Hidden Health Science

A new research study, which included nearly 60,000 pregnant women in Denmark, found that those who drink artificially sweetened beverages (carbonated or not) were more likely to have a premature birth. The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.¹

The researchers found that one serving per day of artificially sweetened, carbonated drinks were 38% more likely to give birth before 37 weeks of gestation (1.38 AOR). Those who consumed four servings of these drinks were 78% more likely to have a premature delivery (1.78 AOR).

Dr. Shelly McGuire, a spokesman for the American Society of Nutrition, was quoted as saying “Certainly, until more experimental work is done, this study suggests that pregnant women should steer clear of artificially sweetened drinks.”²

Maybe the words “pregnant women” could be replaced with “everyone” in that statement?

According to a whole host of experts, it should be so. Soft drinks in general, in fact, should be avoided according to health practitioners and authors Michael Murray, Joseph Pizzorno, James Duke, Marion Nestle; to name a few.³

The abstract for this latest study by Dr. Thornallur Haldorsson, principal author, says that soft drinks in general are suspected of many adverse health effects:

“Sugar-sweetened soft drinks have been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes such as high weight gain. Therefore, artificially sweetened soft drinks are often promoted as an alternative. However, the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed, and consequences of high intakes of artificial sweeteners for pregnant women have been minimally addressed.”

Results in the study were cross-referenced with women who consumed sugar-sweetened soft drinks. It was found that the possible causative was clearly the artificial sweeteners, rather than the soda or other ingredients. Both carbonated and non-carbonated drinks were included as well with the same result.

The actual physical change that causes the rise in premature birth rates is not known, according to the study’s authors. Artificial sweeteners have been connected to a host of adverse health effects, so it’s likely that doctors could just take their pick here.⁴ The study did point out that most of the premature births were due to medical induction rather than spontaneous delivery and removing data from women diagnosed with preeclampsia also had little effect on the odds for premature delivery and sweetener intake. With all of the other things eliminated as suspects by the authors, it’s clear that the artificial sweeteners are changing a fundamental aspect of pregnancy that is usually not measured.

This could include hormone production, muscular or cellular function, or another chemical interaction. Aspartame, for instance, breaks down into three major chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Methanol oxidizes into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both of which are toxic. These can accumulate in the body and have been linked to premature birth in primate studies.

So, from kidney function loss to cancer to premature birth, these sweeteners sure do have a lot going for them.

Resources:
1 – Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study in 59,334 Danish pregnant women by Thorhallur I Halldorsson, et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2010

2 – Pregnant women should avoid ‘diet’ soft drinks: researchers by Rebecca Smith, The Telegraph, August 19, 2010

3 – The health effects of drinking soda – quotes from the experts by Mike Adams, NaturalNews

4 – Artificial Sweeteners are Continually Found to be Unsafe and Toxic by Ethan Huff, NaturalNews

Published 08/30/10: http://www.naturalnews.com/029601_diet_soda_premature_birth.html

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is nothing new to NaturalNews readers.¹ It is one of the most doctor-recommended drugs for fever, inflammation, and pain today. Recent studies, however, have linked it to asthma and some other allergies, the latest doing so with teenagers.

This new study shows that teens who take Tylenol were more than twice as likely to have asthma than teens who do not. The study, published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, involved almost 323,000 children between 13 and 14 years of age spanning 50 countries.² The study found that frequent users of acetaminophen (using at least once a month) were 2.5 times as likely to have asthma than those who’d never taken it. Teens who infrequently (once a year) used it had a 43% higher chance of having asthma.

This study, by itself, doesn’t prove much, of course, being epidemiological research – meaning it’s based on surveys of after-the-fact information. Taken with several others, however, it forms a part of a larger pattern linking Tylenol to asthma.

The same journal (AJRCCM) published another study that linked acetaminophen with adult-onset asthma.³ In this study, 121,700 women were asked about their Tylenol use in 1990 and then medical records were cross referenced six years later to see which of those women had been diagnosed with asthma in the interim. For women who used acetaminophen heavily, their chances of having an asthma diagnosis was 63% higher than were women who did not use it at all.

