Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rich - 23 May 2005 04:12 GMT
Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?

She persists in insisting that it has been posted, but refuses to point out
just where or to repost it. Evasion, diversion, distraction, belittling, and
childish "Liar, Liar" games are all that Jan can produce, even though a
simple posting of the definition would settle the issue once and for all. If
she (or anyone else) could find a previously posted definition, that would
prove me wrong when I state that it does not exist. Jan should gleefully
jump at the chance to provide such proof, and her failure to do so is
counter-proof that I am right.

The ball's in your court, Jan.

--Rich
LadyLollipop - 23 May 2005 04:47 GMT
> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!

Poor Riche, can't find it, using all his smarts!!!!!!!

LL/Jan

> She persists in insisting that it has been posted, but refuses to point
> out just where or to repost it. Evasion, diversion, distraction,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> --Rich
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 23 May 2005 14:27 GMT
So I guess Rich is right.

Mark
LadyLollipop - 23 May 2005 16:28 GMT
> So I guess Rich is right.
>
> Mark

You guess wrong.

LL/Jan
Mark Probert - 23 May 2005 17:27 GMT
>>So I guess Rich is right.
>>
>>Mark
>
> You guess wrong.

Nope. His guess was right on the mark. I looked for your definition of
*organized medicine* and could not find it.

AFIAC, you use the term to dismiss anything that interferes with one of
your firmly held beliefs.
Rich - 23 May 2005 19:00 GMT
>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> LL/Jan

So there's our answer. The definition does not exist. Nor does *organized
medicine*.

--Rich
PeterB - 23 May 2005 19:55 GMT
> >> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> --Rich

The pharmaceutical lobby and its efforts to protect monopolistic
practices by industry is one aspect of "organized" medicine, though
hardly the only one.  We could talk about conflicts of interest at FDA
and other health bureacracies, all of which have a huge impact on
public health.  We could talk about AMA and its representation of
industry in a fashion both "organized" and repressive.  Now that I
think about it, I like the term "Monopoly Medicine" a little better.
But Jan's criticisms are well founded.  

PeterB
LadyLollipop - 23 May 2005 21:19 GMT
>>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> --Rich

I simply can't believe that all these so called intelligent people did not
use the words * difference between organized and conventional medicine*
under my old addy to do a search.

I probably said the most in the title. We've been here before. Rich was in
the thread title, New web site: bechamp.org, and as you might guess Mark
Probert was there calling names. Mark MD was in the thread Medical Errors
Kill up to 98,000 Hospitalized Americans per Year. Please note Marvin Zinn
had some good things to say.

Just like, I said, you will see it reposted eight times, if not more.

LL/Jan
Rich - 24 May 2005 01:52 GMT
>>>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> LL/Jan

That is NOT a definition, Jan. In that post, you accuse, but you do not
define.

"It's the organization itself that is evil."

What organization?

"Going way back you'll learn how they operate."

Learn from where? Who are "they".

"How they control using politics."

Bill Frist, M.D. certainly does. Is HE the evil organized medicine you are
talking about?

"Controlling what is taught is medical schools."

This is an intresting accusation that begs for clarification. Controlling
patients? I'm sure that doctors wish that were possible. If so, all their
patients would stop smoking, eat balanced diets, get plenty of exercise,
fill their prescriptions and take their medications as prescribed, and so
on. Controlling the government? If so, they're not very good at it. The
doctors I know do a lot a grumbling about the government, mush like the rest
of us. Controlling each other? They are even worse at that.

"Suppressings of alternatives."

Who is suppressing alternatives? Certainly not doctors in any organized way.
Do you believe doctors have clandestine meetings to discuss how to suppress
alternative medicine? There are as many quack naturopaths, chiropractors,
herbal therapists, aroma therapists, accupuncturists, reiki massage
therapists, homeopaths, &c. in my community as there are doctors, and the
response of the local medical community is disinterested apathy. I've never
seen any cases of altie quacks being suppressed in any way unsless their law
breaking becomes so blatant that is draws public complaints to the
authorities.

"Ye good ole boy club EGO thing."

This incomplete sentence is the closest you come to a definition in this
post. A "club" IS an organization; "good ole boy" describes who its members
are, and "EGO thing" could pass for a description of the club's purpose. But
as definitions go, it is far to vague to tell us what "*organized medicine*"
is. "Ye good ole boy club EGO thing." could equally well describe the US
Senate, the NRA, the Elks club, or the KuKluxKlan. So no, you still have not
specifically defined "*organized medicine*".

"We have a few examples of organized members right here. Take a look at how
Peter B. lied in his article on Ben Kolb. Then there are those who defend
his lies. Another is Peter Moran. He denies anything that doesn't come from
organized medicine. The NCAHF and Stephen Barrett play a big role. Who
suffers from all of this? The American people."

More accusations, but still no definition of the organization.

Nope, NOT a definition! There IS no "*organized medicine*", Jan. Please stop
using the phrase as a catchall that we all are supposed to understand until
you have actually defined it so that it means something other than "anyone
Jan dislikes".

--Rich
LadyLollipop - 24 May 2005 03:16 GMT
>>>>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>
>> LL/Jan

Now for what Rich said:

Please humor me and give the definition again

That is a LIE. If it existed, you could post it. Your statement that it has
been posted eight times, or even once, is not true until you PROVE IT. No
peer-reviewed research necessary. Just post it here, and I'll admit I'm
wrong. But that won't happen, because THE DEFINITION DOES NOT EXIST!

(As all can Rich,  is NOT capable of that, he also skips right over the fact
it he couldn't find it, and the fact it was post eight tines, just as I
said. He said, I was lying) Now watch him get ridiculous with questions.

> That is NOT a definition, Jan. In that post, you accuse, but you do not
> define.
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> --Rich

Now for what was said, and what Marvin said, and there most certainly is an
*organization* and Rich has made a false statement that has been repeated,
repeatedly. And He KNOWS it.

     Jan   Aug 24 2004, 10:16 pm     show options

     Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
     From: jdrew63...@aol.com (Jan) - Find messages by this author
     Date: 25 Aug 2004 02:16:08 GMT
     Local: Tues,Aug 24 2004 10:16 pm
     Subject: Re: We've Been Here Before
     Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Orac failed to answer this time also. Just believe Rich's lies, but never
back
up any claims.

Subject: Re: "lies" vs "errors"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>From: jdrew63...@aol.com  (Jan) Date: 5/16/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard
>Time Message-id: <20040516171742.08439.00001...­@mb-m10.aol.com>

>>Subject: Re: "lies" vs "errors"

>vs making things up.

>Everyone of the *gang* does it, starting with Orac.

>>*I don't really think Jan is necessarily evil. She is, however, so blinded
>>by her hatred of conventional medicine*

>Orac made that up as he can't post any proof of any such thing.

>Rich the stalker and liar wrote:

>* Jan Drew says that it is not right for Jews to talk about the Holocaust*
>* Then she   blames Jews
>>> of today as a group,  for the crimes of some Jews from thousands of
>>> years ago.*

>Orac replied:

>>Yes, that is the saddest thing about her.

>*****Now, I will expect you to prove both of your claims.*****

>He can't, he was eager to believe Rich's lies and so it goes.

>Jan

From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Why Amalgam?
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-09-01 22:27:29 PST

You must not be aware of my posts of MHA. It is *organized* medicine that is
evil, not conventional. I know quite a few good dedicated doctors and Thank
God
for them. Here are a few of my posts that will hopefully help you to
understand
my position.

From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Medical Errors Kill up to 98,000 Hospitalized Americans per
Year/
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-02-15 18:15:56 PST

Someone asked :

>what is the difference (as far as you are concerned) between "evil
>organized med" and conventional med?

It's the organization itself that is evil. Going way back you'll learn how
they
operate. How they control using politics. Controlling what is taught in
medical
schools. Suppressings of alternatives. Ye good ole boy club EGO thing. There
are many good and dedicated medical people in conventional medicine, that
are
NOT members of the organization.

We have a few examples of organized members right here. Take a look at how
Peter B. lied in his article on Ben Kolb. Then there are those who defend
his
lies. Another is Peter Moran. He denies anything that doesn't come from
organized medicine. The NCAHF and Stephen Barrett play a big role. Who
suffers
from all of this? The American people.

From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Re Why are people turning to alt. medicine?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-02-02 19:24:24 PST

That's where everyone takes me wrong. I have often explained that I
appreciate the many dedicated doctors we have and the wonderful technology.
NOT all doctors or medical people are a part of the organization. As a
matter of
fact many fight against it and can tell some whoppers.The*organization*
itself
is where the evil lies. Read about it in Racketeering in Medicine.

What is so strange about that? I have stated many times the evils of
organized medicine, I have also stated that there are many good dedicated
doctors who carry a huge responsibility, and THANK GOD for them. My young
doctor is very dedicated as is my CRA's hubby who just graduated from med
school. Both will tell you the evils of organized medicine.

My heart goes out to the dedicated medical people, God Bless them.

I can see how you would get that idea for just one post. However previously
I have made it plain that I appreciated the great responsibility of
dedicated doctors. It is the *organization* that is the problem. Many
doctors
are NOT apart of it, and they will tell you of even more of the evils.

Bad doctors? To answer your question. Yes I would either call 911 or rush
the
child to the ER room. And I would greatly appreciated the doctor who could
help  my child. Where do you get the idea that I think all doctors are bad?
I
have often said there are MANY dedicated doctors who carry a great
responsibility,,,,,,,,,and THANK GOD for them.

! It is organized medicine that I believe is relentless NOT individual
doctors! I happen to know and APPRECIATE many dedicated doctors.

. Just reading the history of *organized* medcine is an eye opener.
That certainly doesn't mean that we don't have very good dedicated doctors
that carry a great responsibility. Thank God for them. My concerns are that
there are many good alternative methods that are working, but are not being
accepted because they didn't come from the organization. In reading the
history
The AMA tried to buy the methods they knew were working and when the seller
refused, he was told his method would never see the light of day. Then they
set
out to ruin him personally One of these stories is about Dr Semmelweis who
introduced hand washing. He got the same treatment. One fair and honest
doctor
said, let's give this young man a chance. After taking away his privileges
and
trying to ruin him, he was later considered to be one of the best surgeons
in
the world. The hesitation on the part of organized medicine cost some lives.

God Bless those many dedicated doctors who carry a great responsibility and
do their best by their patients.The problem is, there is *organized*
medicine.
They would like to stop anything alt. and call it BS WITHOUT any proof.

Organized medicine does not mean we don't have very dedicated doctors. It
is much the same as politics. Anyone one who believes it isn't organized
should talk to a new dcotor who has just graduated. Medicine is indeed
organized mainly for control.

>Oh? And you don't lump all pharmaceutical companies together? And
>'*organized medicine*'?

That's correct, never have. I know a lot of doctors who are NOT a
part of organized medicine. They can tell you even MORE of the evils. And
thank
God for dedicated doctors. Perhaps you overlooked that in my posts?

Not by me they're not. I respect good doctors. Many have certainly
earned respect. I have a neighbor who is in his third year of med school. He
is working very hard and is a great guy. He also believes in alternative.
That's what I like to see.

Agreed! I just hope that both can keep an open mind. Both my Aunt and Uncle
have had back and neck surgery and they are doing fine. The surgeon is a
great
guy and took time with the family after each operation.

Well you are wrong. I have never said I despised doctors, quite the
contary. Both my Aunt and Uncle recently had necessary surgery and the
surgeon
was a wonderful man who did a wonderful job.

How very true. For example one might think that I hate all MD's. Not so, I
am grateful for the good ones. My Aunt had back surgery this week. Her
surgeon
was wonderful! He drew us a diagram of what he did, and took time for all
our
questions. Next day, I called and someone answered.  We were cutting up as
he
told me he was Bubba.(I didn't know I was talking to the doc) He then said,
Oh
yeah this is Jan who is going to clean her house for the next two months.
He had picked up on the teasing of the day before when I told my uncle, that
I DIDN'T do dishes. A really nice guy who did a great job and very down to
earth. Wouldn't it be great if we could know the thoughts behind the words
here??
====

****Now, I will expect you to correct your mistake.******

******At this present time, May 23, I am happy to say HE was MY
surgeon!!!!!*******

===

From Marvin:

Jan,

> How they control using politics. Controlling what is taught is medical
> schools. Suppressings of alternatives. Ye good ole boy club EGO thing.
> There are many good and dedicated medical people in conventional medicine,
> that are NOT members of the organization.

  I agree this is often true. However, inasmuch as you note that there are
good doctors who are NOT a part of the problem, and there is nothing you can
do
to change the rest of them, I believe your efforts would be more productive
in
praising the good ones than in condemning the bad ones. God knows they need
our
support!

I replied:

Oh I do. Thank God for them. However just praising the good ones does
nothing
for the DENIAL of many REAL diseases. People need to be informed. My new
young
doctor didn't roll her eyes at me when I told her I was seeing an
alt.practitioner. *I* made the decision to remove the metal from my mouth,
AFTER doing my own research. Then I asked her to test my mercury level, and
she
monitored it all along. When I first told her I thought it might be the
problem, she said she had heard of it. After seeing my mercury level drop,
she
is now a believer that it can and does happen.I was lucky, because many
times
the mercury doesn't even show if it is deeply embedded in the tissue. People
need to know, NOT to stop searching. Many accept whatever the doctors tell
them,,,,,,,,,,,we can't find anything wrong. So they give up! Some of these
people have peripheral neuropathy. The doctors just say, live with it. Some
of
these people are now on morphine pumps.
====

You see, Rich is DISHONEST, he didn't tell it all, he didn't apologize, he
further LIED saying this is no organization, and there was no definition.

So much for Rich Shewmaker.

LL/Jan
Rich - 24 May 2005 03:56 GMT
>>>>>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 196 lines]
> suffers
> from all of this? The American people.

This is the "definition" that you have been crowing that has been posted
eight times. According to Merriam-Webster, a "definition" is "a statement of
the meaning of a word or word group". Sorry, but NO ONE but you would
recognize this bag of accusatory remarks as a definition. To define
"*organized medicine*" you need to make a statement about the MEANING of the
term. THAT is a definition. Nothing less will do.

> From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
> Subject: Re: Re Why are people turning to alt. medicine?
[quoted text clipped - 163 lines]
> You see, Rich is DISHONEST, he didn't tell it all, he didn't apologize, he
> further LIED saying this is no organization, and there was no definition.

There is no *organized medicine*. You have posted no definition. I haven't
lied.

> So much for Rich Shewmaker.
>
> LL/Jan

There is no lie, other than yours. You STILL have not DEFINED organized
medicine, nor demonstrated the existence of any such actual organization. I
owe you no appology for not accepting what you believe to be a definition
but is no more than a string of accusatory remarks. Do you know what a
definition is? So long as you leave the term undefined, you think you can
use it as you please, using it to mean one thing in one post, and another in
another context. Until you define it,please stick to words and phrases that
we all understand.

--Rich
Rich - 24 May 2005 04:27 GMT
Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.

First, there is the definition of the term "organized medicine". This is a
term you sprinkle throughout your posts, but it has no agreed-on meaning in
common usage. In other words, one cannot look it up in a dictionary like you
could with, say, the word "definition". One of the fundamental rules of
debate is that if you want to use words or terms that are not in common
usage, you must define them. This is necessary to make the meaning of your
arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette. As I said before, ANY of
us in what you call the "*gang*" will gladly and promptly define any term
that we use that you do not understand, and do it without all the fuss and
evasion that you have engaged in for the last few days.

The second issue is the very existence of an "organized medicine". Perhaps
it does exist, depending on your definition of the term if you ever get
around to defining it. But using the accepted definitions of the WORDS
"organized" and "medicine", you'll be hard pressed to prove that the vast
and varied collection of individuals, corporate entities, and associations
that fall under the umbrella of "medicine" are "organized" in any cogent
sense to conduct the sort of "evil" that you find in every thing that you
find disagreeable.

So, please, just give us a simple definition of "*organized medicine*".
Accusations, non-specific terms like "ye good ole boy EGO club", and
God-blessings of doctors that you like may be omitted because they do not
address the MEANING of your term, and therefore do not contribute to the
definition.

--Rich
LadyLollipop - 24 May 2005 04:30 GMT
Get lost.

> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> --Rich
Rich - 24 May 2005 04:36 GMT
> Get lost.

Not likely.

--Rich
Peter Bowditch - 24 May 2005 05:01 GMT
>Get lost.

And that is the totality of Jan's definition of "organized medicine".

>> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>
>> --Rich

Signature

Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
    http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

LadyLollipop - 24 May 2005 05:36 GMT
>>Get lost.
>
> And that is the totality of Jan's definition of "organized medicine".

The totality is that Rich couldn't find it.

He made a fool of himself, and told several lies.

Not surprised you turned it around.

LL/Jan

>>> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>>>
>>> --Rich
Mark Probert - 24 May 2005 14:17 GMT
>>>Get lost.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Not surprised you turned it around.

You turned it around to another episode of Liar! Liar! the silly babyish
game you play.

>>>>Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>>>address the MEANING of your term, and therefore do not contribute to the
>>>>definition.
Mark Probert - 24 May 2005 14:17 GMT
OOOH...Janny....cannot handle it, eh?

> Get lost.
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>>
>>--Rich
PeterB - 24 May 2005 15:34 GMT
> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>
> First, there is the definition of the term "organized medicine". This is a
> term you sprinkle throughout your posts, but it has no agreed-on meaning in
> common usage.

Nor does the term "alternative medicine" have an agreed upon meaning.
I prefer to use "natural medicine" because it describes the ancient use
of naturally-occuring herbals, phytonutrients, and body work healing
arts.  In terms of chronology of useage, so-called "conventional
medicine," based largely on plant chemicals, yet synthetically derived,
is in fact the *alternative.*  Personally, I would like to see ALL
advocates of natural healing avoid using the term "alternative
medicine."

> In other words, one cannot look it up in a dictionary like you
> could with, say, the word "definition".

Not unusual.  Many words and phrases don't enter the lexicon before
years of useage.

> One of the fundamental rules of
> debate is that if you want to use words or terms that are not in common
> usage, you must define them.

Jan's thinking is gestalt in nature.  She describes her concepts in
macro rather than micro terms.  This drives you pharma bloggers nuts
because you need something highly textual to latch onto.  Learn to
think with your "Right" brain and you'll see where she is coming from.

> This is necessary to make the meaning of your
> arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette.

I know that common etiquette was a big draw for me here right from the
start.

> As I said before, ANY of
> us in what you call the "*gang*" will gladly and promptly define any term
> that we use that you do not understand, and do it without all the fuss and
> evasion that you have engaged in for the last few days.

But you won't do it without applying a double standard.  For instance,
the "dose is the poison" axiom is applied generously to drugs like
Vioxx, which you will defend, yet "dangerous supplements" which kill
fewer people than bee stings in a given year (I checked) are deserving
of your utter contempt and fear mongering.  The mountain of contrary
evidence staring you in the face means nothing.

> ...using the accepted definitions of the WORDS
> "organized" and "medicine", you'll be hard pressed to prove that the vast
> and varied collection of individuals, corporate entities, and associations
> that fall under the umbrella of "medicine" are "organized" in any cogent
> sense to conduct the sort of "evil" that you find in every thing that you
> find disagreeable.

It's not necessary for these entities to be organized under a single
corporate umbrella to fall prey to "group think."  We've only had a few
thousand years to learn this lesson.  The pharma bloggers are decidedly
"old guard."  But a paradigm shift is occuring...

PeterB
JohnDoe - 24 May 2005 16:06 GMT
>>Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> advocates of natural healing avoid using the term "alternative
> medicine."

And how would you describe a therapy that uses a telephone and a
computer hooked on to something that connects to higher dimensions
through quantum-plasma fields? Natural medicine? Medicine relying on
only natural products is just one subset of the whole of alternative
medicine. I like this definition: that set of medicine that either can
not be tested, refuses to be tested or comes up negative time and time
again when tested.

>>In other words, one cannot look it up in a dictionary like you
>>could with, say, the word "definition".
>
> Not unusual.  Many words and phrases don't enter the lexicon before
> years of useage.

The question is not what the lexicon says, it's what Jan Drew says it is.

