Well, Ron, it looks like you emptied your quiver on me: “irresponsible,” “misanthropic,” “a record high in pontificating,” “hollow haughtiness,” “smug pedantic cavalier statements.”
Wow! Did you leave out anything? I think not, since as you say I am also “supremely dangerous” and “life-threatening.” I believe that rounds out the picture.
But attacking the messenger with derogatory remarks is a poor substitute for criticizing his message. Now, specifically, what was my message?
It was about prescribing drugs for metabolic syndrome. I mentioned this twice in my letter titled, Bad Medicine. Moreover, to be sure I was not misunderstood, I listed the hallmarks of the syndrome as well as some of the ailments associated with it. Alas, it was for naught.
My position was---and is---that metabolic syndrome in all its manifestations is caused by a poor diet, insufficient sleep, chronic stress, and a lack of adequate exercise.
Unfortunately, the great bulk of your lengthy letter did not address these points. You wrote extensively about vaccinations, family planning, antibiotics, smoking, and life expectancy. These topics are worthy of discussion; however, they are irrelevant to the subject of my letter as are the insulting barbs you directed at me.
This leaves little to which I can reply. But there are a few points.
As an example of my “hit[ting] a new low in accuracy,” you cited that only 37 percent of seniors use five or more drugs, “not the 15 prescriptions mentioned in Bob's . . . diatribe.”
Sorry, Ron. You are incorrect. The average number of prescriptions written in 2011 was 4.02 billion. If you divide that by the total population of that year (312,800,000) it rounds off to 15 prescriptions for every man, woman, and child.
You may have confused a relatively small number of drugs which were prescribed to roughly half the population. Drugs and prescriptions, there's a difference.
Defending the side effects inherent in drugs you wrote that “every object on Earth has a side effects [sic]. Should we abolish cars because of [their] possible dangers?” True enough, Ron. Even drinking too much water can have side effects. But again, there's a difference.
Biologically foreign substances like synthetic drugs are intrinsically poisonous. That's why pharmaceuticals have side effects and why prescriptions are necessary for drugs and not for biologically compatible substances like food.
“The final slap in the face was Bob preaching about how diet and otherwise clean living can prevent poor health.” Here, Ron, you took the liberty of overstating and embellishing what I wrote.
Of course exchanging a nutrient deficient diet with a nutrient dense diet can eliminate some disorders. I believe all reasonable men would agree to that. Similarly, I think all would agree that diet cannot totally prevent all health problems. As for “clean living,” that's your gratuitous addition.
Besides exaggerating what I wrote, you attribute statements to me that I did not make. Nowhere did I “incite the population to flush their pills down the can.” That would indeed be irresponsible. Any change in dosage should be supervised by a health care professional.
And nowhere did I “condemn the pharmaceutical industry ex cathedra.” Again your words, not mine.
In closing, it is understandable that those whose livelihood depends upon prescribing drugs are passionate about pharmaceuticals. They have “saved millions if not billions of lives,” according to you. Perhaps you consider yourself to be one of the billions. You stated that “I am 62 years old [and] it takes 6 prescribed medications . . . to maintain my health.” That by any measure is quite a chemical cocktail.
To be frank, Ron, that's not something I would relish for myself or anyone else. I am considerably older than you and take no drugs. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. But it does cause one to wonder.
Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA