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 / January 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why there is no scientific evidence to support alternative medicine

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carole - 20 Jan 2008 09:36 GMT
There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for alternative
medicine, and it is explained in the book,
'The war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine'
http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Fda.html    (thanks Debbee)

Chapter 11: The Role of the FDA
The Claim There is "No Scientific Evidence" for Alternative Treatments

The budget for people doing serious research on alternative treatment plans
is virtually zero. One reason for this is that the FDA will not give formal
permission for anyone to do research on alternative treatments on live
patients. In other words, the government cronies of the pharmaceutical
industry do everything in their power to stop alternative treatment
research. That way they can claim there is "no scientific evidence" for
alternative treatments.

Because the FDA, NIH (National Institute of Health, a government agency) and
NCI (a division of the NIH) refuse to do legitimate and honest research into
alternative treatments, they are artificially manufacturing a situation
where there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments
(according to their definition of "science"), and because there is "no
scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, these agencies, along with
the AMA, have legal power to suppress and harass alternative treatment
practitioners, thus making sure there is "no scientific evidence." It is a
"self-fulfilling prophesy."

In other words, it is like Jim predicting John is going to die within 5
hours, and then Jim pulls out a gun and shoots John, thus fulfilling his own
prophesy. The pharmaceutical industry's cronies claim there is "no
scientific evidence" for natural treatments, then they do everything in
their power to insure there is "no scientific evidence."

But that is not all. In a jury trial, one or two witnesses is enough
"evidence" for a jury. But with the FDA, NIH and NCI, the tens of thousands
of witnesses, who have been cured by alternative treatments, are not allowed
to testify. Their testimony is not admitted as evidence. Nor are the
hundreds of scientific studies on natural treatments for cancer.

The ultimate goal of the FDA, which they have achieved, is to only allow
scientific evidence that comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Since the
pharmaceutical industry does not research alternative treatments for cancer
(because it is not profitable), by limiting "research" to the pharmaceutical
industry they have stopped any possibility that there will ever be any
"scientific" evidence for alternative treatments for cancer. On top of this,
the pharmaceutical industry are the biggest scientific liars on earth. Many,
many of their studies have been shown to be fraudulent. On top of that the
FDA has made the approval process so expensive, there is no way that any
natural product manufacturer can afford to get a natural product approved.

There is absolutely nothing more important for our corrupt government
agencies to accomplish (from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry)
than to insure there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments.
With this great lie in hand, everyone on the side of orthodox medicine has
the tools they need to crush alternative medicine and perpetuate the great
lie that there is no scientific evidence. Ignoring the evidence and
suppressing the truth about the scientific evidence of alternative
treatments are to the conspiracy, what an engine is to a truck.

To be technical, the official job of the FDA and other "health" agencies of
the U.S. Government (i.e. this is why they were created in the first place)
is to protect the profits of the big pharmaceutical and chemical companies,
which have had, and still have, enormous influence in the U.S. government.
That is the typical job of all government agencies when they are created,
each has a sector of the corporate world to protect, and each is created
because of the influence of big corporations.
I will be more specific. A corporation has no police powers. The FDA was
specifically created to give Big Pharma police powers. Whenever Big Pharma
wants something, they simply go to one of their departments (the FDA in this
case) and have the FDA "take care of it."

When they are not using their police powers for Big Pharma, their assigned
task is to suppress all truth and all scientific evidence for alternative
treatments for cancer, heart disease prevention, etc. etc. Of course their
real objective is masked behind the facade of pretending to be concerned
about the health of the American people. No doubt many of the lower level
employees of the FDA really are concerned about the health of the American
people, but lower level employees have no influence with the top executives,
who are the main beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical money pot.

The hypocrisy of the FDA, AMA, Big Pharma, etc. is unbelievable. They claim
that they do not want patients to be exposed to alternative treatments for
cancer on grounds of their great humanitarianism. This is like calling
Stalin and Hitler humanitarians. It is like Hitler saying that he doesn't
want the Jews to live in their own houses because there might be cockroaches
and germs in their houses, so he sends them to the gas chambers! Is there no
bottom to the hypocrisy and lies of the medical leaders, journalists,
politicians and above all, pharmaceutical owners, executives and key
employees? Apparently not.

"The butchers of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation have grown rich on the
mutilated bodies of millions of innocent victims while public health
officials sold their souls."  ---Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer, The
Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! - page 68

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
vernon O - 20 Jan 2008 17:12 GMT
> There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for alternative
> medicine, and it is explained in the book,

ALMOST ALL, of traditional was once alternative with the exception of
recently where pharms just dump drugs on people.
Peter Moran - 20 Jan 2008 22:42 GMT
> There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for alternative
> medicine, and it is explained in the book,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> permission for anyone to do research on alternative treatments on live
> patients.

???  That is just not true.  The FDA has no control over medical research,
not even in America.

It is also not true that there is no scientific research into alternative
methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply performing
a Pubmed search http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez  on any vitamin,
herb, acupuncture, chiropractic, and even energy medicine such as
therapeutic touch.  There are thousands of studies.   I picked a herb at
random:  Cat's Claw, and got  66 results.

It is also not true that there is no budget.  The NCCAM has over a hundred
million dollars available yearly  for research into alternative methods, and
they have been trying for years to get those claiming they can cure cancer
to apply for funding.   Where to apply  --   http://nccam.nih.gov/research/ 
They are currently funding a trial of the Gonzales/Kelley treatment of
cancer which involves coffee enemas and other unlikely means.

In truth, most alternative methods  have  now been researched sufficiently
to provide some idea as to their worth. or lack of it and with nothing very
spectacular to report.   Some methods are never likely to be seriously
researched as they are just too implausible.

The truth is that those with important medical claims such as curing
established cancer won't usually publish anything that reveals their true
overall results,  not even simple case series.  They already know that their
methods don't  work very well in patients who have active cancer..

PM.

www.cancerwatcher.com
Carole - 21 Jan 2008 13:36 GMT
> > There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for alternative
> > medicine, and it is explained in the book,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> ???  That is just not true.  The FDA has no control over medical research,
> not even in America.

But isn't it true, that any alternative doctor who wants to prove a
treatment works on a real patient, isn't allowed to show it?

> It is also not true that there is no scientific research into alternative
> methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply performing
> a Pubmed search http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez  on any vitamin,
> herb, acupuncture, chiropractic, and even energy medicine such as
> therapeutic touch.  There are thousands of studies.   I picked a herb at
> random:  Cat's Claw, and got  66 results.

I'm not too sure about pubmed's status as an unbiased keeper of records.
The guy from Doctoryourself.com claims there are many alternative journals
which aren't indexed and catelogued.

see Medline bias at http://www.doctoryourself.com/medline.html

"Did you know that there are "good" medical journals, and that there are
"naughty" journals?
No kidding. The good journals are easy to access on
the internet through a huge electronic database called Medline
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) This wonderful, free service
is brought to you by the National Library of Medicine and the National
Institutes of Health. In other words, by you. By your tax dollars. Generally
it is money well spent, until you go a-searching for megavitamin therapy
research papers. Then you will find that you can't find all of them."

http://www.doctoryourself.com/medlineup.html
"There were 754 million Medline searches in the year 2005. Not one of those
searches found a single article from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
There is a growing appreciation in the scientific community that the Journal
is being deliberately censored by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Since 1989, JOM has been rejected for Medline indexing five times. "

> It is also not true that there is no budget.  The NCCAM has over a hundred
> million dollars available yearly  for research into alternative methods, and
> they have been trying for years to get those claiming they can cure cancer
> to apply for funding.   Where to apply  --   http://nccam.nih.gov/research/
> They are currently funding a trial of the Gonzales/Kelley treatment of
> cancer which involves coffee enemas and other unlikely means.

I had a look at the trials it was funding.
http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/alltrials.htm
There are about 80 categories, one of which is cancer.
In the cancer category, the trials seem to be more for alleviating side
effects of orthodox treatments.

I wouldn't be too confident that it picked research cases for real results.
I'd like to see the cases that get the knock back and hear the reactions
from the people who put them forward.

> In truth, most alternative methods  have  now been researched sufficiently
> to provide some idea as to their worth. or lack of it and with nothing very
> spectacular to report.   Some methods are never likely to be seriously
> researched as they are just too implausible.

The NCCAM has a panel system, which decides which cases they will choose for
trials but there's no list of cases that get rejected. So what what might
happen is that therapies that work might be labelled as "implausible" and
the ones that seem less threatening to big pharma, are given a try.

> The truth is that those with important medical claims such as curing
> established cancer won't usually publish anything that reveals their true
> overall results,  not even simple case series.  They already know that their
> methods don't  work very well in patients who have active cancer..

I think alternative cures are suppressed and it would take a lot of evidence
to convince me otherwise.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> PM.
>
> www.cancerwatcher.com
Mark Probert - 21 Jan 2008 18:52 GMT
> > > There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for
> alternative
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> But isn't it true, that any alternative doctor who wants to prove a
> treatment works on a real patient, isn't allowed to show it?

No, it is not true. These alternative doctors are required to follow
all the regulations regarding human test subjects that real doctors
have to follow.

What is happening here is that if they take money for studies from
NCCAM, they have to publish them, and publishing negative studies can
be expensive.

> > It is also not true that there is no scientific research into alternative
> > methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Moran - 21 Jan 2008 20:55 GMT
>> > There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for
> alternative
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> But isn't it true, that any alternative doctor who wants to prove a
> treatment works on a real patient, isn't allowed to show it?

Isn't allowed by whom?    This is paranoid nonsense.   Burzinski displayed
three of his supposedly cured patients on a TV show (they died shortly
after).  Gonzales published his cases in an alternative medical journal and
there is now a 1.3 million dollar stgudy devoted to his methods.   Holt in
Australia got access to the current affairs programs that are always giving
air time to those who claim they can cure anything.

>> methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply
> performing
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The guy from Doctoryourself.com claims there are many alternative journals
> which aren't indexed and catelogued.

They have to reach minimum standards.

Also Wallace Sampson MD, noted sceptic, could not get his sceptical journal
"Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine" listed on Medline.  That shows
there is no bias against alternatives.

here are "good" medical journals, and that there are
> "naughty" journals?
> No kidding. The good journals are easy to access on
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> is being deliberately censored by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
> Since 1989, JOM has been rejected for Medline indexing five times. "

That I can understand.  It is mainly a self-promotional journal; run by
Abram Hoffer, and has no proper scientific review board, although I have
noted that it is trying to cover broader material in its more recent issues,
probably with the objective of getting listing on Medline. .

It is not censored.  You can read it on line.

>> It is also not true that there is no budget.  The NCCAM has over a
>> hundred
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In the cancer category, the trials seem to be more for alleviating side
> effects of orthodox treatments.

As I said, they have had difficulty finding any out of the dozens claiming
to be able to cure cancer that can put up a wortwhile case.   They made a
firm offer to the Gerson clinic that they would definitely fund a trial of
their method if the clinic could produce a dozen cases of cancer that went
into remission with their method.  The clinic could not even do that.
This is the Gerson clinics account of what happened.

"The genesis of this inquiry occurred during a landmark study by the U.S.
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment [Ref 2] to which one of us
(G.H.) was an advisor. In its report, OTA put forward a protocol for
best-case reviews based on the premise that, no matter how many patients
failed, as few as 10 or 12 cases with objective evidence of tumor response
would be enough to propel an investigation by the National Cancer Institute
(NCI). Because we had proposed the original best-case review protocol to
OTA, we were eager to construct a best-case review. However, we found OTA's
(and later NCI's) protocol to have a serious shortcoming when used
retrospectively: its focus on only tumor regression. Adequate documentation
of tumor regression is unlikely to be collected in most alternative medical
practices."

In other words, the record keeping and follow-up in alternative cancer
clinics is of inadequate  quality to demonstrate that their claims are true.

> I wouldn't be too confident that it picked research cases for real
> results.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> happen is that therapies that work might be labelled as "implausible" and
> the ones that seem less threatening to big pharma, are given a try.

They were publishing  the minutes of their meetings online.     With cancer
the measure was not plausibility (they were at one stage interested in
investigating further an Inidan homoepathic clinic) but the ability toi
produce cured patients.

>> The truth is that those with important medical claims such as curing
>> established cancer won't usually publish anything that reveals their true
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> evidence
> to convince me otherwise.

Which cures do you think are suppressed?   The fact is that the claimants
cannot produce cured patients, even though their claims require that they
should be able to do so and they are treating suitable patients by the
thousands.

I know you have a completely closed mind.   I write so that others may see
the flaws in what you post.

PM

> Carole
> www.cellsalts.net
>
>> PM.
>>
>> www.cancerwatcher.com
marika - 21 Jan 2008 22:08 GMT
>    Burzinski displayed
> three of his supposedly cured patients on a TV show (they died shortly
> after).  

Everybody dies, so death isn't dispositive on the issue of a cure.
Although the probability of death was likely the only thing that was
standardized across the entirety of the experiment.

mk5000

RoboCop: [after stabbing Clarence] Lewis! Lewis!
[looks up]
Lewis: Murphy... I'm a mess...
RoboCop: They'll fix you. They fix everything.
Jan Drew - 22 Jan 2008 05:29 GMT
>>> > There is a reason why there isn't any scientific evidence for
>> alternative
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Holt in Australia got access to the current affairs programs that are
> always giving air time to those who claim they can cure anything.

That's  DR. Burzynski.  You cannot even get his name right.

http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/newsinfo.htm

HOUSTON'S DR. STANISLAW R. BURZYNSKI RECEIVES
CROSS OF MERIT AWARD FROM THE POLISH GOVERNMENT
FOR PIONEERING RESEARCH IN CANCER TREATMENT

BRAIN TUMOR SURVIVORS VISIT BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
MANUFACTURER OF LIFE SAVING MEDICATION

BRAIN TUMOR SURVIVORS VISIT BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
MANUFACTURER OF LIFE SAVING MEDICATION

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ph/virtual-tour.html

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ph/about-us-bio.html

>>> methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply
>> performing
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> journal "Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine" listed on Medline.
> That shows there is no bias against alternatives.

Well, after all he is unworthy of credibility and bias.

You, Peter Moran are suppressing alternative, and you are bias and
brainwashed.

> here are "good" medical journals, and that there are
>> "naughty" journals?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> noted that it is trying to cover broader material in its more recent
> issues, probably with the objective of getting listing on Medline. .

What would you consider *proper*?

> It is not censored.  You can read it on line.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> clinics is of inadequate  quality to demonstrate that their claims are
> true.

Oh, but you were not cancerned about Dr WWilson's false and misleading"
reports and "repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations

>> I wouldn't be too confident that it picked research cases for real
>> results.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> PM

Racketeering In Medicine
The Suppression of Alternatives
James P. Carter, M.D., Dr.P.H.

Add Book Are Americans being deprived of economical and truly
effective
medical treatments because orthodox medicine and and pharmaceutical
companies can't profit from them? With hard-hitting analysis backed by
overwhelming evidence, Dr. Carter presents many disturbing cases of
legitimate therapies being disparaged as quackery, government agencies
harassing alternative practitioners, and drug companies peddling their
influenceÐthe real causes of today's health-care crisis.

Dr. James Puckette Carter was born in Chicago and studied Chemistry at
the
College of Liberal Arts, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
He
completed his M.D. at Northwestern in 1957 and continued his graduate
studies at Columbia University where he received a M.S. in
Parasitology.
He studied Nutrition at Columbia School of Public School and
Administrative Medicine, completing his doctoral work in 1966. Coming
to
Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in
1976,
Dr. Carter took the position of Professor and is presently the Head of
the
Nutrition Section.

He also serves as Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Tulane
University
School of Medicine. Dr. Carter was awarded a five-year Faculty
Fellowship
by the Milbank Memorial Fund in 1968 to obtain additional training and
develop his professional career as a medical educator in Nutrition,
Tropical Medicine, Pediatrics and related fields in the Social and
Preventive Aspects of Medicine. This was one of only 44 awards made to
preventive medicine specialist/teachers in the entire Western
Hemisphere.
Dr. Carter has served as the Chairman of the National Advisory
Committee,
Meharry Medical College's General Foods Nutrition Center, Nashville,
Tennessee. He has also served as a consultant in International
Nutrition
to the US Agency for International Development and as a WHO consultant
in
Nutrition to the Sudan. He consults regularly on lifestyle
restructuring,
clinical preventive medicine, alternative medicine, and holistic
health.

>> Carole
>> www.cellsalts.net
>>
>>> PM.
>>>
>>> www.cancerwatcher.com

Watching ONLY alternative.

YOU watched Dr wilson KILL Jesse and saw no cover-ups!!!
Carole - 22 Jan 2008 16:13 GMT
> >> ???  That is just not true.  The FDA has no control over medical
> >> research,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Australia got access to the current affairs programs that are always giving
> air time to those who claim they can cure anything.

Yes, I remember seeing Dr Holt on the TV several times, in A Current Affair
hosted by Ray Martin.
Ray Martin also interviewed the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott. So despite
all the publicity and testamonials of cured patients, this radiowave
treatment is still considered inferior to current treatments and isn't
supported by the government.

