Re: Fw: Knockout Punch

[Guest guest]

At 07:54 AM 12/31/2003, thecelestialspirit wrote:

>Hi All, this happens alot-

What that supplements get tested and fail the test posed to them...happens

all the time. Same with a whole lot of other therapies based in folk lore.

This article Satya posted is a great example of " how many lies are you

willing to accept from people you are looking to for information. My

criteria is that there be no lies contained in the information but some of

you have less stringent standards. I will go through this article and make

comparisons between the critique and the article. Let's see how many lies

we can catch the author making in this so-called critique. I will also bet

my last thin dime that none of you have read the original article as

published in JAMA yet you are so willing to believe this alleged critique

simply because it fits into a paradigm " you " so desperately feel a need to

cling too. For any interested I can e-mail a copy of the original article

in its entirety upon request.

Let's start!!

> > And this time - just as with those other studies - the research

> > is flawed. But you'll never hear about the flaws on the evening

> > news. As HSI Panelist Jon Barron put it, " If an herb could sue

> > for libel, echinacea would be able to sue and win. "

here the author of the critique is already showing his/her biases without

providing any evidence to support their claims. While not a outright lie

it does show that there is an agenda to be adhered too.

> > Here are the basic nuts and bolts of the University of

> > Washington (UW) study, as reported in the Journal of the

> > American Medical Association.

The author fails to mention that the research was conducted in

collaboration with Bastyr University the USA first sanctioned school of

naturopathy. Why did they fail to mention this fact? Agenda perhaps?

quote from original article " A randomized controlled trial was conducted

by the Puget Sound Pediatric Research Network (PSPRN) and Bastyr

University. The PSPRN is a regional practice-based research group in the

Seattle, Wash, area. For this project, pediatricians from 7 private

practices and 1 inner-city clinic participated. Bastyr University is an

alternative medicine institution located in Kenmore, Wash. " end quote.

Quote from the article in reference to author (of the study) affiliations:

Author Affiliations: Child Health Institute, University of

Washington and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle,

Wash (Dr ); Department of Naturopathic Medicine, Bastyr University,

Kenmore, Wash (Drs Standish and Weber, and Mss Goesling and McGann); Mercer

Island Pediatric Associates, Mercer Island, Wash (Dr Quinn); and Helfgott

Research Institute, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland,

Ore (Dr Calabrese).

A bit different than a simple University of Washington that the critique

implies.

>Over a period of four months, more than 400

> > children, aged 2 to 11 years, were given either echinacea or a

> > placebo whenever symptoms of upper respiratory infection (URI)

> > occurred.

Here the critique author mentions that over 400 children were involved in

the study. Why not quote the actual number, 524 children, that

participated in the study. Maybe the author of the critique did not read

teh original either. While not a outright lie it is a very sloppy critique

when the actual numbers are known and written in the original. I will

admit that 524 is over 400 but why not mention the actual number?

quote from original: " A total of 524 children were included in the study

(Figure 1), including 311 enrolled by PSPRN pediatricians and 213 enrolled

at Bastyr University. : end quote

> > A total of 707 URIs were recorded. In the echinacea group 337

> > URIs were treated,

The actual number of confirmed URI from the study is 759 not 707. Here is

where the 707 comes from:

" A total of 759 confirmed URIs occurred in study patients; data

were either not recorded in the logbooks or completed logbooks were

not received for 52 URIs. "

>and 370 were treated in the placebo group.

> > Overall, there was no significant difference between the two

> > groups in the duration of URIs, the severity of symptoms, number

> > of days of peak symptoms, or the number of days with fever.

> > Conclusion: The echinacea was not effective.

This is true! Here are the results from the study. Please note the high

" P " values indicating that there is no significant differences in any of

the parameters monitored between the treatment groups.

