treatment study

‘‘I do not agree that our only hope is clinical trials and would tend to agree that a trial would be only a truly valid description if it were funded by other than yourself.’’


Not quite sure how you read that to suggest I was supporting this as being a trial.

Not sure where your statement about me claiming 50% of licenced products are a dangerous rip off comes from. The 50% figure in the BMJ article is for unknown effectiveness their figure for likely to be ineffective or harmful is 3%.

No I do not want anyone to abandon good practice I actually want some evidence that someone is following good practise, evidence I find remarkably lacking at present.

Until such evidence is forthcoming then I do not regard the output from clinical trials as something to be trusted to determine either safety or effectiveness. If that problem ever gets solved then we need a system to fund clinical trials for unprofitable health solutions, LDN is one but there are many others

I trust you do not regard the BMJ group as anti pharma. If you would prefer me to quote an anti pharma group try this one for size.

I did not say that you were supporting this being a trial. I said that you were effectively supporting someone participating in it, despite apparently knowing nothing about it. “However if you think the treatment being offered is worth experimenting with and feel it offers value for money then why not give it a go.” Would you have given the same advice if someone had posted about free labotomies to cure MS? Where is the line, David? Should we give anything a go, if we are desperate enough to believe the advertising that “all participants will have considerable benefit” and we can find the money?

The 50% figure comes from your own words: “equally likely” between two variables being 50/50, ie 50%. However, you now inform us that the article states 3%; far from the impression you gave in your posts!

Incidentally, did you read that article properly? What it actually states is that 3% of RCTs find a treatment “likely to be ineffective or harmful”. RCTs are randomised control trials, in which treatments are TESTED.

The article clearly states, “We would like to emphasise that… these data reflect how different treatments stand up evidence-based medicine and are not an audit of the extent to which treatments are used in practice…”

Where in this article does it say that these treatments go on to be marketed?

Where in this article does it say that these treatments are only those trialled by pharmaceutical companies?

Indeed, it also states, “Included within it are many treatments that come under the description of complementary medicine (e.g., acupuncture for low back pain and echinacea for the common cold), but also many psychological, surgical, and medical interventions, such as CBT for depression in children, thermal balloon ablation for fibroids, and corticosteroids for wheezing in infants.”

So what’s in that 3% I wonder? I can’t find a breakdown of the treatments in the 3% group, but you use it to support your view that clinical trials are subject to “widespread fraud” and do not follow good practice.

Where does it say that these treatments are approved for something? I can’t find it mentioned anywhere, but you use it to support your view that some approved drugs are “dangerous rip offs”.

And finally, in what way does this article show that “western medicine prides itself on being evidence based but in reality very little of it is”??

You seem to have forgotten to rubbish Dr Rath. Can I therefore take it I have posted one article you agree with then.?

I did not by the way read the link to the original treatment offer because the link no longer exists which is why I suggested if the poster evaluated what was on offer was worth trying they go for it. i.e. I was not advocating or indeed rubbishing a treatment I knew nothing about but mealy recommending taking personal responsibility for your own health.

I repeat until we have evidence based medicine where trials are conducted for scientific reasons and we can be certain that things are tested on the basis of what may be of maximum benefit to the patient then I see little benefit in clinical trials.

Remember that for most people with a diagnosis of MS in the UK they are not offered licenced drugs anyway so to the majority of people in the UK debate about evidence based medicine (the licenced drugs) is irrelevant. They have no access.

The much more difficult question is if clinical trials are not currently a valid way of evaluating treatments what is?

I don’t think there is a perfect answer to that.

It is a very old politician’s trich to refute allegations that have NOT been made against them, while failing to address those that have ben made. So:

Suggesting that Karen claimed that david603 said that “50% of licenced products are a dangerous rip off” is a very good instance of that tactic.

Stating that the 50% figure came from a BMJ paper - when it actually came from the journal “Clinical Evidence” - is a very similar tactic.

The reference to the Dr Rath Foundation is totally irrelevant - but readers may want to note that both Dr Rath, and Chongsu Lee of the “Korean Physiotherapy Clinic” both claim to have found a cure for cancer. They may also want to note that my point about hi-jacking a thread has been ignored as well.


So, let’s get this straight.

You, David were commenting on something that you hadn’t bothered to read, rather like a simple spambot that homes in on words like ‘Big Pharma’ or ‘modern drugs cause cancer’.

Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? Surely you must.

Here’s the link to the clinic that’s offering the ‘trial’ - which isn’t a trial at all. They want 12 people - who are ambulatory - to have 8 sessions of massage. The ‘subjects’ (clients more like) have to pay £220 for this 40 minute massage.

There’s no evaluation to see if the clients have restricted blood drainage (CCSVI) and there’s no double blinding and no hypothesis.

That’s the trial information. Not that you’ll read it - but let’s just cut to the main question. Would you pay for accommodation and meals and for these massages for your wife?

I’ll put this to you again. You don’t have MS. You enjoyed people with MS being upset by trolls who knew full well what they were doing. You comment on issues that you know nothing about. You are convinced that poster here are drug reps and you don’t care if you upset people. You make ridiculous claims for LDN and you don’t help anyone. You never post offering sympathy for others or support.

Why do you bother? I know you aren’t a spambot as I’ve seen you. But why on earth post on something that you haven’t even bothered to read?

Any trial that asks you for money is preying on the sick persons desire to get better. What you do with your money is your responsibility, just be careful you aren’t fitting neatly into the “naive victim” category.

I didn’t rubbish the 3% article. I merely asked in what way it supported the points you made. Questions which you have failed to answer. (Deja vu?)

I didn’t read the other link because I assumed that it would be a poorly supported, scaremongering rant against the pharmaceutical companies. For completeness sake, I have now read it. I was right.

I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s own health, but not to the exclusion of common sense, good science and expert opinion. Or to simple fact finding for that matter, for example using one’s initiative and finding an alternative way to access information when a link doesn’t work and before deciding to “go for it”.

I am absolutely astounded by your statement that you “see little benefit in clinical trials”. I think that probably speaks for itself and so requires no comment from me.

Virtually every drug prescribed to people with MS in this country has been through testing and approval. This includes the many drugs we take for symptoms. And yet you say that evidence based medicine is irrelevant?

But let’s come back to the important point: I gave you a list of reasons why the “study” mentioned in the original post is fatally flawed and very possibly a con. In your opinion, should people still fork out £220 and “go for it”?

Not by me it hasn’t

Liz [Moderator]

David603 appears to be a shill, but for whom?

Big Pharma or anti-Big Pharma?

AltMed? Middle-earthers? The Illuminati?

Someone please clue me up.

I love some internet beef but haven’t been here long enough to know who’s doing who’s bidding.