Yet another study, also published in the American Journal of RCCM found that Tylenol, aspirin, and ibuprofen were all linked to an increased risk of asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and a decrease in lung function.⁴

Another study, published in Chest in February of 2005 links acetaminophen with depletion of pulmonary glutathione and oxidative stress.⁵ Glutathione is one of the body’s primary detoxifying compounds, linking with toxins such as heavy metals so that they can be eliminated from the system. This would then suggest that asthma and some other lung deficiencies could be symptoms of a larger problem – the body reacting to a loss of one of its primary defense mechanisms in the lungs.

A further study conducted in Ethiopia found that there was a direct, dose-associated association between Tylenol use and allergic symptoms and asthma.⁶ This study found that those taking three or more tablets in a month had an 89% higher chance of reporting nocturnal shortness of breath and a 90% higher chance of having eczema than did those who did not take acetaminophen.

Still another study, this entirely by accident, links Tylenol with asthma. This one used acetaminophen as a control in a study to prove a causal link between ibuprofen and asthma. Instead, the control group were the ones with the higher rates of asthma-related problems.⁷

There are literally hundreds of studies showing a link between Tylenol and asthma, all of which were published in accepted journals. Yet there are, to date, no prospective, randomized, controlled studies that show a causal link between asthma and Tylenol.

Of course, there aren’t any that prove that the Swine Flu vaccine worked, that the FDA’s “food pyramid” is a good guideline for health, or that the school lunch program isn’t contributing to our children’s growing girths. But these assertions are commonly accepted as being true anyway. At least, they are if you’re a member of WHO, the FDA, or part of the school system. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Resources:
1 – Tylenol on NaturalNews

2 – Acetaminophen Use and Risk of Asthma, Rhinoconjunctivitis and Eczema in Adolescents: ISAAC Phase Three by Richard W Beasley, et al, AJRCCM, August 13, 2010

3 – Prospective Study of Acetaminophen Use and Newly Diagnosed Asthma among Women by R. Graham Barr, et al, AJRCCM, January 7, 2004

4 – The Association of Acetaminophen, Aspirin, and Ibuprofen with Respiratory Disease and Lung Function by Tricia M McKeever, et al, AJRCCM, February 25, 2005

5 – Acetaminophen and the risk of asthma: the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic evidence. by I Eneli, et al, Chest, February 2005.

6 – Use of acetaminophen and the risk of self-reported allergic symptoms and skin sensitization in Butajira, Ethiopia by Gail Davey, et al, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2005

7 – Asthma Morbidity After the Short-Term Use of Ibuprofen in Children by Samuel M. Lesko, et al, Pediatrics, February 2, 2002

Across the United States, debates about medical marijuana fester in many communities and states. Currently, fourteen states of the fifty in the Union plus Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. Yet in those states, and many others who are considering similar measures, the argument rages on.

What is most often ignored in these discussions is the science behind the use of cannabis as a medicine. Yet there is ample scientific evidence proving the efficacy of this natural herb in treating some medical conditions. Just as there is evidence of side effects.

First, the Science

The University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has done several studies into the efficacy of marijuana for neuropathic use – especially in pain reduction. They have been done using FDA standardized clinical trials with randomized, placebo-controlled procedures. These studies have clearly shown the positive effects of using marijuana as a pain reliever and medicine for patients with such chronic conditions as HIV, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and sleep disorders.¹

A recent review in Germany showed that since 2005, there have been 37 controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of marijuana (and its compounds). These involved far more subjects than the average study seeking FDA approval for a prescription drug.²

These are just a few, as over 2,500 papers were published on the subject of cannabis in 2009 alone.

Next, the Baseless Debates

Many opponents of medical marijuana claim that there is “little evidence” and call for “more research, more science.” These are the more reasonable of the detractors for the medicinal use of marijuana, of course. Yet these reasonable arguments against marijuana as a medicine are pretty hollow given the vast amount of research that’s already been done with much more on the way.

