|
January 24, 2010
Free Speech
It seems a lot of folks are upset by the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate free speech. Let me reprise a discussion at Talk Polywell on some aspects of health care that have a bearing on why corporate free speech is important. The discussion was about life extension and how cooling the body in trauma situations helps prevent damage until treatment can be obtained. Currently such methods only gain you an hour or an hour and a half. It is often enough. kurt9So I asked: A lot of this sort of thing was sorted in the electrical industry with UL which was designed to lower insurance losses.And I got this reply: kurt9I think the founders had it right. The answer to bad speech is more speech. With the internet multiplying the venues available for people to speak their minds (you are reading me - an unknown with no access to big media aren't you?) the risks from corporate speech are much less than they were when big media was a one way street. Update: 1319z 25 Jan 2010 Before you run off to your nearest chelation therapy provider see what Jeff has to say in the comments. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.24.10 at 10:40 PM
Comments
Jeff, Thanks for that. The fact that the placebo effect is so strong is interesting. Still. I think a UL tied to health insurance companies is a better model than the FDA. And the use of body chill to avoid heart/lung machines seems like an advance. M. Simon · January 25, 2010 08:16 AM I've always been confused about this notion that delaying aging is somehow going to save scads of health care dollars. If I'm missing something I hope someone can set me straight. Unless you're arguing that eventually we'll be able to halt aging and people can live (and work, pay taxes, etc.) forever, isn't delaying aging just pushing the high end-of-life health costs further down the line? And if we're adding an extra 20-30 years per person--20-30 years of SS payments, routine health care, etc., aren't we setting ourselves up for just as much fiscal trouble, just in a different form? Please enlighten me. Gene · January 25, 2010 12:25 PM Gene, I dunno. It wasn't my idea. I just liked the bit about free speech. M. Simon · January 25, 2010 01:34 PM Chelation therapy is debunked at Quackwatch.org: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html Still, the FDA is crazy. I think it would be better to let the trial lawyers have a field day sorting it out. Also, the fear of cognitive decline being a result of bypass surgery is largely groundless. According to the latest studies, any cognitive decline that occurs among heart patients is similar, with or without bypass surgery. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/575122 Considering the age group most of them are in (as well as their overall vascular condition), it shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, diseased arteries feed the brain as well as the heart. Eric Scheie · January 25, 2010 03:43 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"How do you do that?"
Pleistocene nostalgia for evolution's end times? A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions Take the bass line for a walk Free Speech Sleep deprived Northeastern federalist? Or "Communist in Republican Clothing"? Naked Dancing Girls Not Error - Fraud What Is Wrong With Massachusetts? Going Light?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You may have picked a poor example; it's not clear that the evidence supports the efficacy of EDTA chelation for atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. I have attached the following abstracts from a PubMed search; if you have other evidence in support, it would be interesting; I have no personal dog in the fight.
Am Heart J. 2000 Jul;140(1):139-41.
Chelation therapy for coronary heart disease: An overview of all clinical investigations.
Ernst E.
Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. E.Ernst@exeter.ac.uk
Comment in:
Am Heart J. 2002 Nov;144(5):E10; author reply E11.
Am Heart J. 2000 Jul;140(1):4-5.
BACKGROUND: Chelation therapy is popular in the United States. The question of whether it does more good than harm remains controversial. AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all the clinical evidence for or against the effectiveness and efficacy of chelation therapy for coronary heart disease. METHODS: A thorough search strategy was implemented to retrieve all clinical investigations regardless of whether they were controlled or uncontrolled. RESULTS: The most striking finding is the almost total lack of convincing evidence for efficacy. Numerous case reports and case series were found. The majority of these publications seem to indicate that chelation therapy is effective. Only 2 controlled clinical trials were located. They provide no evidence that chelation therapy is efficacious beyond a powerful placebo effect. CONCLUSION: Given the potential of chelation therapy to cause severe adverse effects, this treatment should now be considered obsolete.
also:
Medscape J Med. 2008 May 13;10(5):115.
Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) should be abandoned.
Atwood KC, Woeckner E, Baratz RS, Sampson WI.
Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts, UAS. katwood@partners.org
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) was begun in 2003 and is expected to be completed in 2009. It is a trial of office-based, intravenous disodium ethylene-diamine-tetra-acetic acid (Na(2)EDTA) as a treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD). A few case series in the 1950s and early 1960s had found Na(2)EDTA to be ineffective for CAD or peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Nevertheless, a few hundred physicians, almost all of whom advocate other dubious treatments, continued to peddle chelation as an office treatment. They claim that chelation dramatically improves symptoms and prolongs life in 80% to 90% of patients. In response, academics performed 4 controlled trials during the 1990s. None favored chelation, but chelationists repudiated those findings. We have investigated the method and the trial. We present our findings in 4 parts: history, origin and nature of the TACT, state of the evidence, and risks. We present evidence that chelationists and their organization, the American College for Advancement in Medicine, used political connections to pressure the NIH to fund the TACT. The TACT protocols justified the trial by misrepresenting case series and by ignoring evidence of risks. The trial employs nearly 100 unfit co-investigators. It conflates disodium EDTA and another, somewhat safer drug. It lacks precautions necessary to minimize risks. The consent form reflects those shortcomings and fails to disclose apparent proprietary interests. The trial's outcome will be unreliable and almost certainly equivocal, thus defeating its stated purpose. We conclude that the TACT is unethical, dangerous, pointless, and wasteful. It should be abandoned.