> I may have missed it, but have you evr criticized any supporter of
> alternative medicine for that behavior?
>
> When you do that, you may have some credibility.
Rarely if ever, your point is well taken.
The reason this is so is that, for a long time,
"standard" medicine's "official" modus operandi
seems to have been to deny almost ANY
alternative system of medicine validity
and to attack and, often, demean
alternative medicine practitioners,
EVEN WHEN THEIR THERAPIES
AND MEDICINES WORKED AND PATIENTS
SHOWED OBVIOUS BENEFITS FROM IT.
There was, just to give one example,
something called, if I remember correctly,
the Flexner report of some 25 years
ago, which arbitrarily decided that
all alternative medicine modalities
were dogmatic claptrap and therefore
should NOT be taught in med schools -
a position which has finally, in recent
years come under close scrutiny
as general practitioners in several
countries routinely are losing patients
to ND's, TCM Physicians, Acupuncturists,
Herbalists, Osteopaths, Chiropractors and
others.
As you all know, we have entered a most
remarkable era of Internet technology.
This Internet has BROKEN the stranglehold
and monopoly on information that
was a commonplace in many fields,
including medicine, only a quarter
century earlier.
It makes possible the ability to publish
information that goes contrary,
contradicts or even refutes official positions
and make it easier for people with new ideas
to obtain support, get confirmation of
their theories and learn of other researchres
with similar conceptions.
As we all already well know, OFFICIAL
sanctimonious sanctorum organizations
are VERY GOOD at make announcements,
pronouncements, condemnations,
and official statements which "officially"
determines what is good medicine
and what is not. In fact, these organizations
are used to having it all their own
way and DO NOT LIKE BEING TALKED
BACK TO.
And this, PARTICULARLY
when they are backed and supported
by interlocking associations with multi
billion dollar corporations with more
than just an idealogical interest
(in other words, $$$$$) in
the maintenance of the illusory
"standard".
Because of the former power and control
of these mega orthodox institutions
and organizations, their reaction
has often been to denounce, sometimes
with complete vituperation and
unscientifc hysteria,
those who dare to espouse alternative
medical modalities and systems.
We see the exact same phenomena
here in this newsgroup.
A double standard was created
in which deaths, injuries
and deleterious consequences
of standard medicine and/or pharmaceuticals
was somehow OK or ignored or
of no importance but the slightest
injury by one of the alternative
systems, or failure to achieve results,
was of major and overwhelming
condemnation of that system
reinforcing the built in prejudice
that such a double standard entails.
But, the Internet being a center of
open and uncontrollable information,
the genie is out of
the bottle and there will be no
controlling, restriction, nor
forced obedience to the information
which appears in it. The consequences
of this are enormous, not just in the
field of science but also in the greater
fields of politics.
So it is that standard drugs or medical
systems that do NOT work will now
be exposed and denounced.
A force far greater than the multi
billion dollar organizations
and all their propaganda and ads
and official statements is at work and
this genie of truth, now let loose
will work its power despite
all the hysterical unscientific
vituperative insults, hatred,
and deceptions that any
of respondents care to try.
In this enlightened atmosphere,
the pseudo skeptics are free
to scream on, if they choose,
but gradually the full force
and scope of the emerging
new systems of medicine
(and some very OLD ones)
will gradually undermine
and ultimately discredit
the skeptics. IN point of
fact, it is happening right now.
The vituperation represents,
therefore, merely a distraction
when "standard" arguments
have so obviously failed, or
the attempted maintenance
of the double standard
is so obvious and illogical
that skeptics are almost
a priori discredited, as
they should be for having
such attitudes at the core
of their beliefs.
If they must insist
in personal insults
and attacks, as I have mentioned
many times, then they
merely accelerate the above
mentioned processes
and discredit themseleves.
Citizen Jimserac
David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 02:19 GMT
>> I may have missed it, but have you evr criticized any supporter of
>> alternative medicine for that behavior?
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>the Flexner report of some 25 years
>ago,
The Flexner report appeared in 1910.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
-- Bill Maher
Mark Probert - 22 Jan 2008 03:59 GMT
>> I may have missed it, but have you evr criticized any supporter of
>> alternative medicine for that behavior?
>>
>> When you do that, you may have some credibility.
>
> Rarely if ever, your point is well taken.
Rare? Hardly. All my points are well taken. The factthat you donot see
it is not my problem.
> The reason this is so is that, for a long time,
> "standard" medicine's "official" modus operandi
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
>
> Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 13:07 GMT
>>> I may have missed it, but have you evr criticized any supporter of
>>> alternative medicine for that behavior?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Rare? Hardly. All my points are well taken. The factthat you donot see
> it is not my problem.
[147 lines snipped]
Mark, there's this key on your keyboard that's usually marked "Delete"
As a personal request from someone who actually takes the time to
_read_ your posts, could you please extend the courtesy of snipping
extraneous quoted text so that I don't end up scrolling through
thousands of lines of garf searching for your comments?
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Mark Probert - 22 Jan 2008 13:22 GMT
>>>> I may have missed it, but have you evr criticized any supporter of
>>>> alternative medicine for that behavior?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> extraneous quoted text so that I don't end up scrolling through
> thousands of lines of garf searching for your comments?
My bad.
Citizen Jimserac - 26 Jan 2008 13:57 GMT
On Jan 21, 10:59 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com>
wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Rare? Hardly. All my points are well taken. The factthat you donot see
> it is not my problem.
You've missed the context -> My comment,
"Rarely, if ever" refers to MY postings critical
to the alternative medicine area and has
NOTHING to do with ANY of your "points".
Try READING AND UNDERSTANDING someone's
post first... and then you can engage in some
personal attacks - THAT is YOUR problem.
Citizen Jimserac