> In it he explains how his childhood preoccupation with explosives lead to a
> study of nitro-glycerine, and from then on to many years of hard research
> into why and how nitro-glycerine was effective in reducing some heart
> disease problems. This lead ultimately to his discovery that NO was indeed
> the same as the fugitive EDRF ( endothelium-derived-relaxing-factor) which
> Dr Furchgott was investigating. Dr Ignarro was jointly awarded the Nobel
> prize for this work.
Hmm. Pattern #1: Unique childhood interests opening up doors to unique
thoughts and observations that nobody else has ever seen.
> This book has most of the USA-writing characteristics that I detest - such as
> treating such a subject as a thrill-seeking detective novel, with eye-catching
> sub-chapter headings, multiple shaded text boxes and the like. However, I
> got over that because the actual content more than made up for it.
Hmm. Pattern #2: Only in non-peer-reviewed writings do
doctors/researchers get away with using anecdotal evidence instead of
full-blown scientific studies which reveal the results for AND against
the desired outcome of the study.
> He also specifies that the minimum daily intake should be at least 6 gm. and
> further, he gives precise guidelines for foods to favour and foods to avoid,
> in
> order to reduce the quantity of free-radicals ingested - these are very
> damaging to the NO-system.
Hmm. Pattern #3: Specific measurement which has the "at least"
statement in it. Unfortunately, the studies weren't large enough to
really determine anything more than "yes it works, no it doesn't" and
there was little chance to fine-tune the amounts for
gender/weight/age/condition/etc factors.
> He does not limit his advice to L-argenine and L-citrulline, and includes
> recommendations for other supplements, with detailed reasons.
Hmm. Pattern #4: Expert in everything because he's an expert in one thing.
> I see nothing wrong with putting an optimised product on the market.
> Prendergast has opted for the multi-level marketing system. Well, the USA
> is used to this - after all who has not heard of AMWAY, the archetypal
> multilevel marketing system which invaded most of the world?
Hmm. Pattern #5: Multi Level Marketing. The USA is used to it,
however, MLM medical products pretty much always follow exactly the
same pattern. Whether there is truth in ANY of the claims is almost
irrelevant because the method of marketing, by its very nature,
eliminates the reliability of the claims. With MLM, it's all about
slick marketing and anecdotal evidence. Sure, some marketing hack will
put together a fact-sheet with some incomprehensible (and unproven)
numbers, but otherwise it is all about word-of-mouth "I feel great and
have been bench-pressing my SUV every morning since I've been taking
these magic pills." "I take 10 of these with every meal".
> It seems that Ignarro's product, marketed by Herbal-life, has the weird name
> "Nite-works"...
Hmm. Pattern #6: Gerbal-life. MLM without the "Multi". We buy a ton of
stuff through them and another place, but it's a given that the
message is about the same as the MLM schemes, just without the greed
factor for the individual. Actually, I don't have too much of a
problem with HL, other than the quality of their products is sometimes
a little lacking.
> The questions remain - why do hospitals, MDs, and medical schools fail to
> apply the results of this work to the cause of preventing and curing heart
> disease and strokes.
Hmm. Pattern #7: Failure to gain trust and acceptance among peers.
Historically, the time-to-acceptance for medical advancements is
always a little slow. I consider this a good thing as we've managed to
avoid mass consequences that don't show up right away. (watch the
movie "I Am Legend" with Will Smith). One doesn't need to look beyond
Thalidomide to see how a mass acceptance of a new drug turned out to
be a disaster. When it comes to these things, little incremental
improvements tend to be where the advancements are. Over time, you do
get there, but not in huge leaps. Just in the past 13 years since my
wife battled breast-cancer, the standards of treatment and chemistry
have changed. From one year to the next, the changes were tiny, but
taken as a whole, they are huge. But, if you think the medical
community is slow to adopt new research, try the educational system!
It takes 50 years or more for new methods to be adopted. A case in
point would be dyslexia. Research done in the 1920's showed that black
text on blue background greatly improved reading abilities and also
that dyslexia and intelligence had nothing to do with each other. It
wasn't until about 20 years ago that we FINALLY started seeing
educational materials printed on blue paper (or blue tinted sheets
being used) and dyslexics not being sent off to "Special Ed". (I had
this discussion with somebody who just got a masters degree in some
form of special-needs childhood education and she said that they are
still taught incorrectly about dyslexic children, so the pattern of
abuse continues).
> All three authors independently express puzzlement about this,
Hmm. Pattern #8: Blame the system.
I'm not saying that these guys and their research is bogus, but what I
am saying is that they sure have followed the well-worn path of other
nut-jobs and charlatans. Just say'n.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|