Bastyr University's Clinical Medical Director Ignores The Science On Colon Cleansing

[HuckleB]

http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20110801/colon-cleansing-may-be-risky-study-finds

"Colon cleansing, promoted as a natural way to boost well-being, has no proven benefits and may be risky, according to a new report.

Ranit Mishori, MD, a family medicine doctor at Georgetown University School of Medicine, looked at studies that evaluated colon hydrotherapy or irrigation. She also looked at studies of cleansing by the use of laxatives, teas, and other products taken by mouth or inserted into the rectum.

..."

Nonetheless, those who make money from this "treatment" refuse to do the right thing:


"I don't agree there are no benefits,'' says Jamey Wallace, ND, clinic medical director for Bastyr Center for Natural Health of Bastyr University in Seattle.

"If someone is constipated and they have no other medical diagnosis, it can be very helpful," he tells WebMD. He reviewed the study but was not involved in it. He says it can improve bowel function.

..."

---------------------------------------------------------------


:eyes:

[HuckleB]

1. Bastyr Course Calendar: Homeopathic Treatment of Summer Illness and Traveler’s Woes

http://www.bastyr.edu/continuinged/calendar.asp?cid=%7BFCD4099C-4949-4B50-862C-6500168F5967%7D


:wow:

[laconicsax]

2. Don't forget these ones:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=107958&mesg_id=107995

[Trillo]

3. "ALERT:This domain is controlled by the Murdoch Family."

[HuckleB]

4. What does this post mean?

:shrug:

[Trillo]

5. Murdochalert tagged webmd.com as a Murdoch Family website. nt

[HuckleB]

6. Well, I can't find any information that supports the claim.

Second, this story is posted on many news sources, so there's no real point in this type of red herring post.

[Trillo]

7. In order to "find any information that supports the claim", one must first look for it.

Such a simple search:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/WebMD-Corporation-Company-History.html
When the Healtheon and WebMD $7 billion merger was consummated in November 1999 it included two smaller companies: Mede America and Greenberg News Networks. The resulting company became Healtheon/WebMD (the name would be shortened to WebMD Corporation less than a year later). Arnold became CEO and Long became COO and chairman of the board. The addition of Mede America, which operated an electronic processing system that handled some 350 million medical transactions a year, and Greenberg News, a daily news and information service for doctors, was just the first in a series of acquisitions and alliances that WebMD completed over the next several months in an effort to fill out the business. It acquired Medical Manager Corp., an established provider of management systems to physicians, and its subsidiary, Carelnsite, Inc., a provider of technology that allowed confidential information to be shared between patients, physicians, health plans, and other parties. WebMD paid $2.5 billion to acquire Envoy, which added significantly to its electronic data interchange capabilities and customer base. WebMD also established a partnership with the CVS drugstore chain to sell products on the Web as well as connect its pharmacists to insurers, and a four-year $100 million partnership with Medtronic Inc. to provide healthcare information on the Internet and other media to consumers and physicians. In addition, WebMD forged alliances with Medibuy.com, an online medical equipment supplier; Humana, a managed care network that processed claims between doctors and insurers; pharmaceutical Eli Lilly to promote Prozac and other drugs; IDX Systems Corp., a healthcare information systems company; and media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to take WebMD overseas.

Looks to me like Murdochalert was accurate with its warning.

[HuckleB]

8. If that's the connection they found, well, that's pretty weak, to say the least.

Further, it's absolutely pointless to spend time on that instead of the actual content.

[Trillo]

9. Sometimes the messenger is the story. NewsCorp owned ~10% of WebMD in 2000.

In other words, the same corporation that owns Fox News, owns a significant portion of WebMD.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3498/is_1_63/ai_58585946/
"The joining at the hip of News Corp. and Healtheon/WebMD creates an Internet provider of Microsoft proportions. In June 1999 News Corp. listed assets of approximately $36 billion and total annual revenues of approximately $14 billion. News Corp. owns enough mass media to glut airwaves and overwhelm print outlets. It operates in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Latin America and the Pacific Basin. Its television assets include Fox Broadcasting and such assorted outlets as the Sports Net, Fox Family Channel and Fox News, along with Channel (V) Asia, Sky Latin America, The Health Network and Foxtel.
...
"News Corp. will become a 10.8% minority stakeholder in Healtheon/Web MD. Financial terms include $700 million in branding services ($400 million domestically and $300 million internationally) provided by News Corp. over 10 years; a $100 million purchase of Healtheon/Web MD stock at $50 per share, and a $100 million cash investment by News Corp. in an international joint venture. News Corp. also paid $62.5 million for a five-year licensing agreement for syndication of WebMD daily broadcast content, transferred to Healtheon/WebMD a 50% interest in The Health Network, the health-focused cable network, and received 100% ownership of thehealthnetwork.com.

"The goal, added Peter Chernin, president and COO, is to create the dominant brand in health care information, one that is trusted by consumers, physicians and the health care industry alike. The partnership, he said, will make it possible to create and distribute health information worldwide with cross-promoted programming through media vehicles including broadcast, cable, print, online, physician's office and in-store.

[HuckleB]

10. Maybe, but certainly not in this case.

If you have an actual concern with the story, please outline it. If you don't, then you're offering up a pointless red herring over and over again.

[Trillo]

11. ANY story that comes through any Murdoch network is suspect

That is at best a network of considerable conservative bias, and IMO, shouldn't be shilled on DU for click-through income.

[HuckleB]

12. In other words, you ignore the fact that this story was reported by many sources.

And you cannot actually deal with the content.

What you're doing is no different than what you worry that Murdoch is doing.

[Trillo]

13. If there are numerous sources,

why did you pick a Murdoch network website to post?

[HuckleB]

14. FIrst, your claim that it's a Murdoch network is quite sketchy.

It's quite a stretch to insinuate that Murdoch has anything to do with the editorial process at WebMD.

Second, it really doesn't matter, since it's clear that you can't address the content. What is also clear is that you don't give a crap about accuracy. You're just playing "MURDOCH!"

If you can't show that there is a problem with the article, then I'm done discussing anything with someone so blinded by so little.

[Trillo]

15. So you don't have even one other link to another non-Murdoch tainted source?

You've maintained throughout this conversation that this story has multiple sources as a "basic fact". Yet, you have not posted even one other link as a courtesy to anyone who, like myself, might object to feeding the Murdoch octopus web traffic and likely click income therefrom.

DU rule: "3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum."

Do you believe your last three or four sentences meet DU rule #3?