause you to lose your life savings, life or mental health, or your ability to procreate.

Note the syntax re: a natural health “practitioner”; his thoughtlets about what is likely to be the cause, what may reduce the symptoms, what deficiences could be exacerbating the condition. Sounds like a lot of hedging here; you’re saying that he may or may not know these things. Contrast that with the description of a program that can remedy the situation. No hedging here; how can the prescription be more certain than the diagnosis?

So…deficiences “exacerbat[e] the condition,” which clearly implies that the condition arises independently of the “deficiency.” But then…

… like our bodies are made to receive certain nutrition and without it disease and illness present themselves.

Which is it – do nutritional deficiencies cause disease or merely exacerbate an underlying disease process that is independent of nutrition? To extend your analogy, suppose your car has transmission problems. Gas ‘er up with premium and all will be well? Did use of regular gas (or even water!) cause the transmission problem? If nutritional deficiencies merely exacerbate disease, there is still a need for therapy, right?

The long and short of it is that Rath is a con artist, a straight-up fraud in the Kevin Trudeau mold, gulling the simple-minded into providing him with a generous income. Period. Nutritional supplements help those who have nutritional deficiencies, which is practically no one in the developed world. There is no evidence that disease – apart from malnutrition and some genetic errors of metabolism – results from nutritional deficiences. If it did, those taking nutritional supplements would live forever. They don’t, neither will you, neither will any of us. That’s the news. Sorry. Look on the bright side; if you were right, ultimately you'd win through natural selection!

Permalink to Comment

30. WBurke on June 26, 2005 9:35 AM writes...

src - another duck and run, nice! You guys sure have that move mastered - now if only you could find a CURE for a disease that BILLIONS of dollars are being spent on research for, like heart disease, cancer, AIDS.

But wait a second, how can you cure something when you deny the very cause of it and are pumped up in your ignorance?

You said: "There is no evidence that disease – apart from malnutrition and some genetic errors of metabolism – results from nutritional deficiences."

What is malnutrition in your mind. Because in the real world it is simply insufficient nutrition which is exactly what you get in this world via fast foods, denatured foods, processed foods, hydrogenated oils, fried and nuked and chemically flavored sums of nothing foods that are a part of most peoples diets - yet they are expected to provide for a healthy life. You don't even realize that you proved my point with your malnutrition exclusion.

Some common deficiencies and what they cause:

Chromium -90% of diets deficient-Anxiety, fatigue, glucose intolerance, adult-onset diabetes

Magnesium-75 to 85% of diets deficient: average diet contains 50 to 60% of RDA*-Anxiety, confusion, heart attack, hyperactivity, insomnia, nervousness, muscular irritability, restlessness, weakness

Niacin-Commonly deficient in elderly-Bad breath, canker sores, confusion, depression, dermatitis, diarrhea, emotional instability, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, memory impairment, muscle weakness, nausea, skin eruptions and inflammation

I could go on but those are just a few of the facts based on biological data and legitimate scientific research (see my final statement)

As for the supposed hedging in the explanations, guess you might say I made it too "legal" in this twisted world we live in where what is lies is presented as the truth and vice versa when it comes to medicine due to governmental restrictions like the DSHEA note commanded to be upon each and every supplement that would discourage many uneducated individuals and encourage doctors and other uneducated health care workers.

I'll tell you what, your claims about Dr. Rath are absurd, totally delusional and in any case, be it cancer, AIDS or heart disease, my trust and my money will be spent on a path of restoring the body to do what it can, what Dr. Rath has proven in studies and out of studies. Rather than give money to a murderous sort like Big Pharma, your sect, whose advertisements are proven to be some 94% lies and only 6% accurate based upon the scientific evidence. NICE!

Permalink to Comment

31. The Novice Chemist on June 26, 2005 2:19 PM writes...

Mr. Burke:

In your opinion, why do chromium, magnesium and niacin deficiency cause the symptoms that you list? Can you be specific, if possible, down to the molecular level? I challenge you not to speak in generalities and to avoid the use of the word 'balance.'

P.S. It is clear that if you were to truly believe in the efficacy of Dr. Rath's system, PsychicChemist's challenge would be the way to prove us all wrong.

Permalink to Comment

32. WBurke on June 26, 2005 10:28 PM writes...

Yeah novice, I'll tell you what, you and psychic chemist join the group and expose yourselves to the most virulent strain of HIV to date, I'll put my trust in Dr. Rath's formulations and you two clowns can take the ARV route and we'll let time tell us and the world who is right and who is DEAD WRONG!

But you clowns wouldn't do that because you know that ARV's are highly toxic formulations. They like many other drugs are given to people with little expectation for living much longer and thus any possible improvement in duration, whether from the drug or not, (which interestingly enough is not a claim of it (ARV's), or am I mistaken? Do they present it as a curative treatment?) would be presented as a profound accomplishment of the drug.