Quote: " There were no statistically significant differences between the 2

groups for duration of symptoms (P = .89), severity of symptoms (P = .69),

peak severity of symptoms (P = .68), number of days of peak symptoms (P =

..97), number of days of fever (P = .09), or parental global assessment of

the severity of the cold (P = .67) (Table 2). Overall, parents continued to

record data in the logbooks until all symptoms had resolved or through day

21 of symptoms for 608 URIs (86% of the total). After limiting the analysis

to these 608 URIs, there was no statistically significant difference in

duration of symptoms among URIs treated with echinacea or placebo (P =

..90). Among study patients 2 to 5 years old, the duration and severity of

symptoms were similar in the 2 treatment groups (P = .66 and P = .80,

respectively). The results were unchanged when use of day care was included

in the regression models (difference in duration, P = .69; difference in

severity, P = .87). There was also no difference between treatment groups

for the duration or severity of URI symptoms in children 6 to 11 years of

age (P = .19 and P = .73, respectively). " endquote

> > The echinacea in the UW study was ineffective because it was

> > inferior.

> The echinacea used in the study was mostly

> > extract from the flower of the plant.

Here is the first outright lie that the author wishes you to

believe....these folks count on you not checking the veracity of their claims!

The echinacea used in the study was from the above ground portions of the

flowering plant.....not from the flower(s). Why lie about this unless you

are trying to create a strawman argument?

Quote from article:

" We used the dried pressed E purpurea juice of the above-ground

herb harvested at flowering as the active study medication. This

preparation was chosen because the extract has been used extensively in

clinical and in vitro research.22 We used an alcohol-free preparation; both

an in vitro phagocytosis bioassay and chromatogram of the study medication

indicated that it was equivalent to the fresh juice (data from Madaus AG,

Cologne, Germany). "

endquote

> >

> > If you REALLY want to test echinacea, then for goodness sake,

> > use the most potent part!

This conclusion is based on the writings of a single individual...where are

the other references indicating that this is true?

> >

> > The use of echinacea flower may also have a lot to do with the

> > rash problem.

This is the second lie based on the critique authors previous lie....he/she

now accepts the original lie as fact...something that we can all see from

the original article is not true!! There was no mention by the study

authors that any flowers were used in the preparations...only that the

plant was in flower when it was harvested and processed.

>Mark Blumenthal, the executive director of the

> > American Botanical Council, told NutraIngredients.com that

> > rashes are not normally associated with Echinacea. He believes

> > that the rashes could very well have been an allergic reaction

> > to pollen in the flowers. But when echinacea root is used -

> > guess what? - no pollen! So again, if the researchers had used

> > the proper echinacea type, there would probably have been no

> > rash issue at all.

All of this is speculation, without documentation, and since there is no

mention of using flowers, only flowering plant, this whole bit should be

considered as furthering the strawman argument the critique author is

trying to make.

As I told you in the e-Alert " Aiming to Please "

> > (7/21/03), the placebos used in each individual study are unique

> > and often contain some active ingredients. So what in the world

> > did they put in the placebo that caused rashes? The fact that

> > this is not addressed isn't surprising. Studies never discuss

> > the contents of placebos.

Here is lie number three!! The authors make it very clear what constitutes

the placebo. The critique author is trying to pull another fast one which

is easily shot down by looking and reading the original article. Here is

the appropriate quote from the article:

" . The active medication was combined with syrup, while the

placebo was syrup without active ingredients. The placebo was identical in

appearance and similar in taste and smell to the active medication. " endquote

As in any good study the placebo (or control group) is the vehicle used to

dispense the active ingredient. the only difference between groups is the

inclusion of the echinacea extract.

> > Here's my favorite part of this study: The children in the

> > echinacea group had 33 fewer URIs than the children in the

> > placebo group. Mr. Blumenthal suggests that the occasional

> > echinacea dosing that the kids in the echinacea group received

> > may have helped prevent subsequent URIs.

Here is an example of data mining to fit an agenda combined with another

strawman argument.

from the study: " Of the children who had at least 1 URI, 64.4% of children

in the placebo group had more than 1 URI compared with 52.3% of children

receiving echinacea (P = .015 by {chi}2 test). "

these results show that the frequency is not statistically significant and

that Mr. Blumenthal suggestions do not have anything to do with the study

data. Here are some further comments from the study authors:

" Although we attempted to exclude children with known allergies to

echinacea species or those with other atopic conditions from participation,

it is possible that the increased rate of rash seen in children whose URIs

were treated with echinacea was a manifestation of an allergic reaction.

Severe allergic reactions to echinacea, including anaphylaxis, have been

reported.33 It is possible that the 2 children in our study who developed

croup symptoms shortly after taking a dose of echinacea may have been

experiencing an allergic reaction. However, this result could also have

easily been a chance occurrence; croup is not an uncommon disease in young

children with URI symptoms.34 Further, placebo-controlled studies in adults

have not documented any increase in rash or allergic reactions among

echinacea recipients.20, 24-25,27, 29 " endquote

> >

> > But because the study was not intended to analyze prevention,

> > this result can't be assessed as a primary outcome.

is the critique author suggesting constant intake if echinacea as a

preventative? What does this comment have to do with the study

critique? My answer would be nothing whatsoever. The authors never stated

or implied that this study was designed to test prevention....why is this

brought up at all outside of clouding the issue.

>Fair enough.

> > But the lead researcher, Dr. , perhaps revealed his

> > true colors when he simply dismissed the information about the

> > possible URI prevention, telling the Associated Press that those

> > results could be just a " fluke. "

quote from article: " The statistically significant reduction in the number

of subsequent URIs in children receiving echinacea compared with placebo

recipients may be a spurious finding, given the multitude of outcomes

examined. We had not planned on conducting this analysis prior to the

study. However, the result is intriguing. It is conceivable that echinacea

stimulated an immune response in study children that was too late to modify

the URI for which it was given but provided a window of protection against

another URI in the child. In one study, an echinacea preparation similar to

that used in our trial was effective in preventing URIs in patients 13 to

84 years old, when given over an 8-week course.35 "

This endpoint in the study is a retrospective finding. As we are all well

aware prospective studies have a much greater power in study outcomes when

compared to retrospective endpoints. the authors further state:

" Given its lack of documented efficacy and an increased risk for

the development of rash, our results do not support the use of echinacea

for treatment of URIs in children 2 to 11 years old. Further studies using

different echinacea formulations, doses, and dosing frequencies are needed

to delineate any possible role for this herb in treating colds in young

patients. Our finding that echinacea may be effective in preventing URIs

also deserves additional study. "

> >

> > Sure, it could be a fluke. Or (given the fact that there are

> > studies that support the use of echinacea as a preventive agent

> > for colds), this " fluke " could also be seen as a significant

> > indicator that something important is going on. At the very

> > least, this secondary result ought to be compelling enough to

> > refrain from portraying the study as a failure for echinacea.

Echinacea in this study did FAIL so why not call a spade a spade and admit

that under these conditions echinacea is not a effective treatment. There

are also a number of studies that show there is no effect for echinacea

preventing colds. The studies the critique author is eluding to are also

filled with the same study flaws he/she is criticizing the authors of this

study in making. Given this the study authors state this:

" However, it is difficult to generalize the results of these

trials because of significant methodological issues, including problems

with randomization, the adequacy of blinding, and analytic techniques.18-20

In a more recently published study, Barrett et al29 found no difference

between a mixture of E purpurea root and herb and E angustifolia root and

placebo in relieving URI symptoms. "

and also this:

" The results of this study demonstrate that E purpurea, in the

dosing regimen used, was not effective in shortening the duration or

decreasing the severity of URIs in children 2 to 11 years old. Despite

multiple subanalyses, we did not find any group of children in whom

echinacea appeared to have a positive effect. We also found no differences

between echinacea and placebo for secondary study outcomes. Echinacea was

generally well tolerated. However, although rash was only reported during

7.1% of URIs in children treated with active medication, this was a

significantly greater frequency than in placebo recipients; the P value for

the difference was sufficiently low (.008), suggesting that this was

actually an adverse effect of treatment with echinacea. "

> >

> > And as long as Dr. is on the subject of flukes, maybe he

> > could explain how his study's placebo gave kids rashes.

see above.

