re Intellectual Dishonesty

[Guest guest]

What I found despicable was it has been known for a long time that

injecting good cholesterol directly into someone will reverse the plaque

-- but no one does it because you can't patent good cholesterol and there

is no money to be made. So they had to come up with the synthetic version

which is patenable before the drug companies would look at it. Actually it

is not synthetic, it is taken from a small population of Italians who have

some unusual cholesterol properties.

The %4 reversal is in 6 weeks. Spectacular really. Consider this treatment

over the course of a year, or two years. It may be possibly to fully

reverse in a short time, that is why he fell off his chair.

--

[Guest guest]

I'd agree on your first point , however on the second point

there is absolutely nothing to lead to such a conclusion in the

study. That conclusion could be NOTHING more that wishful thinking,

which while nice is certainly NOT science.

DMM

>

> What I found despicable was it has been known for a long time that

> injecting good cholesterol directly into someone will reverse the

plaque

> -- but no one does it because you can't patent good cholesterol

and there

> is no money to be made. So they had to come up with the synthetic

version

> which is patenable before the drug companies would look at it.

Actually it

> is not synthetic, it is taken from a small population of Italians

who have

> some unusual cholesterol properties.

>

> The %4 reversal is in 6 weeks. Spectacular really. Consider this

treatment

> over the course of a year, or two years. It may be possibly to

fully

> reverse in a short time, that is why he fell off his chair.

>

> --

>

[Guest guest]

DMM--

%4 in 6 weeks is what they observed. They need to do a bigger and longer

study but if the results mirror it would be wonderful. %4 is not much but

if it turns out to be more over time and there is good reason to think so

from animal studies it really is groundbreaking. Time will tell.

[Guest guest]

There really is no reason for us to debate this however

I am fully aware of what they observed, however there is absolutely

ZERO to suggest that the changes they observed would extrapolate over

time NONE. The only extrapolation that could be made is they HOPE it

extrapolates that way. This is NOT science it is wishful thinking.

Which is great, its just simply neither news nor science.

I'd agree with you to a degree that IF this study progression

continued THAT would be a positive thing. The operative word is IF.

IF is not much of a reason for grown, educated and alleged scientific

people to start jiggling and quivering like a schoolgirl before her

first date. My point was NOT to say the work is unworthy or they

shouldn't do it.

My point is simply that this is NOT news. And certainly NOT worth

falling off a chair for. Jumping to conclusions and publishing

information that is inconclusive, innaccurate or just plain innane

are things that this so called " scientific " community has become

quite prolific at, the literature is overflowing with such drivel.

They should simply and actually do SOMETHING truly scientific and

have some even moderate conclusion before spouting off about how

great or bad something is based upon less than 50 subjects over 6

weeks and what they WISH or HOPE will happen. The publishing of

these pseudo-studies is nothing more than a joke masquerading as

science.

But if you enjoy such things you are certainly entitled. If they can

come back a year from now with either a decent sized subject group

and or a longer and more structured study that shows these results

actually do extrapolate well, then great. But until then its a waste

of time, good ink, paper and computer screen.

DMM

>

> DMM--

>

> %4 in 6 weeks is what they observed. They need to do a bigger and

longer

> study but if the results mirror it would be wonderful. %4 is not

much but

> if it turns out to be more over time and there is good reason to

think so

> from animal studies it really is groundbreaking. Time will tell.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> There really is no reason for us to debate this

Agreed, time will tell if all the chair falling was for naught, or not.