On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:10:06 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Camulodonums finest wrote:
[...]
only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in
the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

No idea. But, about that nick: why not go the whole porcus with
"Praeclarissimus [ or 'praeclarissima'] Camuloduni"?

Thanks for that.

Camulodonums finest wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:17:35 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message m

from AndWhyNot contains these words:

Franz may well be correct ........... I would be the first to reject
such 'Biotron' claims .......... but my friend is moderately disabled
and would tend to accept such things as genuine ... despite my
personal 'reservations' and recommendations to the contarary. The
psychological effects on my friend of course may be very different
which is the main thing.

I can't fault Franz's assessment.

Neither can I. But the placebo effect can be very powerful.

There are endless scams using long words and flash claims to sucker the
naive into paying over the odds for quack medicine and treatments.

only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

If it is then NICE should be looking into it. It is amazing what scams
you can run - "polarised polychromatic artificial light" therapy indeed.

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Camulodonums finest wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:17:35 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message m

from AndWhyNot contains these words:

Franz may well be correct ........... I would be the first to reject
such 'Biotron' claims .......... but my friend is moderately disabled
and would tend to accept such things as genuine ... despite my
personal 'reservations' and recommendations to the contarary. The
psychological effects on my friend of course may be very different
which is the main thing.

I can't fault Franz's assessment.

Neither can I. But the placebo effect can be very powerful.

There are endless scams using long words and flash claims to sucker the
naive into paying over the odds for quack medicine and treatments.

only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

If it is then NICE should be looking into it. It is amazing what scams
you can run - "polarised polychromatic artificial light" therapy indeed.

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown

I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:02:58 +0100, Praeclarissimus Camuloduni
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Camulodonums finest wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:17:35 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message m

from AndWhyNot contains these words:

Franz may well be correct ........... I would be the first to reject
such 'Biotron' claims .......... but my friend is moderately disabled
and would tend to accept such things as genuine ... despite my
personal 'reservations' and recommendations to the contarary. The
psychological effects on my friend of course may be very different
which is the main thing.

I can't fault Franz's assessment.

Neither can I. But the placebo effect can be very powerful.

There are endless scams using long words and flash claims to sucker the
naive into paying over the odds for quack medicine and treatments.

only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

If it is then NICE should be looking into it. It is amazing what scams
you can run - "polarised polychromatic artificial light" therapy indeed.

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown

I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.
Here is the most comprehensive list of Medical scams on the web:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...mentindex.html

You'll notice the absence of the Bioptron despite its having been
around for over ten years. Its no odds to me either way but as a
disabled person myself I feel we should be given a little more credit
to having at least half a brain. It seems the Guy mentioned got a
bargain if the data from University hospital Gent is correct. These
normally market for over £200.

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:


Camulodonums finest wrote:


On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:17:35 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:


The message m

from AndWhyNot contains these words:


Franz may well be correct ........... I would be the first to reject
such 'Biotron' claims .......... but my friend is moderately disabled
and would tend to accept such things as genuine ... despite my
personal 'reservations' and recommendations to the contarary. The
psychological effects on my friend of course may be very different
which is the main thing.

I can't fault Franz's assessment.

Neither can I. But the placebo effect can be very powerful.

There are endless scams using long words and flash claims to sucker the
naive into paying over the odds for quack medicine and treatments.

only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

If it is then NICE should be looking into it. It is amazing what scams
you can run - "polarised polychromatic artificial light" therapy indeed.

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown


I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.

I would be more inclined to talk to trading standards.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:33:20 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:


Camulodonums finest wrote:


On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:17:35 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:


The message m

from AndWhyNot contains these words:


Franz may well be correct ........... I would be the first to reject
such 'Biotron' claims .......... but my friend is moderately disabled
and would tend to accept such things as genuine ... despite my
personal 'reservations' and recommendations to the contarary. The
psychological effects on my friend of course may be very different
which is the main thing.

I can't fault Franz's assessment.

Neither can I. But the placebo effect can be very powerful.

