Beehive Botanicals Inc shut down by feds

[johngr]

Originally Posted by winegums

Ah yeah thanks, I have no idea how I made that typo. Obviously penicillin hasn't cured a thing. Ever.

And we're getting further off the beaten track. If someone claims to be able to treat a medical condition they need proof of safety and efficacy. I'm willing to bet the products this company produced did no such thing.

If pennicillin had been discovered 10 years ago and sold by alternative medicine companies, you would be on this forum arguing against it.

I wish to do with my body what I will and vet by whatever means I choose, including private organisations, whatever agent I wish to take to heal myself. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?! If you do, why, then?

[winegums]

Originally Posted by johngr

I wish to do with my body what I will and vet by whatever means I choose, including private organisations, whatever agent I wish to take to heal myself. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?! If you do, why, then?

Nope, but I do have a big problem with people claiming to be able to cure things but not having any proof. That's fraud. It really gets my goat when quacks come along and claim to be able to cure illnesses like cancer or HIV, the sufferers of which are often very vulnerable and sometimes desperate for a way out.

[krakhead]

Originally Posted by winegums

Nope, but I do have a big problem with people claiming to be able to cure things but not having any proof. That's fraud. It really gets my goat when quacks come along and claim to be able to cure illnesses like cancer or HIV, the sufferers of which are often very vulnerable and sometimes desperate for a way out.

I do agree that if the company made claims of cures with no supporting evidence (IF), then they should be stopped from advertising in that manner, not from selling their products. If they altered their advertising to say something along the lines of - has been safely used for many, many generations for the relief of such-and-such affliction (boils, turned into a newt etc.), then they should be allowed to carry on and people left to make their own decisions about what they put or do not put into their own body.

But if, as an adult in this day and age, you have no concept of the hideously corrupt and dangerous nature of 'big pharma' then there really isn't much hope.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by winegums

Nope, but I do have a big problem with people claiming to be able to cure things but not having any proof. That's fraud.

Seen any advertisments for other things than medicine lately? The implicit and explicit claims they make? You have no standing to sue for fraud unless you took the medicine and it didn't work or you were harmed by it. It's none of your business if you didn't take the cure and you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Don't you have anything better to you like some doctors office sales calls or something? People can (or should be left unmolested to, anyway -- some Darwin awards and problem solved) take care of themselves without you and your ilk's niggling nannying.

What do you think of off-label prescriptions? Tough to argue that that's not a very similar thing. Are you against that as well?

[winegums]

Originally Posted by johngr

Seen any advertisments for other things than medicine lately? The implicit and explicit claims they make? You have no standing to sue for fraud unless you took the medicine and it didn't work. It's none of your business if you didn't take the cure and you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. People can (or should be left unmolested to, anyway) take care of themselves.

Firstly, all products are subject to trading standards. If you claim your orange juice is high in vitamin C and it actually contains none, you'll get your ass kicked.

Medicine has to be a degree above and beyond that, since it's often life or death situations. It's also a lot more complicated. If I took some treatment that claimed to treat X and I died and my estate tried to sue, the product company could claim I was too far along, or that I was an unlucky statistic. Medicine must be preceded by convincing research proving efficacy. If there isn't, how would you choose which treatment to pursue?

[krakhead]

Originally Posted by winegums

Medicine must be preceded by convincing research proving efficacy.

Are you truly that naive to think that the big pharmaceutical companies don't 'fudge' figures to prove their safety/efficacy? Heard of thalidomide? Seroxat?

[winegums]

Originally Posted by krakhead

Are you truly that naive to think that the big pharmaceutical companies don't 'fudge' figures to prove their safety/efficacy? Heard of thalidomide? Seroxat?

Are you truly that paranoid to think that big pharma research labs make up all their results? Yes they're subject to publication bias, but they have to be very transparent when reporting results to someone like the MHRA. I've said, with tedious frequency, that I don't love pharmaceutical companies and some of their practises, publication bias in particular, are really shoddy and the laws should be toughened up. The situation isn't as polarised as some people want to paint it.

[krakhead]

Originally Posted by winegums

Are you truly that paranoid to think that big pharma research labs make up all their results? Yes they're subject to publication bias, but they have to be very transparent when reporting results to someone like the MHRA. I've said, with tedious frequency, that I don't love pharmaceutical companies and some of their practises, publication bias in particular, are really shoddy and the laws should be toughened up. The situation isn't as polarised as some people want to paint it.

