janic wrote: It's clear though!
No, it's not clear, you are mixing my answers with yours.
Or yours with mine: will know if not taking everything from the beginning!
Janic wrote:
What article are you talking about in particular?
Rather find it in the cited articles where it is mentioned change of therapist!
As usual, hard to refer to the sources that confirm your statements.
However, it is not that difficult to reread the sources cited.
janic wrote: Yes, I have the habit of being helpful, but the credit goes to dictionaries and grammar books. As for meaning, it is not learned in dictionaries and grammar books, but in those of philosophy.
Aren't you afraid of making fun of yourself or pretending to be pretentious?
I have passed the age of feeling ridiculous, but I do not take any personal credit for myself by referring to scholarly works that deal with spelling, semantics, grammar. Me too I make syntax mistakes!
janic wrote: But it has already been seen that the placebo effect is the same for any treatment
Not in the same proportions.
if from 10 to 90% whatever the therapy concerned.
There was a heated debate between you and Obamot who provided an abundant documentation on the placebo effects which are of the same level whatever the therapy used since it does not depend on this one, but on the sensitivity to the suggestion and the atmosphere (which is used for hypnosis for that matter)
Janic wrote:
To my knowledge, there is no opinion given by the WHO in 2016. Correct me if I am wrong.
This is partly correct,
In the absence of a source which proves the contrary, this is even entirely correct. So the 2009 WHO opinion, which I quoted, is still valid.
It could remain valid if current work declares it as such, but pressure from the general public, therapists around the world, for these non-conventional medicines that it is likely that its purpose is its recognition as such and therefore avoided (at least limit) current smear campaigns.
janic wrote: The answers are integrated into these proposed articles, it's up to you to find them!
No, they are not there.
You simply read too quickly or you have not read everything!
Janic wrote
150.000 iatrogenic deaths).
Per year in France
Sorry ! 150.000 hospitalizations and between 15.000 and 35.000 deaths
janic wrote: a) This is where all the ambiguity! You are not for (any medicine for that matter) you are against on principle to be against.
I am not against it in principle. Just, I say, referring to the scientific literature (meta-analyzes, various studies, documentaries, cited on the other topic), it does not work: No validated scientific basis + No evidence of effectiveness.
The sites indicated on both autism and sepsis demonstrate the opposite in terms of effectiveness.
For the scientific aspect, the legislation has resolved the problem.
You, you just know how to answer me in endless and repetitive posts: "cloth of paper ...", "big-pharma ...", "personal testimonies ....", "incompetent ...", "searches the sources yourself .... "," You don't know how to read .... ", etc .... You even transferred one of my answers to this topic that you created from an outdated non-news (interest? manipulation? why not have continued on the other?).
a) When I indicate paper towels I give my opinion, which has value only the opinion given by everyone, you, me, the journalists of these articles.
b) big pharma is not invented by me, it is only a recovery (16.000.000 references on the internet)
c) personal testimonies: that goes without saying. The multiplication of these among the population explains the growing interest in unconventional therapies.
d) incompetent: that goes without saying too. When a person does not have the necessary knowledge in any field whatsoever and who plays the learned from his non-knowledge, it is called incompetence.
Incompetent: who lacks training or knowledge in the exercise of a function, a trade.e) cannot read: if you write it is because you can read, at least, in this case. I clarified that you were probably reading too fast and no longer remembered what you should have remembered, nothing more. But in this case, it is missing!
f) for the transfer the article deviated from the subject hence the creation of a new one more specific and of the part referring to it.
NB: concerning clinical trials
"Clinical trials have no reliability, which explains the cascading scandals", according to Professor Even
PUBLISHED ON 05/12/2016 AT 16:18 PM
INTERVIEW In the second edition of the "Guide to 4000 useful, unnecessary or dangerous drugs", professors Philippe Even and Bernard Debré analyze the therapeutic dramas of recent years: Mediator, Depakine, Diane 35 ... L'Usine Nouvelle interviewed the pulmonologist Philippe Even. He told us about the clinical trial in Rennes.
L'Usine Nouvelle - In your book, you devote a chapter to the "13 curses of clinical trials". What do you think is the problem?
Philippe Even - Clinical trials did not exist 40 years ago. The molecules were put on the market, on the sole good faith of pharmaceutical companies. When the medicine was good - and there were many at the time - it worked without a problem. When the medicine was bad, accidents happened. This is why the obligation to submit a clinical trial dossier to obtain a marketing authorization was born. And the regulation was considerably tightened from 2004 in the United States after the Viox scandal. Several amendments then imposed a whole series of controls. But the reality still remains that the industry does what it wants, publishes only what it wants ... It chooses the efficiency criteria that suit it and it changes during the trial when it does not not suitable. She has sanctions, imposed by the Food and drug administration (FDA), which she derides madly. Most of the time she does not pay them and when she has to pay them, these are completely derisory sums. For example, regarding the obligation to publish information every six months on a clinical trial, the conviction is $ 10 per day late. That makes a little more than 000 million dollars a year… for companies which make 3 or 30 billion a year of turnover per year, it is ridiculous. The regulations are very precise but they are not applied and not really sanctioned.
You reproach in particular that the pharmaceutical laboratories carry out themselves without any independent external control almost 100% of the clinical trials ...
There are two scenarios. Either the molecule is effective and moderately dangerous, then the clinical trial proceeds without a hitch and no one will have anything to complain about. This concerns one molecule in 10. But 9 times out of 10, the molecule is poor, ineffective, even dangerous. In this case, the clinical trial is falsified from A to Z. No one can then open the trial files which are his industrial property. For me, clinical trials have no reliability, and I have read over 500 in recent years! This is what explains all these cascading scandals: Bayer's Statin, Viox, Mediator, Diane 35, Dépakine which we are realizing is a real disaster…
You also devote a chapter to the drama of the Rennes clinical trial, led by Biotrial on behalf of the Portuguese laboratory Bial ... You qualify this story as emblematic, why?
Because everything that should not exist is there! From the start, this clinical trial should never have started. Nothing is known about the functioning of cannabis receptors and FAAH (fatty acid amide hydrolase). To this must be added that the file has apparently been poorly studied. There were no serious checks when the experts knew that there were deaths in the experimental animals. In addition, when testing a new molecule, it is obvious that the doses must be increased gradually. In the case of the test conducted by Biotrial, everything was done in parallel. We gave a first group 5 mg, a second 10 mg, a third 20, then 50. We therefore administered the highest doses without waiting to see what happened with the lower doses. What happened was inevitable!
Then, for 24 hours, the first accident was taken as a stroke. However, the victim's MRI showed lesions never seen before. We observe a total destruction of the spinal bulb. It looked nothing like a stroke, it was a terribly unusual lesion! However, the test was not stopped immediately. The next morning, the other volunteers in the cohort absorbed a new dose of the molecule. There was no other death so much the better, but it was really taking maximum risk.
Another surprising fact is that authorization to carry out a test is only granted in France if the Personal Protection Committee (CPP) gives a favorable opinion. Here, the opinion was given by the CPP of Brest, not that of Rennes where the trial took place. And in the Brest PPC sat a member of the board of directors of the company Biotrial ... The judicial investigation is still ongoing.
What do you recommend to make these tests safer and more effective?
Strengthening control seems almost impossible to me. The trials are already very long and in the case of certain serious diseases evolving quickly, in particular in the field of cancer, we cannot afford to wait for decades. I believe that there must be a constant dialogue between an institute of independent experts and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. This would be the only way to find reasonable solutions. But maybe it's a bit of naivety on my part!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
for the scientific aspect the legislation has settled the problem.