Fwd: HEALTH TIPS FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, NOVEMBER 4, 2003

[Guest guest]

Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:12:33 -0800

HEALTH TIPS FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

" Nicholas Regush "

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

REDFLAGSDAILY.COM

 

Breaking News – A New RFD Section

Vaccination, Rubella, And Congenital Rubella – Separating Fact From Fiction

By RFD Columnist, Dr. Edward Yazbak

 

Flash! News Throughout The Day

 

HEALTH TIPS

 

The Health “Breakthrough” Parade. Be Wary!

 

Here’s one from the BBC News: “OSTEOPOROSIS BONE LOSS REVERSED

 

And another one: GENE “SWITCHES OFF” BREAST CANCER

 

And one more: GIVING CANCER THE “NANO-BULLET”

 

And there’s more like this from the BBC but I’ll stop here. Of course, it’s not

just the BBC. Most news sites tend to pump up science that is often in its very

early stages. The headlines are meant to get you in “the tent.”

 

The osteoporosis story is a bunch of bull. It’s much too early to say very much

about this new Lilly drug. The statistics in the story smack of fraud. They

refer to relative statistics and not absolute. Anything in science that says

something like “risk is reduced by 50 per cent” is a laugher. If it happened, it

would truly be a “breakthrough” and the scientists involved in the research

would have to be given sedatives. I’ve written this before but it’s worth

reminding you: most statistics used in medicine misinform. That’s because a drop

in risk from 2 in 100 to 1 in 100 will be announced as a 50 per cent risk

reduction. That’s simply crazy. Two to one means a one percent risk reduction.

This BBC story is typical in the way medical reports are presented – Statistics

blown out of whack with reality.

 

The BBC story on breast cancer is deceiving. The headline is utterly stupid. No,

a gene does not switch off breast cancer. This is a gross oversimplification.

I’d love to see the actual evidence – raw data in lab books too – that reveals

ONE gene can switch off breast cancer. This is total BS and should never have

been published this way. Even the story further down begins to qualify the

results obtained from GENETICALLY MODIFIED MICE.

 

The BBC story on the “nano-bullet” is a new version of the “magic bullet.” The

headline reeks of false hope and plays on a deeply entrenched hope that

something “magical” will eliminate cancer. And notice the “conditional” tense

used in the story-telling – a dead giveaway that much more is being made of this

“nano-bullet” nonsense than the available evidence shows. Nanotechnology may one

day be very important in medicine – but it isn’t now!

 

The irritating aspect of all this is that in all three cases above, a reasonable

story could have been written providing reasonable information to individuals

who seek knowledge.

 

But no, being reasonable is not enough; there must be a jazzed –up headline and

a walk on the wild side to give the story sex appeal.

 

Trouble is, most people only read headlines or lead-in paragraphs, and

especially on the Internet.

 

-Nicholas Regush

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard