 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005The CDC, breastfeeding, circ - and PF Riley, MD's antibiotic question
THE CDC, BREASTFEEDING, CIRC - AND PF RILEY, MD's ANTIBIOTIC QUESTION See below. PF Riley, MD is a pseudonymous usenet pediatrician. PF's posts usually always afford me an opportunity to point out MD lying... in article u4mu81pj3v3pto0aoruge3c4qq3sfdtao5@4ax.com, PF Riley at pfriley@watt-not.com wrote on 5/21/05 8:52 AM: > On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:40:43 GMT, Todd Gastaldo > <tgastaldo@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> Which is why I repeat what PF snipped: > > <snip> Like I said, Gastaldo just > chooses "to just cover his ears and keep repeating his lie" PF, I stand by my "lie" - to wit - >> Since vaccinations are NOT 100% effective - since some children are not >> immunized by their vaccinations... >> >> ALL parents - both those seeking vaccinations and those seeking vaccine >> exemptions - must be informed that ALL children [not just vaccine exempt >> children] will be sent home/during disease outbreaks. As I noted (and you snipped PF), it is a fraudulent vaccination promotion - a financial cattle prod - to tell parents seeking vaccine exemptions that only THEIR children will be sent home during disease outbreaks - only THEY will have to bear the financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring tutors during disease outbreaks. (BTW, PF, I liked the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD. See Circ funnies (also: 'Universal' pertussis info) - was Re: Pediatric crime http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3569) PF asked: > So, if someone has a bacterial infection, should the patient be > treated with ALL antibiotics available? If someone has a bacterial infection, it is possible that the problem isn't a deficiency of MD-administered antibiotics. BREASTFEEDING If the patient is a baby who should be breastfeeding, the problem may be the medical lie of omission I've mentioned before^^^ - the one that is denying massive numbers of babies free daily mother-manufactured/mother-administered anti-bacterial substances. ("One of the mechanisms contributing to breast-feeding protection of the newborn against enteric diseases is related to the ability of human milk oligosaccharides to prevent attachment of pathogenic bacteria to the duodenual epithelium." [Perrett et al. Biochem J. 2005 Mar 24; [Epub ahead of print]]) ^^^The medical lie of omission to which I am referring, of course, is organized medicine's failure to inform pregnant women that if they breastfeed - in addition to manufacturing antibacterial oligosaccharides for their babies (see previous paragraph) - they will automatically scan for pathogens and manufacture specific IMMUNIZATIONS for their babies on a daily basis - and these immunizations reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better. Pointing out this medical lie of omission is important because MDs are ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and vaccination rates skyrocket. What woman, informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and (reportedly) make MD-needle-vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily? THE CDC MDs have fraudulently hijacked the power word "immunization" for exclusive use to promote their MD-needle-vaccinations. The most egregious example of this is in the name of CDC's vaccination promotion agency National IMMUNIZATION Program - which doesn't even refer to breastfeeding as immunization! CDC is actually the Center for Disease Control and PREVENTION - and immunization is a major prevention program - yet CDC's National "Immunization" Program is failing to inform Americans that MOTHERS administer the majority of immunizations. (Vaccinations, of course, are only ATTEMPTED immunizations.) BTW PF, the current medical lie of omission about breastfeeding began with MDs "scientifically" pretending (with infant formula manufacturers) that infant formula was a "scientific" way to feed babies. It turns out that MDs and infant formula companies were committing mass IMMUNOLOGIC child abuse all along. The mass immunologic child abuse is ongoing - thanks to the medical lie of omission about breastfeeding above. Back to PF's question... > So, if someone has a bacterial infection, should the patient be > treated with ALL antibiotics available? Assuming there are no natural treatment options, to answer your question PF, my guess is that patients should not be treated with all MD-administered antibiotics available. Then again, assuming the problem is bacterial, if the MD-administered antibiotics FAIL one after another, it is probably best - if there are no natural options - to go through all of them. Of course, if the patient is not responding to MD-administered antibiotics, the problem may not be a bacterial infection - which brings me to more MD lying... "MANY DOCTORS, IT IS BELIEVED..." According to the Harris Poll: "When patients ask their doctors for antibiotics, even when their use is not appropriate, many doctors, it is believed, prescribe them." http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/HI_HealthCareNe ws2002Vol2_Iss02.pdf American pediatricians inappropriately prescribing antibiotics is not unlike American pediatricians violating their own stated ethics to rip and slice baby penises because of parental desires... CIRCUMCISION... PREFATORY NOTE...parents who want circumcision for their sons are obviously not trying to abuse them - they are being pressured by their culture. Same goes for MDs. As usual, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform child abuse: In 1980, one pediatrician correctly identified the mass child abuse: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another pediatrician wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] American pediatricians who perform routine infant circumcisions violate their own ethics: "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/0066 2.html BACK TO ANTIBIOTIC ABUSE... MDs are in effect lying to patients in regard to antibiotics - or misdiagnosing - or caving to patient demands for antibiotics where there is no need for antibiotics - and this is contributing to antibiotics becoming less effective (to devastating effect), as in, ANTIBIOTIC ABUSE/ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE "The bacteria causing diseases that are now becoming serious public health threats are neither strange nor exotic, but rather shockingly familiar. Tuberculosis, typhoid fever, meningitis, pneumonia, and septicemias are emerging global threats. The infectious agents causing these serious threats are the same bacteria identified many decades ago. The only difference is that these and other microorganisms are no longer killed by the "miracle drugs" that have kept them at bay for the past six decades. Antibiotic resistance has made potential killers out of bacteria that previously posed little threat to mankind. The indiscriminate and reckless use of antibiotics has led to a fast-approaching crisis in which human dominance of the planet is threatened by single, elementary cells of the microbial world." -- Harrison JW, Svec TA^^^. The beginning of the end of the antibiotic era? Part II. Proposed solutions to antibiotic abuse. Quintessence Int. 1998 Apr;29(4):223-9. ^^^Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University System, Dallas 75246-2013, USA. PF concluded with this question: > If not, and a doctor chooses > just one that is likely to have the most effect with the least amount > of harm, aren't doctors "promoting" a LIE that antibiotics are 100% > effective? If the MD chooses an antibiotic and gives the patient to believe that it is 100% effective when he knows it is not - they yes - the MD is promoting a lie. MDs are indeed lying when they give antibiotics to treat viral disease; but I suspect it is just a special case of the placebo lie: MDs intentionally giving placebos without telling patients they are receiving placebos. Cherkin noted in 1988: "While more than 40% of the family physicians claimed to emphasize the art of medicine over the science of medicine¹ and to often deliberately take advantage of the placebo effect¹few chiropractors claimed to emphasize the art of chiropractic over the science of chiropractic¹ and virtually all said they did not deliberately use the placebo effect." [Cherkin DC. Managing low back pain: a comparison of the beliefs of family practitioners and chiropractors. West J Med 1988;149:475-480] PF, my sense is that you and Jeff P.Utz, MD focus on the vaccination fraud issue because the other pediatric crimes are so much more obvious... I wrote in my "Circ funnies" post (URL above): "My apologies to the thousands of babies per day made to scream and writhe and bleed through American medicine's grisly, $400 million dollar per year most frequent surgical behavior toward males. "How very bizarre that we make infants scream and writhe and bleed (and - rarely - lose a tiny life or a tiny penis) rather than simply stopping the infant screams and saving $400 million per year - thereby preserving the surgery as a choice American males can make for themselves in adulthood." USENET READERS... THINK ABOUT IT: $400 million dollars per year is being pissed away (paid to MDs) to make babies scream. BILLIONS have been pissed away (paid to MDs) since back in 1987 when I pointed out MDs lying about babies not being able to feel pain (using phony neurology). As noted above, stopping the infant screams instantly saves America $400 million per year and PRESERVES the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. PF, I hope you and Jeff will eventually join me in speaking out against the obvious crimes being committed by your profession - including and especially obstetricians closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. You and Jeff are pretending that pediatrics is "science." As I previously indicated in responding to Jeff.... That's like chiros pretending that chiropractic is "science." Chiropractic is NOT science - but chiros aren't senselessly ripping and slicing baby penises en masse and senselessly slicing vaginas en masse and... MORE ON CIRCUMCISION... My suspicion is that the mass torture being inflicted on babies by American obstetricians (and pediatricians) persists because the American medical religion is "untouchable" because of its hijacking (and bastardization of) the ancient Jewish circumcision ritual. Sorry for the repetition but... In late 1987, I exposed the American medical religion's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and petitioned Congress for a religious exemption from the child abuse statutes for the ancient Jewish ritual. In January 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out against ALL religious exemptions. In February 1988, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in favor of anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse. In March 1988, the California Medical Association, by voice vote, instantly changed routine infant circumcision from "no medical indications" to "effective public health measure." The California Medical Association MDs ignored the advice of their own Scientific Board because their mass child abuse had been exposed and MDs know full well that child abuse - like other forms of assault and battery - can lead to prison time. MDs stood to go to prison. MDs STILL stand to go to prison - hence my call for pardons in advance. Recently (2004), American pediatricians published the false notion that the American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation ritual is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis. See Are obstetricians Bible-based? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/7ff4c2607caedc58? Alternate URL: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3304 NOTE: This just cited Are obstetricians Bible-based? post was to be my last post to the usenet - but I lied about that - though not intentionally. I thought Medical Veritas Editor-in-Chief Gary S. Goldman, PhD was going to use his peer-reviewed medical journal to exhort MDs who obviously suspect child abuse to do the MINIMUM required by law and report. Gary did quite the opposite. Sorry to disappoint those who were hoping I would finally be gone from the usenet. With MDs able to legally (de facto) commit crimes against babies... I think 100% of babies would want someone here persistently protesting and pointing out the obvious MD lies. So I am still here. Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com Gastaldo, in typical fashion, tries to "reply" to me with a typical rant full of flights-of-ideas and digressions. Read on for an analysis. >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >[snip] Here Gastaldo fails to recognize the purpose of a hypothetical question, and, instead, in the style of someone with a thought disorder, goes on to rant about breastfeeding and immunizations, which I have snipped. >Back to PF's question... At last! >> So, if someone has a bacterial infection, should the patient be >> treated with ALL antibiotics available? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >[snip] Aha. At last we get to something we can hold on to. Gastaldo admits that, if one chooses to treat a bacterial infection, one should not go all out and treat with every single antibiotic there is at once. After all, he says, "if" the antibiotics fail "one after another", admitting they be tried in sequence, then you will end up using all of them. This means you try one first, and if it works, you stop. Then, of course, Gastaldo the liar takes the opportunity again to go on an irrelevant rant, first about inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, then inexplicably about circumcision, then back to inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. "I have one of those brains that skips around a lot" -- paranoid schizophrenic on "The Shield" We now return to the regularly scheduled topic: >PF concluded with this question: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >100% effective when he knows it is not - they yes - the MD is promoting a >lie. Gastaldo misses the point. No where in my hypothetical situation did I even imply that the "MD" "gives the patient to believe" that it is 100% effective. I suppose I will have to rephrase this question until Gastaldo can understand it. This time: If the doctor chooses just one antibiotic that is likely to have the most effect with the least amount of harm, even though he says, "Try this antibiotic -- it may not work, but it's worth a try," is he still "promoting" a "LIE" that the antibiotic is 100% effective by NOT prescribing every antibiotic available in the first place? Is the patient going to believe that the first antibiotic is guaranteed to work, despite what the physician actually said? Gastaldo then goes on to rant some more about inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Then, this gem: >PF, my sense is that you and Jeff P.Utz, MD focus on the vaccination fraud >issue because the other pediatric crimes are so much more obvious... > >[snip] (More ranting about circumcision.) Does Gastaldo want to turn the focus away from "vaccination fraud" instead because I am exposing his bald-faced lying? I must be on to something! He's trying to avoid me! I point out his LIES about public policy on vaccinations and he tries to steer me away! What a fraud! What a coward! PF SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) PF Riley, MD is a pseudonymous usenet pediatrician who does not agree with me that MDs are committing obvious crimes and telling obvious lies to cover-up. That's the summary of this post. No need to read further unless you are interested in the banter between an MD and a DC... PF likes to ignore the grisly spectacle of his fellow MDs lying and closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume and ripping and slicing baby penises en masse. PF prefers instead to focus on vaccination. PF pretends that I did not answer his criticisms on vaccination. PF calls me a liar. I disagree and AGAIN (see below) ask PF for evidence that I am lying. See also: The CDC, breastfeeding, circ - and PF Riley, MD's antibiotic question http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3572 PF "analyzed" this just cited post - mostly by snipping - LOL! > Gastaldo, in typical fashion, tries to "reply" to me with a typical > rant full of flights-of-ideas and digressions. Read on for an > analysis. PF, your "analyxis" was snipping - not a very compelling analysis. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > disorder, goes on to rant about breastfeeding and immunizations, which > I have snipped. Here is what PF snipped... It is QUITE relevant to PFs bacterial infection/antibiotics question... >> ...Like I said, Gastaldo just >> chooses "to just cover his ears and keep repeating his lie" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have to bear the financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring > tutors during disease outbreaks. PF, are you saying this is not fraudulent vaccination promotion? PF's snipping continued... > (BTW, PF, I liked the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD. See Circ > funnies (also: 'Universal' pertussis info) - was Re: Pediatric crime [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > The mass immunologic child abuse is ongoing - thanks to the medical lie of > omission about breastfeeding above. >> Back to PF's question... > > At last! I should have said, "Onward to PF's SECOND question." >>> So, if someone has a bacterial infection, should the patient be >>> treated with ALL antibiotics available? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> [snip] PF snipped something quite significant, as usual... Here it is... > Of course, if the patient is not responding to MD-administered antibiotics, > the problem may not be a bacterial infection - which brings me to more MD [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > American pediatricians violating their own stated ethics to rip and slice baby > penises because of parental desires... Here is PF's remark: > Aha. At last we get to something we can hold on to. PF, when you snip, it is harder for your readers to "hold on to" relevant facts. You snipped the fact that MDs are prescribing inappropriately and doing surgery inappropriately. More on this below. You wrote: > Gastaldo admits > that, if one chooses to treat a bacterial infection, one should not go > all out and treat with every single antibiotic there is at once. Yes, that is my sense. > After > all, he says, "if" the antibiotics fail "one after another", admitting > they be tried in sequence, then you will end up using all of them. > This means you try one first, and if it works, you stop. I did not say that - but it was implied. > Then, of course, Gastaldo the liar I do not agree that I am lying - but I am admittedly biased in the discussion - just like you. PF continues... > [Gastaldo] takes the opportunity again to go > on an irrelevant rant, first about inappropriate antibiotic > prescriptions, then inexplicably about circumcision, then back to > inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. It is hardly inappropriate for me to support my observation that MDs are PRESCRIBING inappropriately in regard to infections by discussing the fact that MDs are doing SURGERY inappropriately.... I did forget to mention that this inappropriate surgery involves MDs cutting off a part of the male infant's anatomy that is thought to help prevent infections... Anyway, here is the circumcision discussion that PF snipped: > American pediatricians inappropriately prescribing antibiotics is not unlike > American pediatricians violating their own stated ethics to rip and slice baby [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 > http://www.aap.org/policy/0066 2.html PF does not like me exposing the fact that pediatricians (and obstetricians) who rip and slice infant penises are violating stated pediatric ethics. PF quoted a television show: > "I have one of those brains that skips around a lot" > -- paranoid schizophrenic on "The Shield" LOL! My brain DOES "skip around a lot" - to all the various MD crimes - when an MD suggests that MDs aren't committing crimes! > We now return to the regularly scheduled topic: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > even imply that the "MD" "gives the patient to believe" that it is > 100% effective. PF, your brain is "skipping around." If the MD in your scenario WAS promoting a lie that antibiotics are 100% effective, well, I rest my case - LOL! > I suppose I will have to rephrase this question until Gastaldo can > understand it. Yes, please do rephrase your question. > This time: If the doctor chooses just one antibiotic that is likely to > have the most effect with the least amount of harm, even though he > says, "Try this antibiotic -- it may not work, but it's worth a try," > is he still "promoting" a "LIE" that the antibiotic is 100% effective > by NOT prescribing every antibiotic available in the first place? No. If MD says, "it may not work," he is not promoting the lie that the antibiotic is 100% effective. > Is > the patient going to believe that the first antibiotic is guaranteed > to work, despite what the physician actually said? If MD says, "it may not work," the patient has NO GROUNDS to believe that the first antibiotic is guaranteed to work - but patients - like MDs can believe whatever they want. > Gastaldo then goes on to rant some more about inappropriate antibiotic > prescriptions. I went on to "rant" about 40% of family physicians reportedly lying to patients - LOL! I wrote (and PF snipped): > MDs are indeed lying when they give antibiotics to treat viral disease; but I > suspect it is just a special case of the placebo lie: MDs intentionally giving [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Managing low back pain: a comparison of the beliefs of family practitioners > and chiropractors. West J Med 1988;149:475-480] PF humorously suggested that a part of my discussion was not precious... > Then, this gem: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (More ranting about circumcision.) PF understandably snipped my "ranting" about his profession bilking $400 million per year, making most male infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose a penis.... Here is what PF snipped: > I wrote in my "Circ funnies" post (URL above): > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > million per year and PRESERVES the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make > for themselves in adulthood. PF asks: > Does Gastaldo want to turn the focus away from "vaccination fraud" > instead because I am exposing his bald-faced lying? PF needs to offer substantive criticism in order to exposed "bald-faced" (or any other kind of lying)... PF turned the focus away from my ostensible "bald-faced" "lying" - by snipping the part he believes is a lie - so I put it back. See above. PF fails to acknowledge obvious lying by his fellow MD - and pretends that calling me a liar without offering evidence constitutes intellectually honest argument. > I must be on to something! He's trying to avoid me! I point out his > LIES about public policy on vaccinations and he tries to steer me > away! What a fraud! What a coward! > > PF LOL! For PF, snipping is "analysis" - what a kidder! PF, whether we ever agree on the vaccination issue (I doubt we will)... Please help stop your fellow MDs from ripping and slicing baby penises. Please also help stop your fellow MDs from closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. , Robbery of up to 50% of blood volume is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according to retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG. PEDIATRICIANS are resuscitating after obstetricians senselessly amputate babies from their mothers - from their only source of oxygen - not to mention that crucial up to 50% of blood volume that is being robbed. PF, thanks in advance for any help you might be able to render. Sincerely, Your friend, Todd Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com > SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) > > PF Riley, MD is a pseudonymous usenet pediatrician who does not agree with > me that MDs are committing obvious crimes and telling obvious lies to > cover-up. Or maybe is a pediatrician who does not understand that kids who drinks cow's milk may harm their health in the form of getting ear infections and strep throats. > SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's the summary of this post. No need to read further unless you are > interested in the banter between an MD and a DC... PF Riley, MD (yeah, right) is just another pharma blogger. He wouldn't give your argument a fair hearing at the gates of hell. >> SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >PF Riley, MD (yeah, right) is just another pharma blogger. He wouldn't >give your argument a fair hearing at the gates of hell. Must be nice, being you. You just label someone a "pharma blogger" and hey presto, everything they say is untrue and can be ignored. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >> SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Must be nice, being you. You just label someone a "pharma blogger" > and hey presto, everything they say is untrue and can be ignored. Not at all. Bloggers frequently mix truth with fiction. But you're right, they should be ignored. -PB >> >> SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Not at all. Bloggers frequently mix truth with fiction. But you're >right, they should be ignored. -PB It's a great relief to me that I am not required to follow your claims that, say, PF Riley is a "pharma blogger" and must therefore be ignored, since he happens to be a poster I like to read. Gastaldo, by comparison, is in my killfile and there he will remain. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >> >> SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > claims that, say, PF Riley is a "pharma blogger" and must therefore > be ignored, since he happens to be a poster I like to read. Hey, I never said pharma bloggers were boring... Just curious: What exactly is a "pharma blogger"? > Just curious: What exactly is a "pharma blogger"? Someone who uses cyberspace to consistently disparage natural medicine and its proponents, while promoting conventional medicine and defending allopathy. MARK LOWRY III, MD - PHARMA BLOGGER EXTRAORDINAIRE Mark Lowry III, MD wrote: >> Just curious: What exactly is a "pharma blogger"? PeterB replied: > Someone who uses cyberspace to consistently disparage natural medicine > and its proponents, while promoting conventional medicine and defending > allopathy. I, personally, have no problem with those who "consistently disparage natural medicine and its proponents" - as long as they are intellectually honest in their disparaging remarks. There is much in "natural medicine" to disparage, IMO. That said, "natural medicine" looks like rocket science compared to the most frequent medical and surgical behaviors of "conventional medicine." Mark Lowry III, MD attacks "natural medicine" as he ignores his fellow MDs senselessly ripping and slicing penises en masse, senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%, and senselessly robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. At one point, Mark Lowry III, MD advocated the murder by rape of an imprisoned man already convicted of killing his child - as he (Mark) remained (and still remains) silent about the grisly things his fellow MDs are doing to children. Todd PS I was pleased when the convicted man (Alan Yurko) was finally released from prison. I don't think Alan killed little Alan - but even if Mark Lowry III, MD is right that Alan did kill his child - there was no call for Mark to call for Alan's murder by rape - and Mark shouldn't be ignoring the crimes of his fellow MDs. > MARK LOWRY III, MD - PHARMA BLOGGER EXTRAORDINAIRE > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > natural medicine and its proponents" - as long as they are intellectually > honest in their disparaging remarks. I can't see how such behaviour is in any way compatible with intellectual honesty. Those who cynically impugn natural medicine for its fringe elements while refusing to accept the legitimacy of nutritional science are anything but genuine. This is a key identifying trait of a pharma blogger. > There is much in "natural medicine" to disparage, IMO. I would put it differently. We haven't taken enough time to define what we mean when we use these terms. Is natural medicine simply the marketplace of dietary supplements? Most of the articles that Roman so kindly puts up are the result of evidence-based medicine pointing to the benefits of natural methods of healing. It's a torrent of data. Are there products that don't live up to the science? Of course. But the products, the promotion, and the science are all different things. Let's be careful to disparage only what isn't working. What is medicine? Is a product that proves ineffective or shortens human life truly medicine? Is something toxic only when you take too much, or is it toxic whenever it impedes the metabolic process and impaires human health? What are we comparing and do we recognize the counterfeit when we see it? I think we should reserve our strongest contempt for dishonest marketing, phoney research, double standards, sythetic chemicals that only increase overall rates of disease, and monopoly tactics, in WHATEVER industry they occur in. While promotion for the sole purpose of profit exists at the fringes of the dietary supplements industry, that doesn't taint the science-based discovery process of natural medicine as an emerging set of treatment options. By contrast, conventional medicine is proving to be a late-stage cancer that threatens to force capitulation and the birth of a totally new business model. The business of disease is collapsing and the business of wellness will take its place. That assumes the social structure survives the upheaval intact. PeterB "YOU'RE QUACKS - WE'RE NOT" (THE CAM SCAM)... Organized medicine's everyone-ELSE-is-a-quack gag has morphed into the "kinder, gentler" CAM SCAM... MDs are the biggest quacks/CAMers around - and there's is CRIMINAL quackery/CAM... More below. >> MARK LOWRY III, MD - PHARMA BLOGGER EXTRAORDINAIRE >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can't see how such behaviour is in any way compatible with > intellectual honesty. dis·par·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sprj) tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es 1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry. 2. To reduce in esteem or rank I have been using definition #2 of disparage all these years. I am not advocating speaking in a disrespectful way - but certain "natural medicine" practices need to be "reduc[ed] in esteem or rank" - and any attempts at reduction in esteem or rank, definition #2 of disparage, are going to be seen by some as being slighting or disrespectful, definition #1 of disparage. > Those who cynically impugn natural medicine for > its fringe elements while... On a lark I looked up cynic at www.dictionary.com... Cynic A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue. Here are the more modern definitions of cynicism and cynic... 1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals. 2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: ³She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms² (Henry James). I think some people on both sides - "natural" and "conventional" medicine - believe all people on the other side are motivated by selfishness. Indeed, I have heard interesting discussions of the notion that we are all selfish - that there is no such thing as true altruism - that selfishness explains a lot of good behavior as well as a lot of bad behavior. I believe it was selfish of American MDs to suddenly lie about their mass ripping and slicing of infant penises - to suddenly change their grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males from "no medical indications" to an "effective health measure" immediately after I exposed their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. American MDs still stand to go to prison for that massive crime - so their selfishness is quite understandable. American MDs are also being selfish about not stopping their bizarre practices of closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. It's understandable - but unconscionable - selfishness. > Those who cynically impugn natural medicine for > its fringe elements while > refusing to accept the legitimacy of > nutritional science are anything but genuine. This is a key > identifying trait of a pharma blogger. Failing to be genuine is a bad trait, to be sure. I don't think cynically impugning the legitimacy of nutrition science is necessarily the key - but hey - "pharma blogger" is your term - LOL! >> There is much in "natural medicine" to disparage, IMO. > > I would put it differently. We haven't taken enough time to define > what we mean when we use these terms. I agree. > Is natural medicine simply the > marketplace of dietary supplements? Just as allopathic medicine is much more than drugs - natural medicine is much more than the marketplace of dietary supplements, IMO. > Most of the articles that Roman so > kindly puts up are the result of evidence-based medicine pointing to > the benefits of natural methods of healing. I like that phrase, "natural methods of healing"; some of Roman's articles are quite interesting to me. Raw Foodists and Fasting proponents might disagree with much nutritional supplement usage - scientific or not - so they too might be considered "Pharma bloggers" - esp. if they criticize nutritional supplement usage and are deemed not to be genuine in their criticism. > It's a torrent of data. > Are there products that don't live up to the science? Of course. But > the products, the promotion, and the science are all different things. Yep. > Let's be careful to disparage only what isn't working. Yes, but remember, definition #2 of disparage (reducing rank or esteem) easily segues into definition #1 (disrespectfully doing so) - at least from the perspective of the person or profession being disparaged. > What is > medicine? Is a product that proves ineffective or shortens human life [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chemicals that only increase overall rates of disease, and monopoly > tactics, in WHATEVER industry they occur in. Where is the strong contempt for the industry called ORGANIZED MEDICINE? Where is the strong contempt for MDs ripping and slicing penises, closing birth canals up to 30% and gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines and immediately severing umbilical cords thereby robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume? RELEVANT HISTORY Years ago... Organized medicine used threat of denial of hospital privileges to create AMA consensus and masqueraded it as science. Organized medicine/AMA consensus STILL masquerades as science. Organized medicine helped make the masquerade stick by calling everyone ELSE a quack. More recently... Organized medicine's anti-scientific "you're quacks - we're not" masquerade has now morphed into something with a nicer name - Complementary and Alternative Medicine/CAM - with the various newly named "CAM" professions EMBRACING organized medicine's new name for quackery... Organized medicine still commits CRIMINAL quackery - criminal CAM... And those previously disparaged as quacks - some now "respected" "CAM practitioners" - remain silent. It's the strangest thing. > While promotion for the > sole purpose of profit exists at the fringes of the dietary supplements > industry, that doesn't taint the science-based discovery process of > natural medicine as an emerging set of treatment options. Just because conflicts are not disclosed, that does not mean they do not exist. > By contrast, > conventional medicine is proving to be a late-stage cancer that > threatens to force capitulation and the birth of a totally new business > model. The business model for modern medicine in Medicare was a blank check - which was taken back in 1983, according to an NPR interview I heard yesterday. > The business of disease is collapsing and the business of > wellness will take its place. That assumes the social structure > survives the upheaval intact. Hmmmm... An upheaval. Could the "social structure" world-wide be slated for a "business of disease" upheaval in a big way? Harvard ant expert EO Wilson warns of a "voracious human biomass" that must be tamed (See his book Consilience 200_)...and we have whole populations now threatened with a mysterious new disease called "AIDS" which ostensibly devastates immune systems and leaves people vulnerable to diseases that might not otherwise have killed them. We also have "terrorists" lurking around every corner - some of whom used to hobnob with our own CIA terrorists. (Oops. CIA terrorists of course are not terrorists because they are OUR terrorists. Define "our" please - LOL.)... What a coup it would be for race hygienists cum population control folks (inside and outside of government) to use this combination of biowarfare and psywarfare suggested here to simultaneously tame EO Wilson's "voracious human biomass" and enthrone the "business of disease" globally for all time. JUST KIDDING! Something like that could never happen. Right? Todd Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com I guess some might, based on that definition, be tempted to call me a pharma blogger, but I don't really think I fall into that category fully. I tend to defend allopathy because, well, I'm an allopath. But I can certainly see that allopathic medicine is not the be-all-and-end-all of medical care. What you call "natural medicine" is certainly worth exploring, if you are referring to herbalism and a holistic approach to a person's total health. I'm interested in seeing these modalities studied so their effects can be measured and explained. I also like to poke fun at the crystal-wavers and the aluminum hat crowd. My problem with alties is in reference to those who either prey on the gullible (i.e. Hulda Clark and her ridiculous Zapper and it's purported "Cure For All Diseases", "-Cancers", and "AIDS") or those who are so flippin' nuts that it's impossible to separate any reasonable argument from the screaming, ranting and general emotional pathology that clouds their arguments (see Lady Lollipop's and Mr. Gastaldo's posts for reference). Mark, MD "ALTY" MARK LOWRY III, MD - LOL! See below. > I guess some might, based on that definition, be tempted to call me a > pharma blogger, but I don't really think I fall into that category [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > certainly see that allopathic medicine is not the be-all-and-end-all of > medical care. LOL! Numerically speaking, most medical and surgical behaviors are obviously criminal - at least the way most MDs perform them. For example, the most frequent surgical behavior of medicine - severing the umbilical cord - is done immediately after birth - thereby robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. Allopaths/MDs defend allopathy because - well - they are allopaths. It makes good business sense - but it isn't helping babies. > What you call "natural medicine" is certainly worth exploring, if you > are referring to herbalism and a holistic approach to a person's total > health. I'm interested in seeing these modalities studied so their > effects can be measured and explained. Typical allopath/MD - test everyone ELSE's behavior - LOL! > I also like to poke fun at the > crystal-wavers and the aluminum hat crowd. > > My problem with alties "Alties" is short for promoters and practitioners of "alternative medicine" - which generally means "unproven" medicine. Allopaths/MDs are "alties." Allopaths/MDs are the *most prolific* "alties." MD-obstetricians - for example close birth canals up to 30% and GRUESOMELY wrench babies' spines at birth - yet MD/allopaths do not attack these the most prolific spinal manipulators. Instead, MD/allopaths attack DCs for GENTLY adjusting babies' spines. True, there is little or no science behind chiropractors adjusting children's spines; but is obviously criminal for MDs to close birth canals up to 30% and keep birth canals closed when babies get stuck - as they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums. Sometimes MD-obstetricians pull so hard with birth canals senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30% - they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords. "Alty" Mark Lowry III, MD is silent - babies be damned. Let's make sure everyone ELSE is being scientific, he says.... > is in reference to those who either prey on the > gullible (i.e. Hulda Clark and her ridiculous Zapper and it's purported [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their arguments (see...Mr. Gastaldo's posts for > reference). LOL! Titular etiquette pejoration noted. "Emotional pathology" - LOL! "Alty" Mark, MD is silent as his profession engages in mass child abuse - and he's emotionally healthy - yeah right - LOL! Makes good business sense though! Todd, DC > I tend to defend allopathy because, well, I'm an allopath. But I can > certainly see that allopathic medicine is not the be-all-and-end-all of > medical care. By being an allopath, you mean using pharm drug medicine to resolve illness, right? > What you call "natural medicine" is certainly worth exploring, if you > are referring to herbalism and a holistic approach to a person's total > health. I'm interested in seeing these modalities studied so their > effects can be measured and explained. I also like to poke fun at the > crystal-wavers and the aluminum hat crowd. Questions: Are you interested in studing what M.D.s who practice medicine from the diet / nutritional medicine viewpoint have to say in resolving illness? Are you interested in reading a medical journal like, say, - "The Journal of Applied Nutrition."? > > I tend to defend allopathy because, well, I'm an allopath. But I can > > certainly see that allopathic medicine is not the be-all-and-end-all of > > medical care. > > By being an allopath, you mean using pharm drug medicine to resolve > illness, right? Not exclusively, but generally...yes. Unless there are "non-medicinal" alternatives. E.G. I'm not going to prescrie weight loss drug to a child when I can counsel parents to quit feeding the kid so damn much. > > What you call "natural medicine" is certainly worth exploring, if you > > are referring to herbalism and a holistic approach to a person's total [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > resolving illness? Are you interested in reading a medical journal > like, say, - "The Journal of Applied Nutrition."? If there are reasonable (peer-reviewed, rational, etc.) articles, yes, I will certainly take them into consideration. I came to this newsgroup out of curiousity...I wouldn't continue to be a presence here if I weren't curious. *BUT*...I'm not going to take anecdote as an article of faith. Mark, MD >> Just curious: What exactly is a "pharma blogger"? > >Someone who uses cyberspace to consistently disparage natural medicine >and its proponents, while promoting conventional medicine and defending >allopathy. There are very few posters who meet that definition, at least in terms of disparaging *all* "natural medicine" (a question-begging term). Actually, Steven Barrett comes about as close as anyone I've seen, but he doesn't post here. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >>>>> SNIPPING IS "ANALYSIS" - LOL! (THAT KIDDER PF RILEY, MD AGAIN) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Gastaldo, by comparison, is in my killfile and there he will remain. I am wounded! Seriously, though, delete buttons and killfiles are what make usenet work, IMO. Todd |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.