Where did I say I think they 'make up all their results'? Big companies have big money to spend which enables them to 'bypass' what you or I would consider safe practice. How else would something like Seroxat ever had made it through for prescribing? GlaxoSmithKlein spent a lot of time and money covering up it's link to teenage suicide. It took them 11 years to finally admit they had found a link.

[gaias child]

Originally Posted by krakhead

Are you truly that naive to think that the big pharmaceutical companies don't 'fudge' figures to prove their safety/efficacy? Heard of thalidomide? Seroxat?

Good point,I discovered recently that the doctor that discovered thalidomide was causing birth defects was also struck off at the time, that surprised me as when I grew up every one knew thalidomide has caused horrendouse birth defects and it was a withdrawn drug.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by winegums

Are you truly that paranoid...

Psychopathologists ignore the trust end of the trust-suspicion axis. Otherwise, anyone who trusts drug companies after all the times they've been caught inflating effectiveness and minimising serious, life-threatening and fatal adverse reactions, ought to have his head examined, (the results of which: certifiable). Of course, sadly ironically the drug companies would no doubt come up with a teratogenic pill for that condition that in addition severe adverse reactions and side effects wouldn't work worth a shit. But they would still make billions on it through a brilliant marketing campaign

DO YOU TRUST AUTHORITY TOO MUCH?

YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT SUSPICIOL.

IT'S A ONE-TIME-A-DAY TABLET THAT ENHANCES YOUR NATURAL VIGILANCE AND RENDERS YOU LESS PRONE TO BLINDLY TRUST PEOPLE.

IT'S TIME TO ASK YOUR DOCTOR IF THIS IS THE RIGHT MEDICATION FOR YOU!

(Warning: Do not take Suspiciol if you have a heart condition, liver problems or any sense at all. Side effects include dry mouth, excessive urination and refusing to take Suspiciol because you think someone's poisoning you.)

[21_12_2012]

Originally Posted by winegums

Are you truly that paranoid to think that big pharma research labs make up all their results? Yes they're subject to publication bias, but they have to be very transparent when reporting results to someone like the MHRA. I've said, with tedious frequency, that I don't love pharmaceutical companies and some of their practises, publication bias in particular, are really shoddy and the laws should be toughened up. The situation isn't as polarised as some people want to paint it.

Maybe we're also paranoid about this top cancer-research scientist, who 'killed himself' (not)

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/96827

[winegums]

Originally Posted by 21_12_2012

Maybe we're also paranoid about this top cancer-research scientist, who 'killed himself' (not)

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/96827

Right, so why was he killed off then? And I take it all his research assistants have been disappeared too? And his entire research history?

Please numbers, explain exactly what you think happened here.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by winegums

Firstly, all products are subject to trading standards. If you claim your orange juice is high in vitamin C and it actually contains none, you'll get your ass kicked.

Medicine has to be a degree above and beyond that, since it's often life or death situations. It's also a lot more complicated. If I took some treatment that claimed to treat X and I died and my estate tried to sue, the product company could claim I was too far along, or that I was an unlucky statistic. Medicine must be preceded by convincing research proving efficacy. If there isn't, how would you choose which treatment to pursue?

It wasn't until the 1900s that the Rockefeller through their foundations monopolised the medical system. I think we are far worse off because of it. I would prefer open-source medicine standing alongside the exclusively allopathic system we have now so that I can make a reasonable and informed choice if I want Linux medicine or Microsoft medicine.

If I break a bone that I judge I can't treat myself or with friends' help (for example a non-comminuted clavicular fracture -- which I have treated myself), or an acute abdomen or an abdominal aortic aneurysm that that's about to burst, I want the state-of-the-art allopathic treatment for it.

But if my son accidentally eats an Amanita phalloides, I pray that he is in a land where he has access to and physicians with enough sense to give him milk thistle extract (sylimarin) parenterally in time save his liver, a treatment for mushroom poisoning that's better than any other and that your employers won't allow in countries where they have enough of a voice to keep such an excellent but unprofitable medicine out of the pharmacopaeia.

Or if I have a chronic degenerative condition like rheumatoid arthritis, you can take that syringe full of that cytotoxic shit that your employers peddle, methotrexate, and shove it up your ass, needle end first (preferably a 10-gauge liver biopsy needle).

[winegums]

Originally Posted by johngr

a treatment for mushroom poisoning that's better than any other and that your employers won't allow in countries where they have enough of a voice to keep such an excellent but unprofitable medicine out of the pharmacopaeia.

Though there is some evidence that it could work, I call major [citation needed].

Or if I have a chronic degenerative condition like rheumatoid arthritis, you can take that syringe full of that cytotoxic shit that your employers peddle, methotrexate, and shove it up your ass, needle end first (preferably a 10-gauge liver biopsy needle).

