Contrary to (popular?) belief, woo does exist.

[Archae]

And sometimes woo practioners get caught.

Having a sister as a NP gives me a rather severe bias towards actual (not made up) science, and real (as opposed to fake) medicine.

Toftness device distributors sentenced.

A federal court has ordered the Toftness Post-Graduate School in Amery, Wisconsin to pay a $50,000 fine and its owner David Ray Toftness, D.C., to pay a $5,000 fine in connection with their conviction for for illegally distributing unapproved diagnostic devices. In the early 1980s, after a lengthy campaign, the FDA obtained court orders banning the sale of Toftness Radiation Detectors and similar devices in interstate commerce and ordering the sellers to notify all buyers to return them. The device, which was developed by David's uncle, Irwing N. Toftness, D.C. (1909-1990), is a hand-held instrument that supposedly focused low-level radiation emitted from the body that the chiropractor could detect while rubbing his fingers on the detection plate. Rubbing hard would produce "crackling" sounds that supposedly identified areas of "nerve interference" (subluxations) treatable by very-low-force spinal "adjustments." In 2005, the FDA discovered that David and the school were still shipping violative devices. In 2007, the agency conducted a search during which 96 instruments were seized. In 2013, David and the school were charged and pleaded guilty to shipping unapproved devices in interstate commerce. Chirobase has additional background information and links to relevant documents.

http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/toftness.html

###

British ad regulators nix Chinese medicine claims.

The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ordered Zheng Jin to stop using the title "Dr." on his Web site and stop advertising that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) can treat dozens of serious medical conditions. The ASA concluded that documents Jin submitted in response to a complaint did not substantiate his medical claims and that credentials he obtained in China were inadequate to practice in the UK without registry (approval) by the British General Medical Council. Jin's site still claims:

Acupuncture is effective in treating most ailments presented at a GP's surgery. It is especially valuable in chronic diseases that orthodox medicine can only alleviate with drugs. For example, asthma, hay fever, sinusitis, hypertension, depression; painful conditions anywhere in the body such as headache, migraine, arthritis, back pain; stiffness of joints or muscles. Many acute complaints can be treated including strains and sprains, shingles, cystitis, menstrual disorders, diarrhoea and vomiting, coughs, colds and sore throats.

Acupuncture also recognises and treats many disharmonies that have no medical diagnosis, a non-specific 'not quite right' feeling characterized by any of the following: tiredness, lethargy, vague aches and pains, digestive problems, difficulty in sleeping, anxiety, tension, palpitations or dizziness. People with addictions to smoking, drugs or alcohol may be helped by acupuncture to reduce their dependencies. In addition to the above many other disorders have been treated with success and it is always worth enquiring about any particular problem you might have.

http://www.casewatch.org/foreign/asa/jin.shtml

###

New Steenblock associate has lengthy regulatory history.

Alexander Thermos, D.C., D.O. joined the staff of the Steenblock clinic in February, shortly before the clinic's owner, David Steenblock, D.O., was scheduled to begin a 60-day license suspension. The clinic Web site describes Thermos as an "expert on the clinical use of stem cells." The clinic also features hyperbaric oxygen treatment for strokes and various other conditions for which it has not been proven effective. Thermos's regulatory problems began in 1997 when the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services disciplined him for prescribing controlled substances after his controlled substances registration had expired. In 1999, after he had applied for a license in Colorado, the Colorado board granted his license but entered into a stipulation under which he agreed to be placed on probation for five years. In 2007, the Colorado board warned Thermos that it had received complaints that he had "consistently refused" to provide a number of his patents with a copy of their medical records and that he was required to do so. In 2011, to settle various charges, Thermos agreed to relinquish his Colorado osteopathic medical license. The stipulation document indicates that (a) from 2003 through 2008, he treated a young woman with excessive amounts of tranquilizers and narcotic painkilling drugs, and (b) he failed to document objective findings for diagnosing the patient with interstitial cystitis, fibromyalgia, and chronic abdominal pain. The agreement states that after two years he can apply for reinstatement provided that the Colorado Physician's Health Program clears him as safe to continue practice. Thermos acquired a California license in 2009 and subsequently worked at various clinics that offer a range of nonstandard methods. In 2013, based on Colorado's action, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California issued a stipulated settlement and disciplinary order under which he agreed to (a) pay $4,016 for costs, (b) serve five years on probation, (c) take courses in pharmacology and medical ethics, (d) take extensive clinical training, and (e) complete a professional enhancement program. The relevant disciplinary documents are posted to Casewatch.

http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/thermos/surrender.shtml

[pnwmom]

1. Woo exists. But just because Monsanto doesn't like a scientific point of view

doesn't make it woo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023623383

[Archae]

3. If it comes from a woo web site, it is woo.

As you've no doubt noticed by now.

Did you know that the "Fatima" conference Ron Paul is going to give a keynote speech to, has people there who are geocentrists?
That's right, people convinced the "Heavens" rotate around the Earth, and "Galileo was wrong!"

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/9/4/114151/7809/Front_Page/Fatima_Center_Holocaust_Deniers_and_Geocentrists_

We laugh at these right-wing crackpots, in addition to creationists.

Yet those using the same M. O.'s, mostly guilt by accusation, are believed in absolutely, and *REAL* science gets thrown out in hysterical screeds by quacks, and other woo practitioners.

[pnwmom]

4. YOU are using exactly the same tactic:guilt by association.

And meanwhile, Monsanto is preventing real scientists from doing real (independent) research.

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[Archae]

7. It does look like in this case Monsanto is censoring critical science.

The point though still stands, woo is woo, and this "i-sis" is a woo site.

[pnwmom]

9. These aren't woo scientists.

Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK
Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic
Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases, UK
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France
Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British Columbia, Canada
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India
Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines

And neither is my husband, a PhD chemist who avoids GMO foods.