>>One of the fundamental rules of
>>debate is that if you want to use words or terms that are not in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> because you need something highly textual to latch onto.  Learn to
> think with your "Right" brain and you'll see where she is coming from.

Jan's thinking is sharper then you give her credit for. Keeping things
vagua allows her to change the meaning of her words as she pleases, that
much I have noticed from her posts.

>>This is necessary to make the meaning of your
>>arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of your utter contempt and fear mongering.  The mountain of contrary
> evidence staring you in the face means nothing.

Difference being that in the case of 'dangerous supplements' there are
no or not enough benefits that outweigh the dangers. Taking anything
that has only a very, very tiny risk of having a negative effect and no
positive effect to speak of is stupid.

>>...using the accepted definitions of the WORDS
>>"organized" and "medicine", you'll be hard pressed to prove that the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> PeterB

The ol' paradigm shift. It's been promised about as many times as the
end of the world and has exactly the same track record.
PeterB - 24 May 2005 16:44 GMT
> >>Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> computer hooked on to something that connects to higher dimensions
> through quantum-plasma fields? Natural medicine?

Some refer to it as "experimental medicine," maybe "remote healing."
It would not be covered under "natural medicine" as I use the term.

> Medicine relying on
> only natural products is just one subset of the whole of alternative
> medicine.

That's why we should distinguish between approaches more carefully.
The term "alternative medicine" is at least as vague as "organized
medicine" not placed into meaningful context.  For that reason, Jan's
complaint about her comments being taken out of context is valid.

> I like this definition: that set of medicine that either can
> not be tested, refuses to be tested or comes up negative time and time
> again when tested.

You forgot to name what you are defining.

> >>In other words, one cannot look it up in a dictionary like you
> >>could with, say, the word "definition".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The question is not what the lexicon says, it's what Jan Drew says it is.

Tell it to Rich.

> >>One of the fundamental rules of
> >>debate is that if you want to use words or terms that are not in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> vagua allows her to change the meaning of her words as she pleases, that
> much I have noticed from her posts.

I never said her thinking was not sharp.  What you refer to as
vagueness on her part is not a tactic, it's how very right-brained
people think.

> >>This is necessary to make the meaning of your
> >>arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> that has only a very, very tiny risk of having a negative effect and no
> positive effect to speak of is stupid.

You obviously don't know much about nutritional science.  What
supplements are you referring to exactly?

> >>...using the accepted definitions of the WORDS
> >>"organized" and "medicine", you'll be hard pressed to prove that the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> The ol' paradigm shift. It's been promised about as many times as the

> end of the world and has exactly the same track record.

Really?  Then I guess Big Pharma has nothing to worry about, right?
Rich - 25 May 2005 02:21 GMT
>> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> because you need something highly textual to latch onto.  Learn to
> think with your "Right" brain and you'll see where she is coming from.

I know where Jan is coming from, and I don't want to go there.

>> This is necessary to make the meaning of your
>> arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> thousand years to learn this lesson.  The pharma bloggers are decidedly
> "old guard."  But a paradigm shift is occuring...

We'll see. The alties like to tell us that alternative medicine is on the
march, and that science-based medicine and pharmacotherapy are on the
decline, but there's little evidence to support that. In Europe, in fact,
it's alternative medicine that's declining, with more and more altie
therapies being removed from the approved list.

--Rich

> PeterB
LadyLollipop - 25 May 2005 03:48 GMT
>>> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> I know where Jan is coming from, and I don't want to go there.

YOU have NEVER been there.

>>> This is necessary to make the meaning of your
>>> arguments clear, and is a rule of common etiquette.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> --Rich

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7625

http://www.whatmedicine.co.uk/articlesCompMed.htm

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7426/1250-f

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/425986.stm

Doubled in the UK.

http://www.intstudy.com/articles/twealtmd.htm

Alternative and Complementary Medicine in Australia

The alternative and complementary medicine industry in Australia is growing
at a rapid rate. It is currently estimated that the market is worth over one
billion dollars, with more than 20% of that market being herbal medicine and
related products. In Australia, as well as overseas, this market appears to
be growing at about 30% per year

http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/

http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly.html

http://www.whccamp.hhs.gov/fr1.html

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309092701/html

http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/Policies_Pertaining_to_Compleme
ntary.shtml


http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/What_is_the_Best_and_Most_Ethic
al.shtml