There are endless scams using long words and flash claims to sucker the
naive into paying over the odds for quack medicine and treatments.

only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

If it is then NICE should be looking into it. It is amazing what scams
you can run - "polarised polychromatic artificial light" therapy indeed.

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown


I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.

I would be more inclined to talk to trading standards.

Regards,
Martin Brown


certified under the International Quality Standard ISO 9001:2000 and
ISO 13485. fulfils all regulations under the medical directive
93/42/EEC of the European Community.

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:33:20 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown


I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.

I would be more inclined to talk to trading standards.

Regards,
Martin Brown

certified under the International Quality Standard ISO 9001:2000 and
ISO 13485. fulfils all regulations under the medical directive
93/42/EEC of the European Community.

All that says is that they have an ISO certificate on the wall and have
written procedures for how to most effectively rip off the punters.

It says nothing at all about the efficacy of the device or the honesty
of any claims made about it. What is your connection with Biotron?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:22:17 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:33:20 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:49:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

The null hypothesis is that a cheap boring warm spot lamp would work
just as well but without putting money into the Biotron coffers.

I can't find anything much about it in reputable publications only on
quack medicine sites on the web. Why am I not surprised...

Still the brand name sounds reassuringly medical so that's all right.
And as long as it is only used to cheat the worried well out of their
hard earned cash it is fairly harmless. It gets really serious when
people refuse effective medication and rely on bogus quackery...

Regards,
Martin Brown


I would have a word with your GP about it. They will have heard of it
- rather like the Tens machine it crosses the two poles of
conventional and alternative. Also check out the Tissue repair unit at
Guys they have collected data on the efficacy of this instrument.

I would be more inclined to talk to trading standards.

Regards,
Martin Brown

certified under the International Quality Standard ISO 9001:2000 and
ISO 13485. fulfils all regulations under the medical directive
93/42/EEC of the European Community.

All that says is that they have an ISO certificate on the wall and have
written procedures for how to most effectively rip off the punters.

It says nothing at all about the efficacy of the device or the honesty
of any claims made about it. What is your connection with Biotron?

Regards,
Martin Brown

None. I am disabled with PSP so I can't work. I am often offered
alternative treatment for free and always check up to see if I can
find any dirt or deception reports on the products in question. I have
never found any on this item - check yourself . All I have seen is
your opinion. I am trying one at the moment it is well spoken of in
some of the medical forums. I find people fall into extremes of view
on anything in the "complementary medical field" I don't think either
approach helps. If you are diagnosed with an 'incurable' disease I
think the best approach is to try other options but approach
realistically with some research so as not to get 'ripped off'. Why
accept a totally negative prognosis? I have friends who are in western
biochemical research and i think the crux of the matter was summed up
by one a drug company statistician who said " you tell me what you
want to prove and I'll prove it". If you go into the logics of
statistics you will find very little solid ground. SO I have done very
thorough internet searches on this product ( its been around for a
long time and they are high profile - sponsoring motor racing) and I
can't find any negative reports. If you have found such I would be
happy to see them

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:10:06 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Camulodonums finest wrote:
[...]
only thing is this 'bioptron' is being used in most hospitals in
the
UK That's some 'con trick' don't you think?

No idea. But, about that nick: why not go the whole porcus with
"Praeclarissimus [ or 'praeclarissima'] Camuloduni"?

Thanks for that.

Mea voluptas. (No, there's not a chance in Hades J. Caesar would have
said that! I don't actually know _what_ they would have said in
response to "Thank you".)

--
Mike.

In article , Praeclarissimus
Camuloduni writes
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:22:17 +0100, Martin Brown

None. I am disabled with PSP so I can't work. I am often offered
alternative treatment for free and always check up to see if I can
find any dirt or deception reports on the products in question. I have
never found any on this item - check yourself .

snip

Fair enough. But martin makes a valid point - ISO9000/1/2 says nothing
about the quality of the product, merely about the quality of the
process producing it. It's about being able to turn out the product time
after time without variability. If it's a good product to begin with,
then it's about ensuring the process doesn't every now and again throw
out a duff one, if it's a bad product to start with, then it's reliably
bad ;-)

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:22:17 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:33:20 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

I would be more inclined to talk to trading standards.

