U S. Anti-Doping Agency

[russ]

Bryan – I would like to offer my SINCERE APPOLOGY if I offended you in any way. The same would be appreciated.

In no way does Bryan owe you an apology. He never stooped to ad hominem attacks. On the other hand, you did.

I had run across Dr. Horton’s statement when another physician quoted it during a conference on antioxidants and chemotherapy. He was talking about controversial research, “Scientific knowledge is definitely not conclusive, but patients have to act. Even taking no antioxidants is itself an action. We have to go with the preponderance of data and with our interpretation of that.” He agreed with the general principal and liked the statement. Sorry You Disagree.

We disagree with the context in which you used the statement.

I find it interesting that so many of you have nothing better to do with your time than search the web through thousands of Pharmanex hits to seek out my “identity”

It didn't take much time

I never tried to hide the fact that I sold their products.

Then why didn't you simply come out and say that you sold their products in your initial post ?

In the grand scheme of things, if people put this much time and energy into more important health and social affairs the world might be a lot better off.

And if we simply listened to your saled pitch uncritically, you might be better off. Financially, that is

I don’t need to defend myself or the company I work with.

You're correct. You don't need to defend yourself. But I would question the manner in which you promoted your company.

JP – you say this is a non-adversarial group.
“Only if you agree with them!”

Well, if you had been able to make your points in a manner which demonstrates integrity, you might not have encountered the response that you did. Unfortunately, the current weight of scientific evidence in favour of that which you promote is underwhelming, despite your attempts to convince us otherwise.

Why not do a search on Werner Gellermann, Ph.D. and National Institute of Health Grants – check out the priority level given to his research. (I guess that is again an irrelevant statement)

You're correct. It is irrelevant. It's yet another 'appeal to authority'.


Gail, I think that you understand EXACTLY why we responded the way we did. Your posts were attempts to get us to buy your product, and you became upset and rude when we had the gall to challenge you. You didn't really think that a group of intelligent people, several of whom have advanced degrees in scientific fields were going fall hook, line , and sinker for your sales pitch, did you? If so, you need to find a more gullible audience.

[Jean-Paul]

It is great that you have caring friends to come to your aid so fervently.

It has nothing to do with "caring"... It has to do with logical arguments. Bryan has defended his position without emotion, simply looking at the facts available to him, some of which you provided, some that he found on his own.

I will forward your objections to their research technique to Dr. Packer, Dr. Gellermann, Dr. Talbott and the research scientist involved. Maybe they will post a response. I never asked you to take anything at face value, but with a little less adversarial approach (instead of a direct frontal assault) I would have been happy to put you directly in contact with Dr. Gellermann or Dr. Packer to discuss your objections.

Still avoiding the issue... They may be good scientists, but that in and of itself is not enough reason to believe pharmanex's claims. Peer review, with no concern given to the name on the research, but only the research model itself.

He agreed with the general principal and liked the statement. Sorry You Disagree.

I don't think that Bryan even said he disagreed with the statement... He was merely pointing out that you were using the statement outside of its original context.

I find it interesting that so many of you have nothing better to do with your time than search the web through thousands of Pharmanex hits to seek out my “identity”, (unless as a moderator you had access to the confidential login information, why won't you list your e-mail?).

So many? Don't let the actions of one speak for everyone. Tony is a moderator, but he does not have access to your personal information. As administrator _I_ do, but I will not use it in that manner. Tony legitimately found your info on the web, because he is an internet and search engine badass. You will also note that after receiving your email requesting that it be taken out that it was promptly done.

I never tried to hide the fact that I sold their products.

Your first two posts read like they intended to agree with the principles which we were espousing, then slyly started leading the reader into a sales pitch. I don't really have a problem with that or I would have simply erased your post as spam, but I like to give people the opportunity to defend their positions so I waited. You seem very defensive. I think one thing that happened is that you got in a little over your head with these guys, not realizing their educational backgrounds when you were talking down to them. And yes, in my view it seemed as though you were talking down to us.