LL/Jan

>> PeterB
PeterB - 25 May 2005 18:01 GMT
> >> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>
> --Rich

I think Jan rebutted you quite effectively.  The following excerpt from
one of the referenced articles is also interesting:

"The rapid growth is largely due to a growing demand from the public,
with reportedly more than 50% of Australians using herbal or
complementary medicines. One reason for this growth is a strong desire
from people to take greater control of their own health and well being.
This can be achieved through consultation with an appropriately trained
practitioner and through methods such as improving nutrition, or
changes in lifestyle techniques such as increasing exercise and
reducing stress. Another reason is the perceived or real need to avoid
the unwanted side effects of conventional medical drugs."

Sounds to me like you have been pissing in the wind, Rich.  Or do you
have anything you can document that makes your point?
Rich - 25 May 2005 11:10 GMT
>> Jan, let me make clear what the issue is here.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> PeterB

From Merriam-Webster Online at www.m-w.com:

     One entry found for alternative medicine.

     Main Entry: alternative medicine
     Function: noun
     : any of various systems of healing or treating disease (as
chiropractic, homeopathy, or faith healing) not included in the traditional
medical curricula taught in the U.S. and Britain

     "organized medicine" into their search engine produces no definition .
. . like Jan.

     --Rich
Mark Thorson - 25 May 2005 20:58 GMT
> So, please, just give us a simple definition of "*organized medicine*".
> Accusations, non-specific terms like "ye good ole boy EGO club",
> and God-blessings of doctors that you like may be omitted because
> they do not address the MEANING of your term, and therefore
> do not contribute to the definition.

Actually, they do contribute toward revealing what Jan doesn't
want to say openly.  "Organized medicine" is a code word,
used to communicate what you mean to your buddies and
to avoid saying openly what you mean in front of your critics.

Sort of like in the days of Jim Crow when southern politicians
would complain about "block voting".  They meant blacks.

In this case, Jan means another ethnic group, for which her
religion teaches the deepest hatred.
Rich - 25 May 2005 21:06 GMT
>> So, please, just give us a simple definition of "*organized medicine*".
>> Accusations, non-specific terms like "ye good ole boy EGO club",
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In this case, Jan means another ethnic group, for which her
> religion teaches the deepest hatred.

She probably does mean that sometimes when she confuses her bigotries. When
she includes me in "*organized medicine*" that can't be the case, because
surely she could have no bad feelings for us athiests, could she?

--Rich
Peter Moran - 23 May 2005 22:09 GMT
>>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?

It's a contradiction in terms anyway.  Doctors love to disagree with each
other on any subject.

Peter Moran
George  Lagergren - 23 May 2005 16:10 GMT
> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?

        "Organized medicine", per Jan, would mean medicine organized in
unity for using the pharm drug medicine approach in dealing with health
conditions / problems.

        IOW, the medical establishment and most doctors do NOT use diet
modification and nutritional supplementation to resolve health conditions /
problems.

        For example, if a patient comes in with an ear infection or strep
throat -  the "organized medicine"  type M.D. would give the patient an
anti-biotic shot and send the patient on their way.

        However,  "diet - nutritional medicine" type M.D. would give the
patient an anti-biotic shot;  then INFORM the patient  that the ROOT cause
of many cases of ear infection and strep throat is the drinking of cow's
milk before sending the patient on their way.

       Thus the patient who goes to a "diet - nutritional medicine" type
M.D has the necessary INFORMATION to make a proper decision whether to
continue or terminate their drinking of cow's milk.

        Now, do you understand what "organized medicine" is?
Rich - 23 May 2005 18:59 GMT
>> Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>         Now, do you understand what "organized medicine" is?

I'll let Jan tell us if that is how she defines "*organized medicine*". I
doubt it.

--Rich
JohnDoe - 24 May 2005 11:27 GMT
George Lagergren wrote:

>>Can ANYONE find Jan's definition of "*organized medicine*"?
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>          Now, do you understand what "organized medicine" is?

The question was not what YOUR definition is, or what you think Jan's
definition is.
 
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.