Regards,
Martin Brown

certified under the International Quality Standard ISO 9001:2000 and
ISO 13485. fulfils all regulations under the medical directive
93/42/EEC of the European Community.

All that says is that they have an ISO certificate on the wall and have
written procedures for how to most effectively rip off the punters.

It says nothing at all about the efficacy of the device or the honesty
of any claims made about it. What is your connection with Biotron?

Regards,
Martin Brown

None. I am disabled with PSP so I can't work. I am often offered
alternative treatment for free and always check up to see if I can
find any dirt or deception reports on the products in question.

I am sorry to hear that. But the problem is that Biotron "rays" do not
stand a cats chance in hell of working as claimed. It is bogus
pseudoscience using long words to con innocent victims.

And I object to tax payers money being wasted on expensive spurious
products that at best can only have a placebo effect. It is all the more
annoying that their target market is the weak and vulnerable with long
term and chronic incurable illnesses who are desparate enough to try
anything at any cost. In it's favour at least it isn't obviously
injurious to health unlike some of the other medical scams.

never found any on this item - check yourself . All I have seen is
your opinion. I am trying one at the moment it is well spoken of in
some of the medical forums.

Don't trust anything on the web. Check the Lancet and other peer
reviewed medical journals.

I find people fall into extremes of view
on anything in the "complementary medical field"

There is some stuff in the "complementary field" that deserves to be
wiped out as the fraud that it is. It is just difficult and tedious to
get the hard evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt it does not do
anything that a ordinary boring cheap heat lamp would not do.

I don't think either
approach helps. If you are diagnosed with an 'incurable' disease I
think the best approach is to try other options but approach
realistically with some research so as not to get 'ripped off'. Why
accept a totally negative prognosis?

You would be in the same position buying purple coloured Smarties in the
misguided belief that they were good for PSP. And if you were gullible
enough doubtless some miscreant would sell them to you.

I have friends who are in western
biochemical research and i think the crux of the matter was summed up
by one a drug company statistician who said " you tell me what you
want to prove and I'll prove it". If you go into the logics of
statistics you will find very little solid ground.

That is the typical New Age gullibility. If you want to believe in it
then fine. But if you want taxpayers' money diverted to utterly bogus
corporate con-merchants that is another matter.

thorough internet searches on this product ( its been around for a
long time and they are high profile - sponsoring motor racing)

That only confirms that it is insanely profitable.

can't find any negative reports. If you have found such I would be
happy to see them

It should be referred to NICE as a matter of priority if the NHS really
is wasting its money on this utter garbage.

You would get the same results with an anglepoise lamp and a sheet of
polaroid. That in essence is what their claims amount to. I really like
the optional "6 hand-blown antique glass filters to provide vibrant
beams of red, blue, yellow, green and violet. * Essential oils and
essences in Bioptron 'Light fluid', 'Balancing gel' and 'Crystal cream'
*" a snip at just £200. Taken from one of their sales pitches

They see you as a business opportunity and will milk you dry.
Caveat emptor.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I have friends who are in western
biochemical research and i think the crux of the matter was summed up
by one a drug company statistician who said " you tell me what you
want to prove and I'll prove it". If you go into the logics of
statistics you will find very little solid ground.



That is the typical New Age gullibility. If you want to believe in it
then fine. But if you want taxpayers' money diverted to utterly bogus
corporate con-merchants that is another matter.