Proponents of medical marijuana often ignore the research as well. Despite the common claims to the contrary, there is evidence that marijuana also has negative side effects. Most of these center on the physical effects of smoking it as well as proven cognitive negatives. Admittedly, the effects are no worse (and generally better) than the side effects associated with many prescription drugs and accepted non-prescription drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.³

Most of the arguments for or against the use of medical marijuana seem to center on social rather than science-based concerns. Rightly so, in some cases, as there are deep social issues involved with marijuana’s use (or prohibition). Many communities have benefited from the introduction of medical marijuana, however.⁴ The negative impacts of marijuana, socially, are nearly always associated with its prohibition rather than its allowance.

When All Is Said and Done

Marijuana is continually being proven to have medical uses. It’s prohibition is becoming less and less tenable as negative societal impacts are proving to be more psychologically-based than they are scientific. With 14 of 50 states in the U.S. having medical marijuana laws and with several considering full legalization of it (as is Mexico and as have some European countries), the real motivations behind those who condemn marijuana as a “hard drug” akin to synthetic street drugs such as cocaine are hard to understand.

The truth is, however, until Americans are willing to be completely honest about the issues surrounding marijuana and its use as a medicine, these senseless arguments are likely to continue indefinitely. Both sides of the argument need to concede that the other may have some points. All involved must realize that medical marijuana has enough science-based proof behind it to be considered legitimate and at the same time acknowledge that there are negatives to the use of marijuana as well.

Resources:
1 – Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research studies list

2 – Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 by Arno Hzekamp, Franjo Grotenhermen, Institute Biology Leiden, Leiden University, The Netherlands

3 – Special Marijuana Issue New Scientist Magazine, 21 February 1998

4 – Medical Marijuana Has Lawmakers Seeing Green by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral.com

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

There is a growing body of evidence that marijuana and its components possess anti-cancer properties. Yet you won’t likely see this in mainstream news and you definitely won’t see pharmaceutical companies running advertisements stating this.

The latest research comes from the State University of New York (SUNY) in Syracuse whose study in the Journal of Pharmacology (June 2010) concludes that cannabinoids delta8- and delta-9-THC stopped growth in human oral cancer cells.¹ This is specifically true of Tu183, a particularly difficult oral cancer. This was just the latest in many research reports and studies to have been published on the cancer-treating properties of marijuana and derivatives.

It’s been known for quite some time that THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) has cancer-inhibiting properties. A government-funded study in 1974 was quickly quashed after a favorable press account appeared in the Washington Post, only to resurface in the late 1990s and recently re-created by researchers in Madrid, Spain.^{2 & 3} The studies show the inhibitory effect of cannabis on brain tumors.

Marijuana has also been shown to have positive effects on other cancers, including breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and more.⁴

A review of clinical studies involving cannabis from 2005 to 2009 shows that 37 studies just on the therapeutic effects of marijuana or its derivatives were done in that time frame.⁵ This is over and above hard science, laboratory research into the use of cannabis as a medication.

So why is it that those who oppose marijuana as a medicine seem to have such a hard time acknowledging the huge body of evidence that’s accumulated for the past 30 or more years showing that cannabis has distinct and measurable medical benefits?

President Obama has told the Drug Enforcement Agency to stand down on marijuana raids and prosecutions in jurisdictions where marijuana has been made legal, including the 14 states plus Washington, D.C. that have medical marijuana laws on the books. Yet even with evidence in hand showing the efficacy of marijuana, government funding for studies with it are nearly non-existent. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration continues to approve drugs whose background studies and effects are nowhere near as comprehensive or prolific as are those for cannabis.

It’s time that opponents to marijuana admit that their reasons for blocking the medicinal use of this plant are entirely social and emotional and have no grounding in fact. Death, injury, and violent behavior is far more often done under the influence of alcohol than it is under pot, yet alcohol is perfectly legal. By contrast, more arrests for victimless crimes such as mere possession or use of marijuana are made every year than are busts for any other drug – legal or illegal.

As marijuana begins to receive more and more public advocacy and as more states legalize it, opponents of its decriminalization need to admit that they may be fighting it purely for nonsensical reasons.