[salib]

28. You have still practiced guilt by association.

Are you denying that?

[villager]

27. +1

n/t

[Enrique]

2. nice job on that straw man

he didn't stand a chance.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Bat Boy is a fraud...

Therefore:

Warren Commission,
9/11 Commission,
Monsanto,
and now
Assad Did It

are 100% True.

QED

[Scootaloo]

29. Greedo shot first n/t

[etherealtruth]

6. Woo is pervasive and very dangerous

Snake oil "salesman" have been around for a long time and it is the same as it ever was. Folk making a quick buck on the pain and desperation of others.

All alternative therapies/ treatments are not woo (there is strong evidence to back them up), but many, many are.

Homeopathy (don't conflate homeopathy with "alternative" therapy, homeopathy is a very distinct "therapy&quot
miracle cures (lotions, potions etc)
antivaxers
faith healing
etc, etc


*This is not in response to the GMO thread ... I stayed out of that discussion because I believe there is not enough scientific info yet

[pnwmom]

10. Do you know why there isn't enough scientific info? Because Monsanto and the other firms

are preventing it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

[etherealtruth]

11. I am aware and despise Monsanto

* I read the Scientific American Article when it was first published. I also have been trying to follow the connection between GMOs and things such as more frequent and more severe food allergies (think peanuts)

I also worry about the proliferation of "Woo" (quackery). Today's world allows the unfettered proliferation of woo (quackery, junk science).

My first career (prior to the birth of my children) was in nursing. I spent most of my nursing career as a hospice nurse. Sadly, I saw what can happen when otherwise intelligent people are sucked in by charlatans peddling woo.

My second degree is in Environmental Science ... I have no patience with those peddling woo

[pnwmom]

14. I agree with you about woo. I disagree with the OP that people with concerns about GMO foods

are engaged in woo.

Using that label is just a slur designed to stop further discussion. I don't understand how people can trust any of Monsanto's "scientific" studies when they don't allow independent researchers to attempt to replicate them.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. There are three different types of people who oppose or are ambivalent...

about GMO's, the first are people like me, who are concerned about the legal framework of the patent system that allows living organisms to be patented, along with discoveries, and the ramifications this can have on seed sharing and seed contracts in the future. This is why I'm mostly ambivalent about GMO's, I'd be much more supportive if the law caught up with the technology in a fair and equitable way. And increased transparency.

The second type is the rational opposition, usually those concerned about certain issues(such as food allergies) that may not have been studied enough yet for complete support or dispersal.

Then there is the third type, the irrational opposition, the ones claiming that GMO's cause cancer or numerous other ailments, typically use terms like frankenfood, that there is some type of conspiracy to poison everyone's food(including the conspirators, that never made sense), etc.

My problem is that too many of the type 2's support the type 3's, including propping up quack doctors, discredited research, conspiracy theories, alternative "medicine", etc.

[pnwmom]

18. Were you aware that Monsanto and others were preventing independent researchers

from using their seeds to conduct research? I wasn't.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

By The Editors (Scientific American)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Yes, and it seems to me that its related to how the legal system is inadequate...

To be honest, such agreements should be null and void, and unenforceable, like software EULAs, which are, legally, as far as I'm aware of, toothless.

Do I think its the result of some conspiracy to hide something sinister? No, I think its basically a corporation being too protective of trade secrets, basically they don't want others to try to reverse engineer what they did.

It should be open to true testing by independent researchers around the world, for safety and nutrition tests, that I think everyone can agree on that, but its the hyperbole that grates on my nerves. For example, in this thread or another, someone called GMO's "evil", which is just stupid, they are the result of applicable technology, are telephones evil because people misuse them? Of course not.

[pnwmom]

20. I wouldn't say GMO's are evil. And I won't say they're safe, either.

Not until the producers allow independent researchers to replicate and extend the producers' research.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. I would say for some, safety has been demonstrated due to unofficial experiments

in the general population. I do believe such things are unethical and should be conducted with independent third party testing with a consenting population.

[pnwmom]

23. These unofficial experiments are going on in a population

that is experiencing an unexplainable rise in auto-immune diseases and allergies.

So I wouldn't say these unofficial experiments have proved very much.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. I made that same comment that I didn't think there was enough evidence yet to determine

whether GMOs harm people and I got attacked. You are smart to stay out of those threads. I've deleted the GMO threads. I will be staying out of that discussion myself. They seem to think if they bully people into not expressing their opinion they win the argument. They don't realize just because they have shouted everybody else down that does not mean they have won the argument. There are still lots of us still wating on the scientific research. They can think anything they want. I don't give a shit. I have better things to do than to deal with self righteous people.

[pnwmom]

21. There isn't enough research because the GMO producers don't allow independent researchers

to conduct research using their seeds.

What reputable scientific researcher doesn't welcome other scientists reproducing their results?

[etherealtruth]

24. Monsanto

[MicaelS]

8. Woo proves that no matter intelligent or educated people are

They can be taken in by lies.

[etherealtruth]

12. Desperate people often make poor choices (regardless of intellect)

[Zorra]

13. In line with conventional wisdom, corporate bullshit for profit is neverending. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. You know what?

I will listen to real PhDs who have raised serious concerns about GMO foods. (See for example scientific American story) and I will avoid GMO foods if that is ok with you.

[HuckleB]

25. You can avoid whatever you want to avoid.

And you can believe BS from whatever PhDs who push whatever propaganda makes you feel good.

That doesn't mean your advocacy for BS labels or bans is legitimate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Welcome back.

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

(I didn't know you were 'gone', per se, but I've seen postings begging you to come back, so you must have done so


(Edit: Whoops, nevermind, This is a really old post that somehow popped up in the list of OPs, from before you left.)