-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:13:52 -0700 From: JC Huntington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The raging echinacea heath risk Below follows a copy of my response to an article on the captioned topic. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: FW: Echinacea Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:50:02 -0700 From: JC Huntington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: @Home Network To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: <30 or 40 names snipped out of respect for privacy> Thanks for the article on echinacea. This article reinforced my belief that one has to be very, very careful. One has to be very, very careful about what one puts in their bodies and one has to be especially careful about what one puts in their mind. For example, one has to be very, very careful about articles like this one (found here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/379024.asp ) A quick read may lead you to believe that echinacea could present a health risk instead of a health benefit. But before we jump to conclusions, let's have a closer look at this piece -- let's begin with this quote . . . DR. RAYMOND MULLINS, an allergist in private practice at the John James Medical Centre in Deakin, Australia, identified 24 cases in which echinacea was found to precipitate asthma attacks, hives or potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions. “Four of the patients ended up in the hospital, so it was not trivial,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Hmmmm .... 'potentially fatal' and 'not trivial'. This really sounds serious. Let's look a little closer at this health warning, presented to you by a journalist published world wide. The journalist reports that there were 24 cases of allergic reaction to echinacea -- ok 24 cases out of how many? . . . hmmmm . . . it seems that there were 24 cases of allergic reaction out of potentially millions of people. Here is a quote from Dr. Mullins: . . . echinacea is taken regularly by millions of Australians, Americans and Europeans, he [Dr. Mullins] noted. Ok, now we know that millions of Australians, Americans and Europeans take echinacea. Since this research was done in Australia, let's assume that 1 million Australians use echinacea. That would mean that 24 people out of 1 million (a whopping 0.0024% of the population) had an allergic reaction (e.g. "sneezing") to echinacea. But maybe only a half a million Australians use echinacea --- if only half a million Australians use echinacea, then the percentage of the population at risk of suffering "an allergic reaction" (e.g. "sneezing") jumps "way up" to 0.0048%. But maybe only 250,000 Australians use echinacea. If only 250,000 Australians use echinacea, then the percentage of the population at risk of suffering "an allergic reaction" (e.g. "sneezing") goes way up to an overwhelming 0.0096% But maybe only 125,000 Australians use echinacea. If only 125,000 Australians use echinacea, then the percentage of the population at risk of suffering "an allergic reaction" (e.g. "sneezing") goes way up to an overwhelming 0.0192% But maybe only 50,000 Australians use echinacea. If only 50,000 Australians use echinacea, then the percentage of the population at risk of suffering "an allergic reaction" (e.g. "sneezing") goes way up to an overwhelming 0.048% If 0.048% sounds like a big percentage to you, give me a call, I want to borrow a lot of money from you --- at the above rate of course. I will personally guarantee that you will not get busted for usury. --------------------- So far this doesn't sound like a big problem to me -- it especially doesn't sound like a big enough problem to warrant a piece in a national news publication. Because of this quite apparent minuscule heath risk, I am curious as to why the journalist who wrote this piece decided to run with it. >From what we have seen so far, it seems as though the journalist that penned this piece may have been a bit gullible -- gullible enough that she did not do a rudimentary analysis of what she was being told so as to determine that this 'echinacea health risk' was not any risk at all ... but lets continue looking at the piece a bit more. --------------------- Another question that needs to be asked is, "What is the period of time over which the allergic reactions were noted?". The reason that this question is important is that it will give us a clue as to how serious this problem really is. For example, if the study covered a period of 2 days and 24 people had allergic reactions, then that would be one thing. On the other hand if the study covered several years and 24 people had allergic reactions, that would be quite another thing. Check out this tidbit: [Dr.] Mullins reviewed allergic reactions reported to a national database in Australia over the last decade. Results linked echinacea to three [3] cases of anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction usually marked by difficulty breathing, vomiting and diarrhea), nine [9] asthma attacks and 12 cases of hives. Hmmmm . . . isn't that interesting? if we cut out the stuff about "a severe allergic reaction usually marked by difficulty breathing, vomiting and diarrhea" and go directly to the numbers we find that 3 + 9 + 12 = 24 In other words the 24 reported allergic reactions, that the lead in to the piece said were "precipitated by echinacea", occurred over a 10 year period. In other words, out of the millions of people using echinacea over a 10 year period, a whopping 2.4 people per year reported an allergic reaction. Does this sound like a big problem to you? Does this sound like a potential health hazard that needs to be reported in a world wide publication? -------------- I'll tell you what it sounds like to me. This article sounds like propaganda (though I am open to other interpretations). This article sounds like propaganda that would be promulgated by people that have an economic interest in making you believe that echinacea is a health risk, when their own data show that this is decidedly the case (though I am open to other interpretations). That said, I am very interested in why a journalist would spend time to write and publish a piece like this. The only options that I can come up with are these . . . 1) This piece was written by a journalist that couldn't detect propaganda when she saw it or 2) This piece was written by a journalist that could detect propaganda when she saw it but wrote this "warning" anyway or 3) This piece was written by a journalist that wrote her daily quota by expediently parroting what she was told. Of course, I am open to other options --- but check out this little quote that the journalist chose to to close the piece with: “We need to challenge the concept that natural is safe,” Mullins said. “That’s not true for echinacea.” What this journalist is reporting to you is that Dr. Mullins says echinacea is not safe and that other natural substances may be every bit as "dangerous" as echinacea. In other words, our journalist reported this "health warning" to you even though the data do not substantiate the claim (which is absurd, of course -- but this absurdity was evidently beyond the grasp of our journalist). In other words, our journalist is reporting to you is that Dr. Mullins backs his claim that echinacea is "dangerous" by citing the fact that over a 10 year period, 24 people out of a million or so that took echinacea had an allergic reaction to it (which is absurd, of course -- but this absurdity was evidently beyond the grasp of our journalist). To sum up: 1) This piece is ludicrous on its face, 2) The journalist that wrote this piece appears to be more of a shill than a journalist, 3) The journalist that wrote this piece should be ashamed of herself. -------------- Jacqueline Stenson is the journalist that wrote this piece. I have sent this email to Jacqueline Stenson, cc'ing the original sender and all recipients. Have a nice day . . . JCH PS: I do not make any money whatsoever from anything related to echinacea or any other natural product. PPS: If you swallowed Jacqueline Stenson's piece, your health may be at risk. PPPS: It may be wise to examine closely anything the commodity media tries to pan off on you. If you can't trust them to tell you the truth about something as important as your health, how can you trust them on anything else? ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