References:
1 – Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. by DA Whyte, S Al-Hammadi, et al

2 – Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ’74 by Raymond Cushing, AlterNet

3 – Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas by Daniela Parolaro and Paola Massi, Expert Review of Naurotherapeutics, Jan. 2008

4 – A Couple Of Recent Studies The Mainstream Media Forgot To Mention by Paul Armentano, NORML

5 – Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 by Arno Hazekamp and Franjo Grotenhermen, Cannabinoids 2010

Aaron Note: This is a great article that details the inside of science and those who study scientists.  I’ve excerpted it below and you can follow the links to read the entire thing.  Interesting stuff.

by Rob Sharp, The Independent

Science begets science. In a letter to fellow natural philosopher Robert Hooke in 1676, Isaac Newton famously decreed that his own achievements were merely a matter of “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

The more we know about something, the more we can study it, whether it’s particles firing in a Swiss bunker, as with Geneva’s Large Hadron Collider, or Newton’s fabled fleshy fruit toppling from a tree.

Scientists have been examining their own careers for centuries, but only relatively recently as a separate field of research. This intellectual analysis, called “scientometrics”, emerged in the 1960s, and is essentially the “science of science”. It posits questions such as, “How is productivity changing?” or “How many researchers do we need?” and now, “Are scientific discoveries getting more difficult?”

This latter poser arrived in May, courtesy of Samuel Arbesman, the Harvard postdoctoral fellow, journalist and evangelist for academe, writing in the journal Scientometrics. His conclusions? That Newton wasn’t being modest: his experiments really were a breeze.

Newton and his peers studied springs and apples; now we need supercomputer networks to check out broadly the same things. In an objective sense, says Arbesman, science is getting harder. “Today, if you want to make a discovery in physics, it helps to be part of a 10,000-member team that runs a multi-billion dollar atom smasher,” he says. “It takes increasingly more money, more effort, and more people to find out more things.”

So what is scientometrics, and what else can it tell us? In simple terms, scientometrics is an “information science” that uses statistical techniques to put scientists under themicroscope. Interested in how productive a certain university is? Proceed as follows: work out how many scientists it has, deduce how productive each of those brain-boxes is (why not rack up how often their research gets published?), add up all this output, and you have a reasonable means of quantifying a university’s performance.

Read the rest by clicking here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• In their element: The science of science (independent.co.uk)

After giving the appearance that it would (thankfully) disappear, the dreaded FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act (S 510)¹ has gone on to the full calendar of the United States Senate and will likely be debated on the Senate floor this year or early next. The bill is being touted as a “safety measure” to keep things like poisoned foods and food allergies from hurting children in schools and keeping the public safe from serious food-related illnesses due to bad processing, manufacture, or distribution methods.

The bill will also mean the end of small, local farms, whole foods from anyone but Big Agra, and may even have the ability to affect your own backyard garden or self-sustaining farming.

In other words, SB510 gives the FDA (under a special new “Czar” and office) the ability to completely take over our food supply, top to bottom, and eliminate all non-approved sources for food.

This is not conspiracy, it’s real. Read on.

The much-respected “food advocate” Eric Schlosser, who wrote the book Fast Food Nation and co-produced the film Food, Inc. defended SB510 in the New York Times.² Those familiar with Schlosser’s work, however, will recognize the one glaring problem with it: he never points to governmental wrongdoing or involvement, instead focusing all of his ire on Big Agra. He overlooks, whether purposefully or not, the fact that Big Agra could not get away with their nefarious activities without government complicity.

Schlosser goes so far as to admit that the bill has more than a safety bill and that, as written, it gives vast, unchecked powers to a new agency of the Food and Drug Administration. Powers that trump what little is left of local and state level laws protecting local agriculture. This bill, for instance, would basically nullify Wyoming’s excellent Food Freedom Act³ because that is written entirely on a state level and has no provision for controlling federal agents in that regard (unlike another controversial Wyoming law, the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act which specifically allows federal agents to be arrested and tried for violating Wyoming law).

Even a cursory reading by anyone with an open mind will show that SB510 is all about federalizing authority over food, taking what little ability the small producers and local farmers have to be self-sustaining and organic and hand it over to the Agra-Governmental Complex. All using the false flag of “food safety” as their means towards their evil ends.

Like the so-called Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act⁴ in the House of Representatives, they are misleading the public on what the intent of this act is. Unlike the GMO Food Right to Know act, however, the Senate has final say in whether a false food safety act will happen because the House has already passed their version of this bill, which is equally onerous.

