Comments on: Quack Word #20: ‘Iatrogenic’ http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:47:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: le canard noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15404 le canard noir Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:07:50 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15404 Is health just a matter of 'personal responsibility'? Is health just a matter of ‘personal responsibility’?

]]> By: Michael B http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15402 Michael B Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:03:55 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15402 Unfortunately, statistics do not lie. You can spin your opinion any which way, but the facts show that hospitalization can be dangerous. Take personal responsibility for your health and you may avoid doctors and hospitals altogether! Unfortunately, statistics do not lie. You can spin your opinion any which way, but the facts show that
hospitalization can be dangerous. Take personal responsibility for your health and you may avoid doctors and hospitals altogether!

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15185 Le Canard Noir Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:00:47 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15185 If you wanted discussion of such a startling figure you would have provided a URL to the paper concerned. I cannot find anything to back up you claim and I would politely suggest you have made it up. Can you substantiate your claims? If you wanted discussion of such a startling figure you would have provided a URL to the paper concerned. I cannot find anything to back up you claim and I would politely suggest you have made it up.

Can you substantiate your claims?

]]> By: Satn Khalsa http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15184 Satn Khalsa Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:25:28 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-15184 You want a discussion of the benefits of medicine to balance out the arguement? Trends Journal 1998- Physicians cannot effectively treat 80% of disease. Only 10% of disease is effectively treated by doctors and medicine, and another 10% is made worse.' They are good for emergency situations at saving your life, I'll give them that, but they are not good at treating disease. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the condition the patient was in when they began treatment, they put their faith in medicine, and they still died! That is because medicine is only effective 10% of the time. Quack? You want a discussion of the benefits of medicine to balance out the arguement? Trends Journal 1998- Physicians cannot effectively treat 80% of disease. Only 10% of disease is effectively treated by doctors and medicine, and another 10% is made worse.’ They are good for emergency situations at saving your life, I’ll give them that, but they are not good at treating disease. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the condition the patient was in when they began treatment, they put their faith in medicine, and they still died! That is because medicine is only effective 10% of the time. Quack?

]]> By: FatBastard http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-12248 FatBastard Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:31:31 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-12248 I think you are a major league liar. I think you are a major league liar.

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-8731 Le Canard Noir Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:04:03 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-8731 Numbers are one thing. how you interpret them is another. What I present here is how quacks misinterpret - and worse - misrepresent numbers. In short, no discussion of risk is complete without a discussion of benefits - and vice versa. Numbers are one thing. how you interpret them is another. What I present here is how quacks misinterpret – and worse – misrepresent numbers. In short, no discussion of risk is complete without a discussion of benefits – and vice versa.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-8730 Anonymous Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:42:03 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-8730 How do you account for the fact that the stats for the "quack" reports come from JAMA, CDC and licensed medical doctors etc.? Seems you are ignoring the source of the information as much as the information itself. If the sources of this information was from questionable source then you might have something of importance to say about it. But it seems you don't. Go to the end of the line. How do you account for the fact that the stats for the "quack" reports come from JAMA, CDC and licensed medical doctors etc.? Seems you are ignoring the source of the information as much as the information itself. If the sources of this information was from questionable source then you might have something of importance to say about it. But it seems you don't. Go to the end of the line.

]]> By: Jonathan Hearsey http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-6452 Jonathan Hearsey Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:24:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-6452 Don't get me started, quackometer eds!<br/><br/>CAMs use/confuse even more important words.....Diagnosis being one of them....<br/><br/>http://jonathanhearsey.com/?p=35<br/><br/>I'll change it from within.<br/><br/>JH Don’t get me started, quackometer eds!

CAMs use/confuse even more important words…..Diagnosis being one of them….

http://jonathanhearsey.com/?p=35

I’ll change it from within.

JH

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-5398 Le Canard Noir Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:58:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-5398 Your point being? Your point being?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-5121 Anonymous Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:02:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html#comment-5121 YOU LIKE WORDS<br/><br/>Ionizing radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons), including X-rays and gamma rays, and particulate radiation, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. Clinical radiation oncology uses electromagnetic radiation and particulate radiation, mostly electrons and to a lesser extent neutrons and protons (1). <br/><br/>Radiation damages cells by direct ionization of DNA and other cellular targets and by indirect effect through ROS. Exposure to ionizing radiation produces oxygen-derived free radicals in the tissue environment; these include hydroxyl radicals (the most damaging), superoxide anion radicals and other oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide. Additional destructive radicals are formed through various chemical interactions. <br/><br/>About two-thirds of X-ray and gamma-ray damage is caused by indirect action; heavy particles, such as neutrons, act mostly by direct ionization. Although effective in killing tumor cells, ROS produced in radiotherapy threaten the integrity and survival of surrounding normal cells. YOU LIKE WORDS

Ionizing radiation consists of electromagnetic radiation (photons), including X-rays and gamma rays, and particulate radiation, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. Clinical radiation oncology uses electromagnetic radiation and particulate radiation, mostly electrons and to a lesser extent neutrons and protons (1).

Radiation damages cells by direct ionization of DNA and other cellular targets and by indirect effect through ROS. Exposure to ionizing radiation produces oxygen-derived free radicals in the tissue environment; these include hydroxyl radicals (the most damaging), superoxide anion radicals and other oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide. Additional destructive radicals are formed through various chemical interactions.

About two-thirds of X-ray and gamma-ray damage is caused by indirect action; heavy particles, such as neutrons, act mostly by direct ionization. Although effective in killing tumor cells, ROS produced in radiotherapy threaten the integrity and survival of surrounding normal cells.

]]>