Dont' think that this group hasn't even put MY feet to the fire. They have, trust me! You just quickly learn that you can't make unsubstantiated blanket statements in here or someone will call bullshit. Makes me take more time to be more thoughtful of my posts, which in turn, raises the post quality of the entire forum. Please don't think that I want you to go away at all. I would very much like to see you participate in some of our discussions, even in topics that don't lead to an eventual sale. One thing that we all have in common is a love for fitness and health, and the desire to share it with others. No one in here is paid for their presence. Not even me! I don't make a red cent by hosting this site.

JP – you say this is a non-adversarial group.
“Only if you agree with them!”

Being put in a position to have to defend your claims can be tough, but if your products and claims can be easily substantiated then you should have no problem. I would be very disappointed to see you duck out of here because you can't take a little logical jousting.

You have told us a lot about the doctors who did the research, but we are obviously more interested in the actual studies themselves. Can you post some links to some actual studies that we can read?

[Jean-Paul]

Russ, seems as though you and I were thinking along the same lines! Heh.

[poopy pants]

It's amazing how defensive people get when you call them on something that is complete bullshit. That's always a red flag. Like bryanc said, they didn't even bring literature (like any even exists) to a scientific conference validating their "machine". C'mon, gimmie a break.

[russ]

Russ, seems as though you and I were thinking along the same lines! Heh.

Great minds think alike

[russ]

Gail, I think that you understand EXACTLY why we responded the way we did.

Oops. I meant to say 'Gaye', not 'Gail'. My bad [img]redface.gif[/img]

[gardener]

This will be a long one, starting with some general comments, then eventually getting round to a highly personal explanation of some reasons I feel passionate about the use of faulty logic for commercial purposes, in matters having to do with health.

Okay, this has been an instructive thread, one worth keeping for some of its major themes, the use of science (or pseudo-science) for commercial purposes, the differences between valid argumentation and merely persuasive rhetoric, and others. I must admit something—I never suspected that our original poster actually worked for Pharmanex. I thought she might just be one of its true believers. I was dazzled when Tony made the crucial identification--and Russ was correct: all it took was typing a name into Google one time.

Now I want to try an experiment, imagine that I have a particular medical problem and that I go to the Pharmanex website for help. Let’s say that I have something funny going on with my prostate. I really don’t, but some guys my age do have such problems, and there’s always a chance that next month or next year I might join their number.

Pharmanex offers something called Prostate Formula. Here’s how it describes it.

“Prostate Formula combines the time-honored herb Saw Palmetto into a unique formula that not only helps maintain healthy prostate function, but also provides long-term protection against free radicals with the addition of antioxidants. Included in the formula's line-up of antioxidants are Pharmanex's potent green tea extract, Tegreen 97® (standardized to deliver 97% polyphenols) combined with lycopene and selenium —all effective in neutralizing free radicals known to target healthy prostate tissues.

“The constituents in Prostate Formula are standardized through scientific and analytical methods in a sterile environment to ensure that every capsule contains the prescribed level of constituents, every time. The extract of Saw Palmetto berries standardized to 85% to 95% free fatty acids and sterols. Other routine testing includes heavy metal content, full microbial testing and residual solvents.”

Now, I do take a fair number of tablets and capsules every day. I won’t bother to describe them all, but one of them is a baby aspirin and the other is enalapril, the generic form of Vasotec. I take the aspirin for general therapeutic purposes at my doctor’s suggestion, and I have a prescription for Vasotec and everything else, except vitamins and chondroitin/glucosamine.

I’m not influenced in what I choose to take by ads, by anecdotal “evidence” passed on by acquaintances, or by somebody touting something on the internet. I don’t wander around a Vitamin Shoppe or GNC store reading labels and picking pills on random whim. I trust my doctor, with excellent reason based on experience. The medications that I take are recommended by him, and furthermore they have been approved by the Federal Drug Administration. (Sometimes the approval may stand in need of later reconsideration, but that’s a subsidiary question.)

Supplements, by law, are considered not to be drugs. They are dietary supplements. I have no reason for certainty that their labels are accurate as regards either (a) contents or (b) effectiveness. All I have to go on is the assurance of the companies that make these supplements that they deserve my trust.

If I do develop prostate problems, I will make an appointment with my doctor, If he prescribes a medicine, I will take it, meanwhile remaining in contact with him as regards its effectiveness.

A digression. A couple of years ago, I did actually try a product made by Pharmanex. Cholesterol tests showed my HDL was too low at 30, my LDL too high at 150. Having read that that red yeast stuff might be effective, I consulted my doctor, who reluctantly agreed to let me try it. I began taking Pharmanex’s Cholestin. After two months, there was no change in the numbers. My doctor put me on one of the statin drugs. The numbers improved, but not enough, so he altered the dose. Right now my HDL is over 90, and my LDL is under 90.

Going back to the start of this thread, I was the second person to catch a whiff of something fishy in the juxtaposition of the words “science” and “marketing.” (Lenny, our newcomer, was first.) My hackles were out, thus the mention of taking the originating post “with a grain of salt.” Why?

Here’s an anecdote. My wife is part of a circle of friends and co-workers that have a lot in common. One thing she does not share with her friends is a firm belief in the efficacy of a supplement they take. It’s a green powder that looks like pond scum when her friends add water and chug the stuff down two or three times a day. A month's supply runs about $50. That’s $600 a year, and there are six friends, thus annual sales of $3600.

To begin with, only one person was taking the stuff, but she told everyone else how much it helped her. They believed her, partly because she had a degree from Berkeley. They all believe it helps them. Why? Perhaps it really does. Or perhaps it’s just the placebo effect, plus some group reinforcement. But there’s also, supposedly, scientific evidence. The Berkeley grad brought to her group someone who works for the pond scum company. She pricked people’s fingers, smeared the blood on slides, and sent them off to a supposed lab, which then reported that the shape of the blood cells showed robust health for all concerned.

So what? These folks are probably being deceived and wasting some money. But there’s no real harm, is there?

Not long ago, a guy sidles up to me in the gym and tells me about a wonderful berry. It prevents cancer. It also cures cancer.

What harm? Potentially a great deal of harm...

I am one of the truly fortunate ex-smokers walking the planet today. Six years ago, almost to the day, I got the news about a chest x-ray. There was a tumor in the upper lobe of my right lung. A lot of other tests followed, MRIs, bone scans, and so on. In January part of my lung was removed. The tumor was carcinoma, but I was lucky. There had been no metastasis. My surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania was confident that neither radiation nor chemotherapy were needed. And he was right. Last April, my pulmonary doctor said I no longer needed x-ray exams every six months to check for recurrence. I owe my life to proper diagnosis in the nick of time and to the skills of a surgeon.

What if I had merely suspected lung problems and started looking for that wonderful, cancer-preventing, cancer-curing berry? Like that aunt of mine, who went to Mexico for treatment with laetrile--something made from peach pits-- instead of following the advice of her doctor in Albuquerque? (Rest in peace...)

I started smoking when I was 14. I believed what my friends told me. Smoking was neat. It was a sign of being grown up, like getting out of short pants. There were slogans. LSMFT. (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.) Marlboro Men were rugged and sexy. There wasn’t a cough in a carload. I’d walk a mile for a Camel. In some ads, gorgeous women entreated guys to “blow a little smoke my way.” If anyone worried about health effects of smoking, we could always buy ones with filters.

My opinions about smoking were shaped by ads--and by what a bunch of other teenager friends thought back in the days of Eisenhower.

Cigarette packs, back in the early 1950s did not carry a warning from the Surgeon General.

For college students, cigarettes were often free. Most dormitory floors had a student rep who passed out complimentary packs.

I started smoking early, and I quit late (the night before surgery!) I was addicted very quickly, and when the warnings on packs appeared, I ignored them. I kept believing what I thought I learned at 14: there really wasn’t anything wrong with smoking.

False beliefs aren’t innocent and harmless. They can kill us. So can faulty arguments leading to those false beliefs.

[poopy pants]

Excellent post Gardner.

[Jean-Paul]

Originally posted by Tony Soprano:
Excellent post Gardner.

Agreed.

Unfortunately our words are only for ourselves though, as I think our illustrious new member has left the building for good. Not that it matters. I didn't get the sense from her last reaction that she really understood what our problems with her logic were. Instead she chose to take it personally. Her loss. I learned a lot from this thread though, which I always do.

GH, if you do come back and read this thread again, I hope you take seriously my invitation to stick around and post some more. This forum has been a great educational resource for me, that's for sure. I have learned more in the last year than I did in the 15 years in this industry leading up to it!

[bryanc]

I'm not particularly certain as to how I might have been offensive, but if you've construed my posts as such, then I'm sorry they elicited such a response.

And while patients do have to act (and yes, not taking antioxidants is an action), taking action without making an informed decision based on evidence, not reputation, is a step backwards toward the snake oil peddling days.

There is a distinct difference between _controversial_ research and research of _insufficient quality_. Controversial research is research in which the levels of evidence for two sides of an argument are comparable to one another. The controversy arises because neither side really has the strength of evidence to win. This is not the case with the studies you presented to me. In the case of carotenoids, the studies, for the most part, are of insufficient quality to even be a part of a controversial debate. The choice between "do nothing" or "eat anti-oxidants" is presently based almost entirely on "If I do nothing, nothing will change. If I eat anti-oxidants, _something_ _MIGHT_ change". And so, rather than do nothing, susceptible (and vulnerable, I should add, PARTICULARLY if they have a disease) individuals make the choice to invest their money for a _chance_. With sufficient evidence, an individual should be able to make an informed decision about their "treatment choice" in such a way as to understand what that "chance" actually is, in some concrete, preferrably quantifiable way--not that it's a generic "chance" with no measure of magnitude.

No, science is never 100% certain. Even with a p less than 0.05, there is still uncertainty. And any scientist who is out looking for certainty is paradoxically certainly going to go mad. Clinical science is about systematically evaulating interventions so that people can make informed decisions about their care. Studies on anti-oxidants and carotenoids have yet to reach the level to which individuals can do this. Until then, people are buying into _a_ chance. And since they're just buying into _a_ chance, their decisions are mostly based on cost and how that cost will impact their finances and quality of life.

Because if we had the overwhelming evidence to suggest that Lifepak would prevent cancer, heart disease, vascular disease, renal disease and so on, we (as in the people in this forum) wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be eating our Lifepaks. But right now, we don't even have sufficient evidence as to whether or not we should decide on eating them yet.

[poopy pants]

I kinda like the idea of taking that electric-stapler-looking-thingy and hooking it up to Kaiser's new laptop to see if we can surf the net with it via his Airport Express.

[vin]

More to the point:
Gardener - when do we get to find out what books you've published???

[bryanc]

Umm...random?

Seriously folks, there might be some very valid science behind the scanner. I just don't know where to find it (and I'm not willing to spend the time searching for it). And if we knew what the minimum levels of anti-oxidants required for "health" were, and if this machine could detect them accurately, this would be a very valuable tool. But the reality seems to be that we don't know whether you need X concentrion in your blood or Y concentration in your urine. It's not like anti-oxidants and free-radicals are like cholesterol numbers yet.

Maybe it'll be like the medicine ball--shoved away in a corner for decades until one day, a clever marketer makes it "NEW" and potentially "IMPROVED", and everyone will be using one or at least want to have one (though how you improve a medicine ball, I'm sure I have no idea).

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by bryanc:
Maybe it'll be like the medicine ball--shoved away in a corner for decades until one day, a clever marketer makes it "NEW" and potentially "IMPROVED", and everyone will be using one or at least want to have one (though how you improve a medicine ball, I'm sure I have no idea).

Ahh, students. Caught in the ivory tower and so blissfully unaware of the methods of marketing. [img]smile.gif[/img] The medicine ball was 'improved' since it's inception by:
-changing the casing from leather, which wears and can get slippery, to a thick vinyl covering with good 'tack' for hold in sweaty use conditions. The thicker skin also made it less prone to breakage.
-varying weights and sizes
-COLORS! C'mon, this is a major change!

Of course, you'd know all of this if you were older than 35.

[Jean-Paul]

Of course, you'd know all of this if you were older than 35.

Who're you talking about? Bite your tongue! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm not 35... I on my last b-day I just celebrated my 6th annual 29th birthday.