AS you can see there is a great difference in what the authors of the study

correctly stated and what the critique author thinks they stated. To me

there is no need to fabricate lies in critiquing studies. There is plenty

of room for rational speculation and to when one makes up lies it detracts

any credibility that the liar might have had before doing so.

Please check out the veracity of the claims made by those making outlandish

claims....you will be a more knowledgeable person for it and might actually

discover the " spin " that is put into the analysis!

Studies are conducted to establish what attributes can and cannot be given

to a substance be it herb or synthesized drug. the bias of the critique

author is very clear...herbs MUST work for anything and under any

conditions. To turn a blind eye to the reality of the data is foolish and

to try and convince others to do the same is well lying.

kind regards,

BobK

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I was considering posting my summary of the critique of the piece

Sataya posted but yours is more in depth than mine. What I got from

the both the original study and the rebuttal was that Echinacea

would cure a common UI infection in 2 weeks whereas treating the

virus with conventional means takes 14 days.

No doubt you will be slammed for your cold hearted review as you

failed to use your inner self energy, did not take into account the

possibilities of children using healing therapies, visualization,

guided imagery, crystals for the amplification of the super special

real neat inner self as projected from the purple light. How you

could not take these into consideration shows your bias against real

pseudo science and the manifestation of the ability to use

interesting things with strange sounding names to cure all the ails

mankind. Have a heart Bob after all we are still in the midst of the

Christmas season for those that practice such things. I myself

worship the great BOB, the invisible cloud being, but have chosen

not to ram my beliefs down the throats of others and suggest disdain

for others who have not choosen to follow my path of spiritual

enlightenment.

[Guest guest]

Glad you have chosen to be the spokesperson for " everybody " , me I

speak for myself.

sad...very sad.

> I'm so glad you're having fun with each other. You should start a

mutual fan club-- none of us are interested in your drivel. But as

long as you're amusing yourself and staying out of trouble, well

then I suppose that's okay...

> [ ] Re: Fw: Knockout Punch

>

>

> Bob,

>

> I was considering posting my summary of the critique of the

piece

> Sataya posted but yours is more in depth than mine. What I got

from

> the both the original study and the rebuttal was that Echinacea

> would cure a common UI infection in 2 weeks whereas treating the

> virus with conventional means takes 14 days.

>

> No doubt you will be slammed for your cold hearted review as you

> failed to use your inner self energy, did not take into account

the

> possibilities of children using healing therapies,

visualization,

> guided imagery, crystals for the amplification of the super

special

> real neat inner self as projected from the purple light. How you

> could not take these into consideration shows your bias against

real

> pseudo science and the manifestation of the ability to use

> interesting things with strange sounding names to cure all the

ails

> mankind. Have a heart Bob after all we are still in the midst of

the

> Christmas season for those that practice such things. I myself

> worship the great BOB, the invisible cloud being, but have

chosen

> not to ram my beliefs down the throats of others and suggest

disdain

> for others who have not choosen to follow my path of spiritual

> enlightenment.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

don't be sad, andy. A positive attitude is essential for dealing with hepatitis c. Blessings, Satya

[ ] Re: Fw: Knockout Punch> > > Bob,> > I was considering posting my summary of the critique of the piece > Sataya posted but yours is more in depth than mine. What I got from > the both the original study and the rebuttal was that Echinacea > would cure a common UI infection in 2 weeks whereas treating the > virus with conventional means takes 14 days. > > No doubt you will be slammed for your cold hearted review as you > failed to use your inner self energy, did not take into account the > possibilities of children using healing therapies, visualization, > guided imagery, crystals for the amplification of the super special > real neat inner self as projected from the purple light. How you > could not take these into consideration shows your bias against real > pseudo science and the manifestation of the ability to use > interesting things with strange sounding names to cure all the ails > mankind. Have a heart Bob after all we are still in the midst of the > Christmas season for those that practice such things. I myself > worship the great BOB, the invisible cloud being, but have chosen > not to ram my beliefs down the throats of others and suggest disdain > for others who have not choosen to follow my path of spiritual > enlightenment.> > > >