Launch of the NHMRC Review of the Use of Microwave Therapy for the Treatment
of Patients with Cancer Practised by Dr John Holt in Western Australia
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-me
diarel-yr2005-ta-abbsp290905.htm?OpenDocument&yr=2005&mth=9
Claims its not as effectsive as conventional therapies.

However, there were a lot of testamonials, many people were cured who were
given up by mainstream, and the thing is that the treatment has virtually no
side effects and isn't toxic.
There is private research going on into his method, no help from official
sources.

> >> methods.  This could have been determined by the author by simply
> > performing
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine" listed on Medline.  That shows
> there is no bias against alternatives.

It shows that medline is devoted to orthodox medicine.

> here are "good" medical journals, and that there are
> > "naughty" journals?
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> It is not censored.  You can read it on line.

Fair enough. It looks pretty dry anyway http://www.orthomed.org

> >> It is also not true that there is no budget.  The NCCAM has over a
> >> hundred
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> In other words, the record keeping and follow-up in alternative cancer
> clinics is of inadequate  quality to demonstrate that their claims are true.

For some reason alternative medicine doesn't measure success in terms of
tumour regression.
They believe in whole body treatment and say the tumour is just a symptom,
that merely treating the tumour doesn't address the whole problem and that
cancer is a whole body disease (something like that).
In other words, the alternative mob don't like the criteria used to judge
success.
Read about it at  -

http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Cure_Rates.html
Chapter 4: Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions

> > I wouldn't be too confident that it picked research cases for real
> > results.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> investigating further an Inidan homoepathic clinic) but the ability toi
> produce cured patients.

There are cured patients using many alternative treatments and from what I
hear, many that orthodox medicine has given up on. I think the problem is
definition of "cure".

> >> The truth is that those with important medical claims such as curing
> >> established cancer won't usually publish anything that reveals their true
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> should be able to do so and they are treating suitable patients by the
> thousands.

I have an idea there are many suppressed cures -- essiac, Dr Holts radiowave
therapy, herbal, nutritional treatments.
I'm not sure but there could be hundreds of treatments which are suppressed.
However, from my own experience there are many nutritional treatments that
are kept quiet in favour of pharmaceutical treatments.
Basically the system is rigged to discount anything that isn't
pharmaceutical. I have heard of all sorts of intimidations, putdowns,
threats, ruined careers, and so on used against doctors who go outside the
boundaries.
Dr Simoncini was barred for supposedly killing a patient with his bicarb
treatment. Why aren't doctors who use chemo barred when their patients die?

> I know you have a completely closed mind.   I write so that others may see
> the flaws in what you post.

That's a fairly arrogant comment -- but typical.
My thinking may have some gaps, but your conventional medicine has a history
of suppression and corruption.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> PM
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >>
> >> www.cancerwatcher.com
drceephd@insightbb.com - 21 Jan 2008 16:33 GMT
Petey the Moron wrote:

> The truth is that those with important medical claims such as curing
> established cancer won't usually publish anything that reveals their true
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> www.cancerwatcher.com

While writing such bilge, Petey continues to try to cover up his
deceit.

I have offered the Moron valid, scientific, reproduced studies
relating to the value of "alternative" treatments to the cut,burn, and
poison lie of allopathy going back as far as 1929.  Here they are
again:

Diseases studied:
Allergy
Migraine
dermatoses
cutaneous TB
pulmonary TB
cardio-renal insufficiency
and of course
CANCER

http://gerson-research.org/docs/SauerbruchF-1951-1/index.html

http://gerson-research.org/bibliography/index.html#SauerbruchF-1951-1

The DVD "Dying to have known" is now available for those who cannot
read.

Stop lying, and start reading.

DrCee
Not a pharma shill ( I am not here to lie to you or deceive you )
Dunner - 21 Jan 2008 23:28 GMT
On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> http://gerson-research.org/bibliography/index.html#SauerbruchF-1951-1

Gee.  A bibliography, the overwhelming majority of which is 70+ years
old, with a few more recent cites devoid of any primary research
content thrown in...  Color me underwhelmed.

And I assume you've taken the time to dig up these references and read
them all personally to see if the claims are warranted by the original
studies?  T's only common courtesy before grilling others about it...

Dunner
D. C. Sessions - 21 Jan 2008 23:44 GMT
> T's only common courtesy before grilling others about it.

"Common courtesy," like "Common sense," is an oxymoron.

| 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> --------------+
drceephd@insightbb.com - 22 Jan 2008 00:42 GMT
> On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dunner

Convince me that "modern" data supplants any "truth" that may have
been discovered and reported 1,000s of years ago?

The allopathic medical lies can be traced back to at least 500 B.C.
The vitalistic/humanistic health truth can be traced back to at least
1000 B.C.

Current "scientific/mechanistic" medicine is one lie after another to
cover up former and current quackery.

Which do you prefer?  Modern lies or the health truth?

DrCee
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 00:48 GMT
> Which do you prefer?  Modern lies or the health truth?

How do you propose that a Martian tell the difference?

| 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> --------------+
David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 01:49 GMT
>> On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>Convince me that "modern" data supplants any "truth" that may have
>been discovered and reported 1,000s of years ago?

The ancient Egyptians reported that the sun went around the Earth on a
boat and that a pig ate the moon every 28 days.

You may or may not be aware that this "truth" has been supplanted by
more modern data.

 -- 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
vernon O - 22 Jan 2008 02:23 GMT
> In article
> <20b05788-3825-4065-bda4-1c05217f3de0@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> The ancient Egyptians reported that the sun went around the Earth on a
> boat and that a pig ate the moon every 28 days.

Actually that's a wrong reporting of the general belief system of ancient
Egypt.

That was an interesting story they used , but not a beleif.