My employers don't peddle anything. What do you suggest those with rheumatoid arthritis take?

[krakhead]

Hey winey! (wino? ) You forgot to reply to my last post in our discussion, I'm sure it's because you overlooked it and not because you couldn't answer, so I thought I'd remind you

Originally Posted by krakhead

Where did I say I think they 'make up all their results'? Big companies have big money to spend which enables them to 'bypass' what you or I would consider safe practice. How else would something like Seroxat ever had made it through for prescribing? GlaxoSmithKlein spent a lot of time and money covering up it's link to teenage suicide. It took them 11 years to finally admit they had found a link.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by winegums

Though there is some evidence that it could work, I call major [citation needed].

Can you read German? Silymarin is extensively used and officially approved in Germany and most Continental countries against mushroom poisoning and as well as chronic hepatic conditions.

Originally Posted by winegums

My employers don't peddle anything. What do you suggest those with rheumatoid arthritis take?

I don't suggest anything. All I know is that if I ever came down with it, I would take something other than Big Pharma poison or only treat it palliatively or not at all depending on a cost/benefit analysis of the ratio of adverse reactions/side effects to possibility of cure or symptom reduction from whatever alternative medicine was available.

[winegums]

Originally Posted by krakhead

Hey winey! (wino? ) You forgot to reply to my last post in our discussion, I'm sure it's because you overlooked it and not because you couldn't answer, so I thought I'd remind you

Well I'm not too sure what you want me to say to that. I'm not the stalwart champion of pharma companies, I just think that the terrain is a lot more complicated than "Alt med = good, big pharma = bad". I do concur that there should be much harsher punishments for pharma companies who bury unfavourable research.

[krakhead]

Originally Posted by winegums

Well I'm not too sure what you want me to say to that. I'm not the stalwart champion of pharma companies, I just think that the terrain is a lot more complicated than "Alt med = good, big pharma = bad". I do concur that there should be much harsher punishments for pharma companies who bury unfavourable research.

The we do indeed concur and you have managed to curb your attitude towards people who speak out against these companies. Both sides of this argument need to ensure the infant remains within the confines of the metaphorical washing receptacle whilst disposing of the effluent

[21_12_2012]

Originally Posted by winegums

Right, so why was he killed off then? And I take it all his research assistants have been disappeared too? And his entire research history?

Please numbers, explain exactly what you think happened here.

Having not looked into this incident at all since it happened (and I don't know just how much other information is available,if any, about this), I cannot comment much, apart from what my common sense / intuition tells me about it.

You asked why he was killed off.

In my opinion, being a 'top' cancer scientist, he was close to a major breakthrough towards 'curing' cancer (or at least treating it without patients having to go through sick stuff like chemotherapy and countless other $£$£$ pharma drugs/processes)

This isn't good for big pharma $£$£ in fact it is SERIOUSLY bad news. So, in my opinion, they 'suicided' him.

Of course, there is a chance he killed himself. Successful scientist, doing what he 'presumably' loves (investigating and trying to cure), just decided to kill himself in his car with chemicals... strange way to go but whatever, if you want to believe that's what he did, fair enough.

Personally i can think of a lot more 'civilised' ways to kill myself, and probably a lot less painful ways. For example, a methodone overdose or something similar. Why use all those chemicals and do it in your car, in your street, in front of neighbours/friends etc.

Would you ? Cause all that heartache if you wanted to top yourself, or would you do it in a more dignified way ?

You asked about his research assistants. I have no idea even if he had any, or what they knew, if anything, about his research.

I cannot comment really, but in my opinion, if they knew anything, and were threatened somehow, seriously enough to be very afraid, I'm sure they are keeping their mouths shut for one reason or another.

Maybe they could have been lied to about the research, saying the scientist had been 'making up' his results in some way, or 'losing it' somehow. There's many ways he could have been made out to be a fraud if 'they' wanted him to look like a fraud.

Its not the first scientist to die (in my opinion) mysteriously, and won't be the last.

Then of course, you can take it at face value, and he just wanted to die, in his front street, with chemicals.

What do you think winegums ?

[johngr]

Originally Posted by krakhead

The we do indeed concur and you have managed to curb your attitude towards people who speak out against these companies. Both sides of this argument need to ensure the infant remains within the confines of the metaphorical washing receptacle whilst disposing of the effluent

Trauma medicine = baby
most other allopathic medicine, esp. against cancer and chronic degenerative and autoimmune disorders = bathwater