Ironically you've got video footage on Dr. Rath's website of people who've faced AIDS and even advanced conditions of full blown AIDS who, if you look at the video, look more healthy than half the nurses in our hospitals here in America. They, from the benefit of the Rath vitamin formulations they received, FREE OF CHARGE, escaped the prospect of dying at the hands of a disease whose potential cure is being squashed by a media and governments bought and paid for by the most profitable industry in the world 30 years running.

You may not like hearing the truth - but none of what I just said can be disproven, it is the simple truth.

So buddy up Novice and sign your chemist pal up for the study, I'll do the same and we'll all go on an awesome journey - me with my vitamin program, God, my Bible and a new pair of shoes and you guys with your ARV's and your foolish pride.

To the winner goes the crown.

Permalink to Comment

33. Not-so-novice chemist on June 26, 2005 11:23 PM writes...

Mr. Burke, there is no reason for novice and psychic to expose themselves, as there are numerous examples of people being exposed to the HIV virus and not getting infected due to the action of ARVs. Just go ask your neighborhood hospital, I'm sure they know of someone. This means that you would have to pull your head out of the sand for at least an hour, so I suppose you will quote some study from the Journal of Irreproducible Results that states hospitals make up survival rates for these people (quite possibly because Big Pharma pays them to do so). Before you attack me as some uneducated punk who wouldn't know the differences between and ARV and a protease inhibitor, I should mention that I work at the top cancer hospital in the country and see everyday how people are saved by modern medicine. Say what you will about how drug companies don't want people to be "cured", but I know that not to be true. I would gladly put myself out of a job if it meant finding a cure for cancer or AIDS, and I imagine my colleagues would too. Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to challenge your fragile ego, but I am not going to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Permalink to Comment

34. Kokostrollet on June 27, 2005 5:25 AM writes...

Sometimes one wonders what religion does to people. What is the relevance of quoting the bible in a discussion about medicine? But of course, when the quackers have run out of arguments, the good ól fairytales is the only thing that they think can save them.

"Dear God, pls. save me from your followers. AMEN"

Permalink to Comment

35. WBurke on June 27, 2005 8:23 AM writes...

Hey Not-so-novice - Let's accept your premise that you and many of your colleagues would glady give up your career for a cure, I can accept that. But you see - you DON'T make the rules, you don't have the power to make that decision - the executives do and they have spoken too loudly for you to drown out exactly where their focus is. All the money they throw at government and advertising is convicting evidence were they ever to be brought before any court. But you know, I'm not holding my breath.

Were there to be a cure, and I know that there is, they would have to tell investors and all that they must close down due to no further need of their medications and research. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!


Were there to be a cure that they undermined and covered up at the cost of millions of lives they would be slain in court for billions upon billions of dollars - that my friend is why they are fighting tooth and nail to defame and silence Dr. Rath. Because were there a side by side study on either front, AIDS or cancer, were Dr. Rath to be shown the winner, the aforementioned would become a reality and you'd all be out of jobs and many with no future financially because of enormous student loan debt, etc...

I understand most people get into medicine because they want to do the humanitarian thing but answer me this wiseguy - why is it that the TAC claim they promote nutrition and nutritional counseling and yet when someone comes along and encourages people to put those ideas into action they try to destroy him?

Double-talk is all it is and BTW that "battle of wits" comment is hilarious!

Permalink to Comment

36. Katherine on June 27, 2005 10:33 AM writes...

Sometimes one wonders what religion does to people.

To be fair, we have no evidence religion is "doing" anything to Mr. Burke, any more than he has evidence that antiretrovirals cause AIDS. My hypothesis has more to do with the DSM than the Bible.

Permalink to Comment

37. daen on June 28, 2005 8:16 AM writes...

Splendid. We have all the nuttiness of the world congealed into one sticky Marmite(*)-like blob here. Refutation of evolution (implicit intelligent design?) ; global pharmaceutical mega-conspiracy ; ad hominem invective ; out-of-context biblical quotes. Tinfoil beanies, black helicopters and Majestic, anyone? Wibble, wibble.

BTB

(*) Gooey, matte-brown, salty English breakfast spread, high in vitamin B complexes ... You either love it or hate it ...

Permalink to Comment

38. Sigivald on June 28, 2005 12:21 PM writes...

Whoa. I mean, just Whoa.

I take it you've never heard of Popper, then, Burke?

(No, he's not a Scientist. He's a philosopher. Fairly important guy. Something about falsifiability, I think. You might look into that. It's thought fairly relevant, somehow.)

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
XKCD on Protein Folding
The 2014 Chemistry Nobel: Beating the Diffraction Limit
German Pharma, Or What's Left of It
Sunesis Fails with Vosaroxin
A New Way to Estimate a Compound's Chances?
Meinwald Honored
Molecular Biology Turns Into Chemistry
Speaking at Northeastern