> You may or may not be aware that this "truth" has been supplanted by
> more modern data.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> on?"
>                                                        -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 02:47 GMT
>> In article
>> <20b05788-3825-4065-bda4-1c05217f3de0@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>That was an interesting story they used , but not a beleif.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

>> You may or may not be aware that this "truth" has been supplanted by
>> more modern data.

 -- 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
Peter Moran - 22 Jan 2008 05:36 GMT
On Jan 21, 6:28 pm, Dunner <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dunner

Convince me that "modern" data supplants any "truth" that may have
been discovered and reported 1,000s of years ago?

PM A sampling of evidence that could go on all day --

PM The circulation of the blood was only published by Harvey in 1628.  He
skipped the vitalistic/superstitious theorising that dominated medicine and
went and looked   - before that it was believed that the blood went
backwards and forwards in the arteries and veins.  This was the first major
discovery in physiology.

PM Urea was first synthesised in 1828,  less than two centuries ago.  Before
that it was generally believed, especially by vitalists,  that such organic
molecules could only be produced by mysterious life energies and processes.
This was the beginning of biochemistry.

PM One of the first attempts to use mathematical methods to assess whether
treatments worked was possibly by the Frenchman Pierre-Charles-Alexandre
Louis who published a study showing that bloodletting could do more harm
than good in 1838.

PM The first ever planned controlled trial (testing a serum treatment for
reducing mortality and morbidity in diphtheria) was published by the Dane,
Fibiger in 1898.

PM The first ever randomised controlled trial in which the randomisation was
concealed (the beginning of blinding in controlled trials)  was in 1948.
This is why we can know in advance that most of the stuff you want me to
look at will be of very low scientific quality and almost certianly
untrustworthy.

PM There has been an explosion of scientific knowledge, and the use of
technology in medicine, and major evolution in the sophistication of medical
studies even since then.

Only an idiot would look at the all the advances in medicine up to, say,
even 100 years ago, and want to go back to then.   Vitalism taught us
nothing about the nature of any illness or of the workings of the human body
in 400 thousand years of opportunity.

PM
rpautrey2 - 22 Jan 2008 06:06 GMT
Interactions Of: Human Flora? Food? Vitamins/Minerals? Exercise/
Activity? Anatomy/Physiology? Stress? Medicines? Weather/Climate?
Geography? Ecology/Evolution? Micro/Macro Environment? Pathogens?
Poisons? Etc?

Vitalism

Wholistic Health!

PA

PM: On Jan 21, 11:36 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net>
wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20b05788-3825-4065-bda4-1c05217f3de0@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 6:28 pm, Dunner <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> Vitalism taught us nothing about the nature of any illness or of the
> workings of the human bodyi n 400 thousand years of opportunity.
> PM
rpautrey2 - 22 Jan 2008 06:12 GMT
Interactions Of: Human Flora? Food? Vitamins/Minerals? Exercise/
Activity? Anatomy/Physiology? Stress? Medicines? Weather/Climate?
Geography? Ecology/Evolution? Micro/Macro Environment? Pathogens?
Poisons? Etc?

Vitalism?

Holistic Health!

PA

PM: On Jan 21, 11:36 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net>
wrote:

> Vitalism taught us nothing about the nature of any illness or of the
> workings of the human bodyi n 400 thousand years of opportunity.

> PM
drceephd@insightbb.com - 22 Jan 2008 15:04 GMT
> PM The first ever randomised controlled trial in which the randomisation was
> concealed (the beginning of blinding in controlled trials)  was in 1948.
> This is why we can know in advance that most of the stuff you want me to
> look at will be of very low scientific quality and almost certianly
> untrustworthy.

Another assumption by Petey the Moron. No one before 1948 and the use
of certain protocols to try and determine if poison A is more
beneficial than poison B can possibly have high medical quality.

> PM There has been an explosion of scientific knowledge, and the use of
> technology in medicine, and major evolution in the sophistication of medical
> studies even since then.

And of what value to the allopaths who still cannot see the connection
between vaccines and autism, and still do not know what a cold is let
alone cancer.

> Only an idiot would look at the all the advances in medicine up to, say,
> even 100 years ago, and want to go back to then.   Vitalism taught us
> nothing about the nature of any illness or of the workings of the human body
> in 400 thousand years of opportunity.
>
> PM

Poor Moron, He still cannot distinquish between allopathy and
vitalistic/humanistic medicine.  I would wager that he falsely
believes that he practices according to the great physician
Hippocrates who fist did no harm, gave no poison, and used food as his
medicine.  Well, no, Petey never uses food for medicine so we will
have to find something else for him.
The Orthopaths believed in sanitation.  You and the allopaths did not
see the need.  The greatest hallmark of the allopathic surgeons was
colored pus from all the infections  caused.  What color is your pus
today?
The Orthopaths of 1830 lost no victims to collera.  You and your
poisoning allopaths killed the vitims by the tens of thousands.  And
you wish to claim that vitalism taught us nothing?  The truth is that
allopathy has learned nothing.

You are a disgusting, arrogant, egotistical allopath who cannot be
believed.

DrCee
Not a pharma shill ( I am not here to lie or deceive you )
Carole - 22 Jan 2008 16:44 GMT
> On Jan 21, 6:28 pm, Dunner <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> backwards and forwards in the arteries and veins.  This was the first major
> discovery in physiology.

Yes, there have been improvements in knowledge in the last 100 years in some
areas, but it has gone backwards in others.

> PM Urea was first synthesised in 1828,  less than two centuries ago.  Before
> that it was generally believed, especially by vitalists,  that such organic
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> look at will be of very low scientific quality and almost certianly
> untrustworthy.

Yes, but they do hundreds of trials and just pick the ones that work, to
prove their drugs.

> PM There has been an explosion of scientific knowledge, and the use of
> technology in medicine, and major evolution in the sophistication of medical
> studies even since then.

In some ways there has been increase in knowledge and technology, but in
others it has gone backwards and there is now much chronic incurable
disease -- increase in asthma, diabetes, allergies, no cures for dementia,
arthritis, ms, cancer still uses the same techniques from 1920s which are
highly profitable to pharmaceutical industry.

> Only an idiot would look at the all the advances in medicine up to, say,
> even 100 years ago, and want to go back to then.   Vitalism taught us
> nothing about the nature of any illness or of the workings of the human body
> in 400 thousand years of opportunity.
>
> PM

I don't agree entirely. Modern medicine has gone backwards in some ways in
the last 100 years.
The concept of blood acidity / acidosis, homeopathy, and nutritional cures
used to be common knowledge but are now suppressed.
But its the same with many other inventions that would have helped the
world -- Tesla's free energy was suppressed by Morgan who said he couldn't
make any money out of it. We're living in a world where these big
corporations and certain greedy people put making money above everything.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Peter Moran - 22 Jan 2008 22:27 GMT
> I don't agree entirely. Modern medicine has gone backwards in some ways in
> the last 100 years.
> The concept of blood acidity / acidosis, homeopathy, and nutritional cures
> used to be common knowledge but are now suppressed.

The acid-base balance of the body and its regualtion is well understood and
it reveals the "alkalise for health" idea to be nonsense.  Not only that, it
is unsupported by any evidence that it does anything beyond the limited
ability of placebo to make people feel better.

Homeopathy is based upon absurd principles and it actually has been
extensively studied in both the laboratory and in clinical studies.  In over
two hundred years there is not a single consistent observation showing that
any if its ideas are correct.   Some people include herbalism in homeopathy
which is incorrect.   Herbs have some credibility as the foundation for
pharmacology.

Nutrition is obviously important in the prevention of disease and everyone
knows what goes into a good diet.   There have been numerous "nutritional
cures" claimed  but it is difficult to think of any where the evidence is
conclusive.  Some have been farily definitely disproved such as the
orthomolecular treatment of cancer, and nutritional measures in general in
the treatment of cancer.

Finally, in what way are these notions suppressed?    There are numerous
books written about them and you will find these ideas all over the
Internet.  This despite the fact that they are contrary to knwon facts.

> But its the same with many other inventions that would have helped the
> world -- Tesla's free energy was suppressed by Morgan who said he couldn't
> make any money out of it. We're living in a world where these big
> corporations and certain greedy people put making money above everything.
>
> Carole

Yes, there's some of that.  But why is it that this element to the
mainstream enables you to dismiss everything a basically honest  doctor like
me says, while you can at the same time  ignore all the fraud, delusion, and
sheer ignorance governing alternative medicine?  . You seem prepared to
believe anything, so long as it is "alternative",  which means that
scientists, governments, doctors  and health insurers,  reject it..

PM
> www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 23 Jan 2008 00:17 GMT
> > I don't agree entirely. Modern medicine has gone backwards in some ways in
> > the last 100 years.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> is unsupported by any evidence that it does anything beyond the limited
> ability of placebo to make people feel better.

No, a lot of the food we eat leaves an acid residue in the body that gets
stored around the body, in the tissues, joints and anywhere else. This is
one of the lies of conventional medicine, that people don't accumulate too
much acid.
Indeed knotted muscles and desire for back massage are indications of acid
buildup in the tissues.

> Homeopathy is based upon absurd principles and it actually has been
> extensively studied in both the laboratory and in clinical studies.  In over
> two hundred years there is not a single consistent observation showing that
> any if its ideas are correct.   Some people include herbalism in homeopathy
> which is incorrect.   Herbs have some credibility as the foundation for
> pharmacology.

If you think that homeopathy doesn't work you are deluded -- just the way
conventional medicine intends.
I've told you before that you can test for yourself that homeopathic silica
gets rid of underarm odour, but you won't do this simple test because you
don't really want to know.

> Nutrition is obviously important in the prevention of disease and everyone
> knows what goes into a good diet.   There have been numerous "nutritional
> cures" claimed  but it is difficult to think of any where the evidence is
> conclusive.  Some have been farily definitely disproved such as the
> orthomolecular treatment of cancer, and nutritional measures in general in
> the treatment of cancer.

Vitamin C for scurvy and B for beri beri are a couple of glaring examples.
Then there is magnesium for healthy heart, calcium for strong bones,  and
plenty of others. You just haven't got a clue.

>  Finally, in what way are these notions suppressed?    There are numerous
> books written about them and you will find these ideas all over the
> Internet.  This despite the fact that they are contrary to knwon facts.

Yes, despite the accumulation of knowledge about nutritional cures,
conventional medicine just carries on as usual with its slash cut and burn
techniques developed in the 1920s and the only change has been "new and
improved" chemo drugs.

> > But its the same with many other inventions that would have helped the
> > world -- Tesla's free energy was suppressed by Morgan who said he couldn't
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> mainstream enables you to dismiss everything a basically honest  doctor like
> me says,

You consider yourself honest, that's good.
I just don't think you understand that there is a lot of deception at the
top of the foodchain where the decisions are made.

> while you can at the same time  ignore all the fraud, delusion, and
> sheer ignorance governing alternative medicine?  .

I don't ignore any fraud and delusion in alternative medicine -- there is
fraud and delusion everywhere in every field.
However, conventional medicine sets itself up as the impeccable standard
where it claims to be working for safety and care of consumers. When all the
time this is a deception, the pharmaceutical companies are working for
money.

> You seem prepared to
> believe anything, so long as it is "alternative",  which means that
> scientists, governments, doctors  and health insurers,  reject it..

I don't believe everything alternative treatment -- mainly nutritional
remedies and homeopathy.
Scientists are only allowed to do research along certain lines or they get
ostricised, barred and black-listed, governments are as good as the people
who advise them, and doctors as good as what they get taught at medical
school.

