Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
For Serena Nordstrop LAwyer
12 views
Skip to first unread message
tubby
Jan 26, 2013, 6:44:38 AM1/26/13
to
Ms Nordstrop,
May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
Pharmaceuticals companies.
from http://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-conceal-toxicity-issues-bias
Dishonest Oncology
Orthodox oncology is not honest with itself so it is very difficult to
believe or put faith in what oncologists say about breast cancer (or
any cancer for that matter) because the results of drug trials to
justify their treatments are regularly spun to conceal bias and make
the drugs seem more effective or less toxic than they really are.
According to a study, “Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and
toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer,”
published in January 2013 in Annals of Oncology, researchers from the
University of Toronto found that in 164 randomized Phase III clinical
trials that a third were reported positively despite not meeting the
primary objective, by emphasizing other, less important outcomes.
“These reports were biased and used spin in attempts to conceal that
bias,” the authors wrote. Some studies even changed the primary
objective halfway through, possibly because early results suggested
the trial would otherwise fail.[2]
The researchers also found evidence of bias in the reporting of toxic
side effects of drugs used in two-thirds of the trials. In these
cases, high toxicity findings were omitted from the abstracts and
conclusions, and instead buried in the “small print” of the article.
Medical scientists have been caught painting an overly rosy picture of
their drugs for their own ends, which means for the end dictated by
the companies that pay their bills.
In short, much of oncology is based on research fraud. In a study
published in Nature in March 2012, researchers tried to replicate the
results of 53 basic preclinical cancer studies. Of those 53 studies,
only six were replicable. In his new book, Bad Pharma, Dr. Goldacre
sounds a warning bell on the fact that drug manufacturers are the ones
who fund trials of their own products. One of the most widely
recognized and true tests of scientific proof is when these studies
showing positive results can be and are replicated by independent
researchers—not researchers chosen or paid by the drug manufacturer
providing the original finding.
“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them in poorly
designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird,
unrepresentative patients, and analyzed using techniques that are
flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of
treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. “When trials throw up
results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide
them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted
picture of any drug’s true effects.”
May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
Pharmaceuticals companies.
from http://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-conceal-toxicity-issues-bias
Dishonest Oncology
Orthodox oncology is not honest with itself so it is very difficult to
believe or put faith in what oncologists say about breast cancer (or
any cancer for that matter) because the results of drug trials to
justify their treatments are regularly spun to conceal bias and make
the drugs seem more effective or less toxic than they really are.
According to a study, “Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and
toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer,”
published in January 2013 in Annals of Oncology, researchers from the
University of Toronto found that in 164 randomized Phase III clinical
trials that a third were reported positively despite not meeting the
primary objective, by emphasizing other, less important outcomes.
“These reports were biased and used spin in attempts to conceal that
bias,” the authors wrote. Some studies even changed the primary
objective halfway through, possibly because early results suggested
the trial would otherwise fail.[2]
The researchers also found evidence of bias in the reporting of toxic
side effects of drugs used in two-thirds of the trials. In these
cases, high toxicity findings were omitted from the abstracts and
conclusions, and instead buried in the “small print” of the article.
Medical scientists have been caught painting an overly rosy picture of
their drugs for their own ends, which means for the end dictated by
the companies that pay their bills.
In short, much of oncology is based on research fraud. In a study
published in Nature in March 2012, researchers tried to replicate the
results of 53 basic preclinical cancer studies. Of those 53 studies,
only six were replicable. In his new book, Bad Pharma, Dr. Goldacre
sounds a warning bell on the fact that drug manufacturers are the ones
who fund trials of their own products. One of the most widely
recognized and true tests of scientific proof is when these studies
showing positive results can be and are replicated by independent
researchers—not researchers chosen or paid by the drug manufacturer
providing the original finding.
“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them in poorly
designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird,
unrepresentative patients, and analyzed using techniques that are
flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of
treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. “When trials throw up
results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide
them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted
picture of any drug’s true effects.”
Serena Nordstrup
Jan 26, 2013, 8:46:34 PM1/26/13
to
On Jan 27, 12:44 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ms Nordstrop,
> May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
> at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
> sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
> male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
> Pharmaceuticals companies.
>
> fromhttp://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-conceal-toxicity-issu...
> Ms Nordstrop,
> May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
> at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
> sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
> male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
> Pharmaceuticals companies.
>
If you can't stand the heat, lure the oven out of the kitchen
tubby
Jan 26, 2013, 9:07:47 PM1/26/13
to
Serena Nordstrup
Jan 27, 2013, 2:40:45 AM1/27/13
to
necessarily even a dictionary with the imprimatur of the Lord Jack
Rosenberg. Get a dictionary of aphorisms and saws. Then look up the
popular traditional wisdom associated with "heat" and "kitchen".
Reflect on what you find. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
Meditate on metaphor,
tubby
Jan 31, 2013, 2:29:03 AM1/31/13
to
I'm old fashioned and don't cook but just eat.
You and your Muses can partake in that wonderful reflection as you
suggested
spinning endlessly your favorite raconteurs discoveries and
exploits .
cheers
Serena Nordstrup
Jan 31, 2013, 5:29:58 AM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 8:29 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:40 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 3:07 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 12:46 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 12:44 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ms Nordstrop,
> > > > > May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
> > > > > at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
> > > > > sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
> > > > > male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
> > > > > Pharmaceuticals companies.
>
> > > > > fromhttp://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-conceal-toxicity-issu...
>
> > > > If you can't stand the heat, lure the oven out of the kitchen
>
> > > AND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~????????????########+++++++
>
> > Go get yourself a dictionary, Bruno. Not just any dictionary. Not
> > necessarily even a dictionary with the imprimatur of the Lord Jack
> > Rosenberg. Get a dictionary of aphorisms and saws. Then look up the
> > popular traditional wisdom associated with "heat" and "kitchen".
> > Reflect on what you find. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
> > Meditate on metaphor,
>
> No you can do that my wonderful fair Muse.
And to think that Institutional Rosenbergism once ~tried~ to impress
> On Jan 27, 6:40 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 3:07 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 12:46 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 12:44 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ms Nordstrop,
> > > > > May I suggest that instead of wasting your valuable time spinning here
> > > > > at ALt Landmark, that you use your spinning talents bringing some
> > > > > sense to modern Oncology so your sisters are no longer tormented by
> > > > > male doctors. Dr. Goldacre certainly has balls to take on the
> > > > > Pharmaceuticals companies.
>
> > > > > fromhttp://drsircus.com/medicine/cancer/oncologists-conceal-toxicity-issu...
>
> > > > If you can't stand the heat, lure the oven out of the kitchen
>
> > > AND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~????????????########+++++++
>
> > Go get yourself a dictionary, Bruno. Not just any dictionary. Not
> > necessarily even a dictionary with the imprimatur of the Lord Jack
> > Rosenberg. Get a dictionary of aphorisms and saws. Then look up the
> > popular traditional wisdom associated with "heat" and "kitchen".
> > Reflect on what you find. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
> > Meditate on metaphor,
>
> No you can do that my wonderful fair Muse.
upon you the importance of words ...
> I'm old fashioned and don't cook but just eat.
>
> You and your Muses can partake in that wonderful reflection as you
> suggested
0 new messages