Once again, this writer is forced to ask you, the reader, “Will you join us?” Will you join in and demand, without surrender or compromise, your natural right to health? Will you tell them “no, it is my body, my life, my choice to decide what I will eat, what I will drink, and what I will do to make myself healthy?”

Or will you pretend that this somehow isn’t your problem and won’t affect you? I suspect that as a NaturalNews reader, you will not shirk this responsibility and will stand up for you and your family’s right to decide what you will and will not eat.

Resources:
1 – S 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act on Govtrack

2 – Unsafe at Any Meal by Eric Schlosser, New York Times opinion

3 – Wyoming Food Freedom Act Wyoming legislature, became law in 2010.

4 – Glaring Loophole Exists in the GMO Food Right to Know Act by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews

See also: Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food by The World’s Prophecy

Aaron’s Note: I am now writing news, commentary, and the occasional science-based feature (as below) for CannaCentral.com, one of the few professional medical marijuana sites out there.  This is one of the first two features I’ve written for them and there will be more in the future.

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

Despite what the nation’s “Drug Czar” Gil Kerlikowske might say and what his office might promote, it’s being proven that driving under the influence of marijuana does not make you a dangerous driver. In fact, a new study shows that it makes virtually no difference in the driving abilities of most drivers.

Of course, that may not be saying much given the state of some highways in this nation, but at least the road hogs and blind spot lurkers don’t drive any worse while high.

Most of the studies for stoned and drunk driving were conducted in the 1970s. Driving simulators, measurement tools, and even drug potency were different then. Although studies into drunk driving have continued to the present, studies of marijuana’s effects on driving have not. A new study from researchers at the Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center has found that marijuana’s effects on driving – including separating data between men and women – is negligible.¹

The research is legitimate, double-blind, placebo-controlled and used 85 subjects (50 men, 35 women) on driving simulators. Subjects were tested sober and then shortly after having smoked either a 2.9% THC marijuana joint or an identical placebo.

The only measurable difference in driving between those who were sober when stoned was that they tended to slow down and drive slower than otherwise. Which any safety advocate will tell you is almost always a good thing.

Other studies conducted overseas, including one in Israel published in 2008,² showed similar results.

These studies and their findings should call into question every “impaired driving” law in which marijuana is treated the same as alcohol and hard drugs.

Of course, as marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable and laws regarding its use loosen or are eliminated, a review of laws that lump it in with other, much more impairing drugs should be conducted as well.

References:
1 – Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance. by BM Anderson, M Rizzo, et al, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, March 2010

2 – Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol.by A Ronen, P Gershon, et al, Accident; analysis and prevention, May 2008

Editor’s Note: The following from Ethan Huff at Natural News is an illustration of why I began to research and write on the subjects that I do.  The manipulation of our so-called medical “science” is blatant and should be obvious to everyone, but it’s generally ignored instead.  Hopefully, places like NaturalNews shed some light on this for some people.

by Ethan A. Huff, NaturalNews

A recent study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine has revealed that industry-funded clinical trials — that is, drug trials funded by pharmaceutical companies — almost always show positive results for the drugs they test. In contrast, only about half of government-funded studies show the same drugs to be safe and effective.

The results of the study may not come as much of a surprise to many who already recognize the corruption inherent in drug company-funded clinical trials. But they do broadcast this reality to a much larger audience than ever before.

According to the study, out of 546 drug trialsevaluated, industry-funded studies showed positive outcomes 85 percent of the time while 72 percent of trials funded by nonprofits or non-governmental organizations showed positive results.

Of this 72 percent, those nonprofit and non-governmental studies that received some funding contributions from drug companies showed positive results 85 percent of the time, while those that did not had positive outcomes only 61 percent of the time.

Read the rest here.

Many whole foods and organics proponents have been excited to see the introduction of H.R.5577, The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act in the House of Representatives.¹ Going by the title and the public words given by sponsors such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Act will set the record straight and require labeling for all genetically modified foods and organisms (GMO) in the U.S. Or will it?

Glaring loopholes exist, especially for the so-called “Organics” industry (as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA). These allow GMO foods to be used in ingredients or processing without requiring a “contains GMO” label. The bill includes an exemption allowing anything on the “Allowed List” from the Organic Foods Production Act to be considered non-GMO for labeling purposes.