That sounds like a politicians reply. Classic Doublespeak. You
diverted the statement away from the drug companies and on to some
ethereal conglomerate called 'new age' . My point was also about
"taxpayers money being diverted to bogus corporate con-merchants" Are
you telling me the drug companies are not tweaking statistics
massively in their favour. what about the perks Doctors are getting
for pushing certain Drugs? Check out the rise of Simvastatin and then
check the sites where people report the disturbing side effects, which
I myself encountered. No reports are being returned on those. Doctors
are getting perks for prescribing it so don't want to rock the boat
but they've all had cases of disabling side effects. Then in ten years
or so the S**t will hit the fan and all the facts will come tumbling
out. The Drug company will have pocketed their hefty wack and move on
but some peoples lives will have been in ruins for a long time. I
studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics - there was no 'new age' back in 1984 so it wasn't part of
their subplot. I also have friends who are Psychologists and research
Doctors (leukemia) who are not so subsumed in the Scientific hype to
be blinded as to what happens.
I am not promoting 'New Age' far from it. just being
truly scientific and recognising there are limits and abuse in all
fields of medical care. 20 years ago the medical Profession told me I
had 5 years to live ....of course that would have been a statistical
assessment.

studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics - there was no 'new age' back in 1984

Yes there was.

Not in Trent Park college there wasn't- 'new wave' maybe!

I googled and found no scientific evidence, only adverts in one form
or another. They sponsored Formula 1 in 1989, but so did Parmasalat.

So did I and didn't find evidence either way. As I said you are the
only negative I've found and somebody that accuses me of "typical New
Age gullibility" because I pointed out the malleability of statistics
and the possibilities of their abuse in the modern Pharmaceutical
industry doesn't strike me as offering an unbiased view. Only unbiased
view would be scientific

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:
I have friends who are in western

biochemical research and i think the crux of the matter was summed up
by one a drug company statistician who said " you tell me what you
want to prove and I'll prove it". If you go into the logics of
statistics you will find very little solid ground.

That is the typical New Age gullibility. If you want to believe in it
then fine. But if you want taxpayers' money diverted to utterly bogus
corporate con-merchants that is another matter.

That sounds like a politicians reply. Classic Doublespeak. You
diverted the statement away from the drug companies and on to some
ethereal conglomerate called 'new age' .

I am not great fan of the drug companies either. But con-merchants like
the special magical artifical light company are beyond the pale. They
prey on the most vulnerable and desparate victims of chronic illness.

Incidentally I tried a patent search on their claimed to be patented
invention and guess what - there isn't anything on file.

"taxpayers money being diverted to bogus corporate con-merchants" Are
you telling me the drug companies are not tweaking statistics
massively in their favour. what about the perks Doctors are getting
for pushing certain Drugs?

I am not in favour of that either.

But the statistical evidence for drugs efficacy has to be sufficient to
convince expert panels in order to get a licence. The same is not true
for alternative product based scams.

studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics

Statistics are not particularly malleable. However, presentations of
statistical data can be deliberately obscured depending on who is paying
the wage cheque. It is still just about possible for a tobacco apologist
to stand in court on oath and say "smoking does not cause cancer" using
a particularly crafted legalistic phrase without committing purgery.

- there was no 'new age' back in 1984 so it wasn't part of
their subplot.

I think you have selective memory there. Pet rocks and crystal healing
came in with the Dungeons & Dragons craze which predates even 1984.

I am not promoting 'New Age' far from it. just being
truly scientific and recognising there are limits and abuse in all
fields of medical care. 20 years ago the medical Profession told me I
had 5 years to live ....of course that would have been a statistical
assessment.

They can always be wrong. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:24:58 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:19:50 +0100, Praeclarissimus Camuloduni
wrote:


studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics - there was no 'new age' back in 1984

Yes there was.

Not in Trent Park college there wasn't- 'new wave' maybe!

I googled and found no scientific evidence, only adverts in one form
or another. They sponsored Formula 1 in 1989, but so did Parmasalat.

So did I and didn't find evidence either way. As I said you are the
only negative I've found and somebody that accuses me of "typical New
Age gullibility" because I pointed out the malleability of statistics
and the possibilities of their abuse in the modern Pharmaceutical
industry doesn't strike me as offering an unbiased view. Only unbiased
view would be scientific

Wrong Martin. However I agree with what he posted.

You agree with being biased?? ;-)