[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hormesis - Ever enough evidence for approval of authorities?
Jim,
I think you have clearly laid out the issues of why a
detailed study needs to be done. Like you, I am at a
loss to understand why this kind of study has not been
done. Why has the Taiwanese health authorites not
taken this on?
--- "Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU> wrote:
> Hi Howard,
>
> I guess I haven't made myself clear. Your 'case' re
> the WHI is irrelevant.
> That is an acutal study. I don't care about results
> or whether it is good or
> bad.
>
> But this problem has been addressed repeatedly, and
> I don't know why it isn't
> clearly understood:
>
> We have no formal data in Taiwan. We don't know how
> many cancer cases there
> are, back to 198x? 1983? 2- or 5- or 10-year lag?
>
> Even if we did, we don't know the size or age of the
> group? Or the age of
> the cancer cases. If the dramatic difference holds
> up, other confounding
> factors would likely be trivial, but they need to be
> addressed in any event.
> We have no actual data.
>
> We do have an indication that there is a benefit
> using the gross data from
> media reports. This is actually more important as a
> public challenge to the
> responsible authorities to demonstrate that they are
> suppressing the relevant
> data (including the HPS LNT-committed leadership?
> using John Boice as an
> apologist), for the failure to expect/demand that
> the relevant data be
> evaluated. The communication on this by
> knowledgeable HPS members seems to
> have been inadequate to document the culpability of
> the HPS leadership in
> suppressing the study of the taiwan data.
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU on behalf of howard
> long
> Sent: Thu 11/18/2004 12:45 AM
> To: Muckerheide, James; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
> Cc: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: Hormesis - Ever enough evidence for
> approval of authorities?
>
> Jim, I am cynical about what you suggest as adequate
> "study".
> Even the Women's Health Initiative (multiple univ.
> placebo controlled
> "study") has been misapplied.
>
> Despite = mortality rate, (estrogen/progestin =
> placebo), because of a 25%
> higher heart attack rate (in a 50% ever-smoker mix
> of women over 60)
> authorities have effectively denied millions of
> never-smoking women great
> benefit to save themselves (Medicare and other
> insurers) billions of dollars
> yearly (for Prempro). The classic Layde study showed
> 250% higher
> cardiovascular death rate in women over 45
> ever-smokers taking estrogen
> /progestin than in never smokers taking
> estrogen/progestin. Obviously most
> of the heart attacks were among smokers, and the
> never-smoking
> estrogen/progestin users were heart protected!
>
> I still can get no response from that
> self-employment scheme, WHI, when I
> request the separate data on never-smokers. To
> include ever-smokers in that
> study was unethical, a proven risk. I had a 60 year
> old nurse-patient taking
> Prempro, who only after she got a stroke admitted to
> me that she smoked! I
> believe the mechanism for greater risk of CV death
> in smokers using
> estrogen/progestin is faster clotting from
> adrenalin.
>
> Radiation supplementation will need to be like food
> supplementation, I
> believe. It must be outside the reach of a
> bureaucracy with incentive to have
> people die younger, so passing more of their SS $ to
> the BORG. No study will
> suffice, if you don't want to believe it.
>
> Howard Long
>
> "Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU> wrote:
> Howard,
>
> The "natural experiment in Taiwan" is exceptional -
> but there is no study!
>
> As has been perfectly clear for 5 years, the current
> paper is a case for
> doing a study.
>
> Of course, the rad protection authorities who have
> been preventing an honest
> epi study (including the HPS?) obviously provide
> strong implication that a
> credible epi study is known to confirm our
> suspicions. We can also expect
> that, at this point, an 'internal' epi study is
> likely to be another science
> fraud. Be prepared to do a credible technical
> review.
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: howard long [mailto:hflong@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wed 11/17/2004 8:09 PM
> To: Muckerheide, James; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
> Cc: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re:
>
> Jim,
> We are unlikely to get a better study than the
> natural experiment in Taiwan,
> anytime soon, I think - radiophobia.
>
> Even the slight increase in background clicks from
> my Palmrad I got from 3,
> 40 lb sacks of KCl (doubling at 6" as under a
> mattress) spooked my wife, who
> had listened to hours of Pollycove, Luckey, you and
> others.
>
> However, I will be testing a few lb of 4% thorium,
> tungsten welding rods as a
> potential source for a study.
>
> Let's be grateful for the Taiwan study and carry it
> as far as we can.
>
> Howard Long
> Friends,
> This msg has been submitted by John Jacobus. Note
> that it is inappropriate
> to put undue weight on the AAPS paper until the
> requisite epi study is
> performed.
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> =====================
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:28:53 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Jacobus
> Subject: Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit
> : like hypertension
> treatment?
> To: howard long , Reuven ,
> ROBBARISH@AOL.COM, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu,
> rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
>
> Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. If
> you read the article,
> http://aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf there
> is
> no correlation with the exposures with the diagnosed
> conditions. Maybe all of the cancer deaths and
> congenital defects occurred in those with high
> exposures. Better yet, the is NO correlation between
> exposure values and effects. All of the data was
> lumped together.
>
> Maybe that is why the title ends in a question mark.
> You really need to read more carefully.
>
> --- howard long wrote:
>
> > Also elementary, it would be even more convincing
> if
> > there were ZERO cases of deformity (instead of
> just
> > 3) among radiation exposed, pregnant women, where
> 23
> > were expected from comparable population.
> >
> > Howard Long
> >
> > Reuven wrote:
> > ANY INFERENCE / CONCLUSION / ETC. based on an
> > observation of 3 (!) children MUST be suspected
> and
> > deemed SCIENTIFICALLY insufficient!!!
> >
> > This is elementary, Dr. Watson.
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part."
Thomas Jefferson
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/