Werner>>>Wrong. The evidence that it does absolutely nothing for heart

dyer>You don't get it.  YOU have to provide the legitimate citations that it

To expect every one to provide bibliographic citations for every statement
made here is extreme, and mostly not desirable.  In some cases it
doesn't hurt to ask.

But Aesop's "citations" look like a bunch of "pop" medicine books, with
no peer-reviewed articles or genuine research cited.  Some of the legitimate
books on chelation are included, but as Craig says there are legitimate uses
for chelation they probably refer to those -- I doubt if they contain any real
evidence to back up the "hardening of the arteries" claims.

In this case, I doubt if there is a massive {*filter*} to keep heart
surgeons in business.  

On the other hand, Shein's statements about insurance companies are
well taken.

Let Mr. Fluoridation look it up in the legitimate medical literature.
It's a trivial procedure, and he'll have lots of refereed material to
read, not that I expect him to take any of it to heart--he's too busy
with his inane {*filter*} theories.  On the other hand, there are no
well-run double-blind studies which demonstrate any beneficial effect
whatsoever of this therapy.

--
Steve Dyer

The poster is absolutely right.  There is not, and cannot be, any evidence
that it does absolutely nothing.  There can be evidence that it does little.
I doubt that any intervention of any kind, including the difference between
tap water and "spring" water, or the side of the bed on which the window is
located, does absolutely nothing.

Lack of reasonable proof that a treatment does something is in no way
evidence BY ITSELF that it has little effect.  The size of the stusy makes
a big difference, and evidence of an effect and evidence of little effect
are not logically or statistically exclusive.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054

What you will observe with unnecessary EDTA administration is a
significant incidence of renal (kidney) toxicity, which may be
acceptable when such a chelating agent is being used to reduce body
stores of toxic heavy metals (because the alternative is worse), but is
unacceptable when it's administered for a condition in which it has
been shown repeatedly to be ineffective.

--
Steve Dyer

My point was not a reductio ad absurdum argument.  In fact, I was
purposely avoiding "taking sides".  My point was that Werner's
statement " The evidence that it does absolutely nothing for heart
disease is becoming more and more obvious" is just begging for
someone interested in the subject to ask for information about that
evidence.  Whether Craig ought to go to the work of actually doing
that is another question.

Clarifying that it was a casual misstatement is certainly
sufficient.  Being able to distinguish between confusion over syntax,
and debate over content, is an important skill.

No, this is not a debating society.  But I wouldn't be the only one to
say that doctors do not communicate well (the same could be said
about computer programmers).

I would venture to say that a lot of quack treatments stay around
so long BECAUSE of the doctor/patient communication barrier.

I don't want everyone to be SO careful about exactly what they say --
I have had the unfortunate experience of being treated by a doctor who
wouldn't say diddley squat because he was more worried about watching
his tail than helping the patient--probably the worst consequence of
the malpractice biz.

But when there is legitimate confusion, just take a step back, and
make yourself understood.  

Maybe we ought to go on to another topic.

-----
John Carey
University of Illinois
Dept. of Computer Science

{uu-net,pur-ee,convex,...}!uiucdcs!carey

--
Steve Dyer

A couple of people had loosely included what I quoted before, and
made it look like I was saying things that others really said.

This bothered me, so I responded.  You weren't really the culprit.
Maybe I over-reacted, but I don't want somebody coming up to me sometime
later and saying, aren't you that guy that believes in chelation therapy?

-----
John Carey
University of Illinois
Dept. of Computer Science

{uu-net,pur-ee,convex,...}!uiucdcs!carey