[BENNETT] "Medical statements will always be 'propoganda' because
ultimately the message in condensed for the average person on the street
to accept."

That's right. Tell the ignorant masses WHAT to think instead of HOW to
think? Don't trust people with ALL OF THE INFORMATION, is that it? What
about in more controversial issues like what kinds of food to eat:
processed or sprayed. Trust the health authorities without question, since
there is no possible way the socalled 'non-specialist' could be right and
the socalled 'specialist' could be wrong?

[BENNETT] "Of course we could solve the problem by sending everyone to med
school:-P  And then law school, accountancy,
engineering... who needs specialists anyway?"

And that's why we need people like you, huh, Bennett? Are you one of the
bullshit specialists? ROTFLOL! And what happens when the socalled
'experts' are wrong and who decides if they are wrong now and in this
instance? Oh, that's right. Ofcourse, they will correct themselves through
PEER REVIEW?! uhahahahahaha

PEER REVIEW REVIEWED
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=952.1

PEER REVIEW REVIEWED
See especially: Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer
Review, British Medical Journal 326:241, February 1, 2003; Study Faults
Industry Clinical Trials: Company-backed Tests Rarely Follow Guidelines,
Report Finds; Associated Press, October 23, 2002, Trials Funded by for
Profit Organizations Favor the Intervention: The British
Medical Journal, August 3, 2002; 325:249; Scientists for
Sale, Health Editor The Guardian, Thursday February 7, 2002; Medical
Journal Eases Conflict Rules The Associated Press; Conflicts of Interest
in Medical Journals, AMA Journal Critiques Report Data, Associated Press.
Hidden Risks, Lethal Truths, Sunday Reporter, Los Angeles Times June 30,
2002; Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
Trends in Pharmacological Sciences Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001;
Definning Disease A review by Marilyn Werber Serafini,
from National Journal June 8, 2002: Pharmacracy.

THEY'VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE...

BEYOND FLAT EARTH MEDICINE

How popular consensus and the medical establishment have often stubbornly
clung to the wrong ideas, unable to think outside the box. When medically
'correct' wasn't always.

A Brief History of Mismanaged Epidemics
[Disease]---[Popular Consensus]---[Actual Cause]

Scurvy------Contagious---Malnutrition: Vitamin C deficiency

Beri-beri---Contagious---Malnutrition: Thiamin deficiency

Maternal Fever---Non-contagious---Contagious: Unsanitary doctor practices

Influenza---Bacteria---Virus

Pellagra----Contagious---Malnutrition: Niacin deficiency

SMON(1950s-70s, Japan)---New Virus---Iatrogenic: Pharmaceutically induced

In science as in the law, the affirmative theory bears the burden of proof
for establishing itself. Those who critique it's establishment in fact,
are not required to reprove or replace another theory of it's aetiology,
especially when immune dysfunction has a multi-factorially influenced set
of unrelated conditions, or according to Alternative Medicine, all
illness/wellness is on a continuum and the result of immune sufficiency or
deficiency. Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode
or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is
confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including
Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers
in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of
diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of treatment
[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses the
individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or 'many-causes,
many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the underlying causes of
symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and certainly not
diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of redefined
classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore, Alternative
Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease
classifications.

"For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun
substantives."
"There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease
conditions
[or states of dis-ease]."

Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident)

Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the
affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS'
hypothesis, often compare AIDS
Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat
Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment.

There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think.
Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of
Jupiter's moons, through
his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally
called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered
to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at
these moons, so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This
pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his
religious faith could remain intact.

Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV
theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) )

Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while
Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The
implication was that Seamen
or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a 'bug.'
Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and
scientific establishment until 1973, a
decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune
Dysfunction was described in the literature.