Back in 2007 and 2008, NaturalNews covered this long list of allowed (and definitely non-organic) substances.² It includes such things as corn starch (most corn in the U.S. is GMO) and flavorings. This, sad bow to Big Agra that it is, doesn’t compare to the next hole in the hull of this Titanic monster of a lie.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act also allows other foods to be exempted from the GMO label requirement purely by bureaucratic caveat. In an obvious nod to Big Ag and its de facto ownership of the USDA and FDA, the Act allows GMO foods to ignore labeling requirements if they do not have testing regulations from the Secretary of Agriculture for that particular food.

In other words, the Secretary and his non-elected bureaucrats (whose history is replete with nothing but honest behavior..³) will be the ones who come up with these “regulations.”

Of course, the primary concern any American should have with H.R.5577 is not the aforementioned loopholes and obvious allowances for Industrial Agriculture and Agribusiness. No, it’s the utter dependence the People seem to have on corrupt organizations within government to decide who does and doesn’t get to use a specific label, who does or doesn’t get to market a certain product, and deciding what is and isn’t considered “healthy” or even “natural.”

Most Americans seem content to blindly stuff anything that tastes good into their mouths and happily believe the propaganda given to them promoting poisons, untested derivatives, and worse. As Americans rush to find more affordable health care to take care of their continually declining health, they turn a blind eye to the real causes behind their chronic woes.

Those few of us who see what is happening and the cattle chute through which most are being driven to the slaughterhouse – fed by the slop of marketing given to them as “news”- are fighting for the right to choose our own destinies, our own food sources and types, and for our very lives and the lives of our families.

Are you fighting with us? Will you join in and demand, without surrender or compromise, your natural right to health? Will you tell them “no, it is my body, my life, my choice to decide what I will eat, what I will drink, and what I will do to make myself healthy?”

Or will you stand by the wayside and hope it all works out in the end? The choice you make now will either haunt your nightmares or give you something to be proud of. Which will it be?

Resources:
1 – H.R.5577, Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Library of Congress

See also H.R.5577 at OpenCongress.org

2 – Cornucopia Institute reveals agribusiness conspiracy to mislead consumers over almonds by Mike Adams, Natural News and USDA Renews Approval of 46 Non-Organic Ingredients in “Organic” Foods by David Gutierrez, NaturalNews

3 – Corruption: USDA Looks Out Only for Self Interests by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews

Editor’s Note: I don’t normally publish reprints from other sites, but this is an important one and worth reading.  It outlines the trouble with finding provable alternative medical science and other scientifically-proven medical alternatives.  Besides the obvious fact that most research is funded by drug companies and medical technology groups, which precludes most alternatives, you also have the straw man arguments used to “disprove” medical alternatives.  This article is worth reading, the following is an excerpt to get you started.  A link to the full version is included and definitely worth the click.

by Anthony Rosner, PhD, LLD, LLC, Dynamic Chiropractic

The simplest way to explain a straw man argument is that it is a fallacy based upon the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.¹ Like a monster drawn from Greek mythology, it can assume many forms.

It may oversimplify the opponent’s position or quote it out of context, stacking the deck so one’s argument may run over the opponent with the crushing totality of a Panzer tank division. In its worst incarnation, the straw man misrepresentation is deliberate and only the weakest target is chosen- that target is then held to represent the totality of the opponent’s being.²

Historically, the term seems to have been taken from using human practice dummies made of straw, such as used in military training and thus a cinch to knock over. It has also been referred to as a traditional fairground game in the U.K., calling it an Aunt Sally. An even more unusual origin suggests it was used to designate men who stood outside the courthouse with straw in their shoes indicating their willingness to be false witnesses; but that notion itself seems to be an urban legend, if not a straw man itself.^3-4

What is obvious and disturbing is that straw men are not just marketing ploys that we’ve become jaded to seeing in television commercials; they are found even in the highest echelons of peer-reviewed journals in medical literature. Straw men seem to have been particularly dominant in publications critical of alternative medical approaches, even appearing in at least one instance in a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to denigrate another company.

Read the rest at this link.