There are many ways to throw a spanner into research -- you can put certain
experts who hold certain views in charge of boards and committees, you can
create policy using tricky legal wording, you can work out what criteria
constitutes success of a product -- many ways, some more trickier than
others but all designed to keep the pharmaceutical cartel looking like its
the most effective treatment.
I have a great amount of suspicion and not without good cause. These types
of cartels prey on the people with their air of authority and regulation
which it claims is for the safety of the people. Just like the phony war on
terror takes the liberties of the people away for their own safety -- its a
con of gigantic proportions, so big that people find it hard to believe, but
a con nevertheless.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> PM
> > www.cellsalts.net
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 05:26 GMT
: This is
: one of the lies of conventional medicine, that people don't accumulate too
: much acid.

Are you suggesting that conventional medicine denies the existence of gout?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Carole - 23 Jan 2008 09:55 GMT
> : This is
> : one of the lies of conventional medicine, that people don't accumulate too
> : much acid.
>
> Are you suggesting that conventional medicine denies the existence of gout?

And how do they treat this condition?
I knew a bloke once who used to get debilitating attacks of gout on a
regular basis. He'd been to all the top specialists in Australia and they
gave him some drug called butazoladine (sp?), which wouldn't get rid of an
attack once it occurred but could only prevent attacks.
I suggested to him the Blackmores sodium compound which he took a couple of
tablets each day and never got an attack for a year, until he stopped taking
them and it came back.
The blackmores sodium compound contained the two cellsalts sodium phosphate
and sodium sulphate, which I think these days that bicarb would do the
trick, which costs $1.50 for 500 grams.

So conventional medicine recognises gout but will only treat it with
pharmaceutical drugs when it should be treated with nutrition.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> -----
> Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 14:18 GMT
> So conventional medicine recognises gout but will only treat it with
> pharmaceutical drugs when it should be treated with nutrition.

Carole, do you have even the first clue what first-line conventional
treatment for gout actually is?

Hint: it's not butazolidin, which is no longer available for humans.
That stuff is a MARVELOUS antiinflammatory which keeps the joint
inflammation down, but doesn't do bupkis for the uric acid crystal
formation in the first place.

| 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> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 17:28 GMT
:> In article <47968789$0$17192$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
: Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote:

:> : This is
:> : one of the lies of conventional medicine, that people don't accumulate
:> : too much acid.

:> Are you suggesting that conventional medicine denies the existence of
:> gout?

: And how do they treat this condition?

That is irrelevant to the question that I asked.

: So conventional medicine recognises gout but will only treat it with
: pharmaceutical drugs when it should be treated with nutrition.

If conventional medicine recognizes the existence of gout, then it
recognizes that it is possible to accumulate too much acid in the body.
What part of that is too complicated for you to understand?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
                -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
rpautrey2 - 26 Jan 2008 05:16 GMT
PM: What makes Dr. Briggs an expert in/on alternative medicine? In/on
complementary medicine? I'm not impressed or excitited. PA

Excerpts From:
Josephine Briggs, M.D., Named Director of NIH's National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, Elias A. Zerhouni,
M.D.,
has named Josephine P. Briggs, M.D., to be the director of the
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM).
An
accomplished researcher and physician, Dr. Briggs brings a ...

Dr. Briggs received her A.B. cum laude in biology from Harvard-
Radcliffe College and her M.D. from Harvard Medical School. She
completed her residency training in internal medicine and nephrology
at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, followed by a research
fellowship in physiology at Yale School of Medicine. She was a
professor of internal medicine and physiology at the University of
Michigan from 1993 to 1997. From 1997 to 2006 she was director of the
Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases in the
National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. For the last
year and a half she has been senior scientific officer at the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute.

Dr. Briggs has published more than 125 research articles and is on
the
editorial boards of numerous journals. She is an elected member of
the
American Association of Physicians and a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. She is also a recipient
of
the Volhard Prize of the German Nephrological Society. Her research
interests include the renin-angiotensin system, diabetic nephropathy
and the effect of antioxidants in kidney disease.

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine's
mission is to explore complementary and alternative medical practices
in the context of rigorous science, train CAM researchers, and
disseminate authoritative information to the public and
professionals.
For additional information, call NCCAM's Clearinghouse toll free at
1-888-644-6226, or visit the NCCAM Web site at:
www.nccam.nih.gov

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) -- The Nation's Medical
Research Agency -- includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a
component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is
the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic,
clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the
causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For
more information about NIH and its programs, visit:
www.nih.gov

> Yes, there's some of that.  But why is it that this element to the
> mainstream enables you to dismiss everything a basically honest  doctor like
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> PM
Jan Drew - 27 Jan 2008 01:52 GMT
PM: What makes Dr. Briggs an expert in/on alternative medicine? In/on
complementary medicine? I'm not impressed or excitited. PA

Excerpts From:
Josephine Briggs, M.D., Named Director of NIH's National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, Elias A. Zerhouni,
M.D.,
has named Josephine P. Briggs, M.D., to be the director of the
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM).
An
accomplished researcher and physician, Dr. Briggs brings a ...

Dr. Briggs received her A.B. cum laude in biology from Harvard-
Radcliffe College and her M.D. from Harvard Medical School. She
completed her residency training in internal medicine and nephrology
at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, followed by a research
fellowship in physiology at Yale School of Medicine. She was a
professor of internal medicine and physiology at the University of
Michigan from 1993 to 1997. From 1997 to 2006 she was director of the
Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases in the
National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. For the last
year and a half she has been senior scientific officer at the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute.

Dr. Briggs has published more than 125 research articles and is on
the
editorial boards of numerous journals. She is an elected member of
the
American Association of Physicians and a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. She is also a recipient
of
the Volhard Prize of the German Nephrological Society. Her research
interests include the renin-angiotensin system, diabetic nephropathy
and the effect of antioxidants in kidney disease.

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine's
mission is to explore complementary and alternative medical practices
in the context of rigorous science, train CAM researchers, and
disseminate authoritative information to the public and
professionals.
For additional information, call NCCAM's Clearinghouse toll free at
1-888-644-6226, or visit the NCCAM Web site at:
www.nccam.nih.gov

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) -- The Nation's Medical
Research Agency -- includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a
component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is
the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic,
clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the
causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For
more information about NIH and its programs, visit:
www.nih.gov

On Jan 22, 4:27 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Yes, there's some of that. But why is it that this element to the
> mainstream enables you to dismiss everything a basically honest doctor
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> PM

A basically honest doctor like me....

What a hoot!

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/bb9d653f7997ad92

Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20041114174816.06439.00000622@mb-m18.aol.com...

> >From: "Peter Moran" mori...@gil.com.au

>>We deserve to have the truth the matter.

>>Peter Moran

> Here is an example of the truth of the matter, which Peter Moran flat out
> denies

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/809196.asp

> All medical advances have entailed risk, ever since the first caveman
> said"I
> wonder what this berry does?".

> Using retroviruses to try and correct lethal and potentially lethal gene
> defects is a very legitimate and logic alavenue of medical research. So
> this is
> nothing to do with "conspiracies", "coverups" .

> It is a matter of the quality of informed consent that was applied.    It
> would
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> this
> rather emotive news item.

>>Peter Moran

Thanks, Jan.  One of my better posts.

Peter Moran

> *Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger's
> home
> in
> Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was
> safe.*

>  Documents

>  .  Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
> experiments.
> .  March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
> therapy experiment.

> (No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

> The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson's team had never told him
> that anyone had ever raised questions about safety

> (That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter
> Moran.)

> ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
>       And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> covered
> up problems and broken basic test rules.

> In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
> several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them
> died.

> (No coverup there)

> The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly
> ill,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>       But when it happened a third time, they didn't stop, didn't call.
>       Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call then either

> (No coverups there).

>       For their own safety, volunteers weren't supposed to have a blood
> ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> experiment, his reading was 114 - more than double the original safety
> limit.

> (That's way cool huh Peter???)

> HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
>       With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in
> other
> volunteers, even to Jesse's own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson's team
> allowed the experiment to continue?

> (Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)

>       At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved
> Dr.
> Wilson's arrangement with Genovo.
>       In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and
> stood to
> profit, too.

> (Hmmmmmmmmm).

>       In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
> "should have been shared with the FDA sooner."

> (Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

> There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey
> deaths.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> family
> to make any kind of informed decision."

> (Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)

> CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

>       He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures
> had
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>       So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
> Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.

> (TRust the government!!!)

> "I was outraged," says Paul. "I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
> know.

> (Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).

> ***In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr.
> Wilson
> filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately
> violated regulations ****

> REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!

> ***Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and
> deliberately violated regulations ***

> (No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate
> violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)

>       This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger's death. At
> the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson

> ****is still on the faculty****

> (Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)

> ****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****

> ****REPEATED and DELIBERATE  violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***

> but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
> lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for
> medical
> volunteers.

> ******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his
> family
> thought they could trust.*********
drceephd@insightbb.com - 27 Jan 2008 02:22 GMT
> PM: What makes Dr. Briggs an expert in/on alternative medicine? In/on
> complementary medicine? I'm not impressed or excitited. PA

One of the things that separates main stream medicine from alternative
medicine is the way the main streamers pat each other on the back for
their suposed abilities to confuse and deceive the public.  Their
curiculum vitaes are measured in pounds as much as sheets of paper.
This also makes them "experts" when testifying in courts whether or
not they are espousing the truth or some brainwashed lie.

Obviously Dr Briggs is a non-expert, an ignoramous, when it comes to
anything alternative.  However, it makes for a good cover story for
big pharma.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly ( I have no license to miam or
kill )
vernon O - 27 Jan 2008 18:05 GMT
Information for the idiots.
ALL medicine was once "Alternate" and still is.
Chemo is alternate to surgery.   DDUUUUHHHH

> PM: What makes Dr. Briggs an expert in/on alternative medicine? In/on
> complementary medicine? I'm not impressed or excitited. PA
[quoted text clipped - 264 lines]
>> family
>> thought they could trust.*********
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 12:57 GMT
> Convince me that "modern" data supplants any "truth" that may have
> been discovered and reported 1,000s of years ago?

That would require some basis for choosing between them.

In particular, the whole idea of revelation is incompatible with
that of incremental advance.  The Truth discovered thousands of
years ago is, like the Revelation at Sinai, not subject to either
replication or improvement.  If you believe that it is the final
word on the subject, then by definition no further discussion is
possible aside from exegesis.

The epistemology of authority is certainly well-established;
Western scholarship operated for millennia by expanding on the
revelations of Aristotle and other great minds.

| 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> --------------+
Carole - 22 Jan 2008 16:24 GMT
On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> http://gerson-research.org/bibliography/index.html#SauerbruchF-1951-1

Gee.  A bibliography, the overwhelming majority of which is 70+ years
old, with a few more recent cites devoid of any primary research
content thrown in...  Color me underwhelmed.

****
CH> While your about being underwhelmed, would you believe that the current
orthodox treatment for cancer is about 90 years old? -

http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Believe.html
Chapter 13: Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail

"Since the 1920s medical progress in curing cancer has come to a virtual
dead end. The reason: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments are so,
so profitable for pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, petroleum
companies, doctors, hospitals, medical equipment makers, charities, media
companies, and many other industries."

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

***
And I assume you've taken the time to dig up these references and read
them all personally to see if the claims are warranted by the original
studies?  T's only common courtesy before grilling others about it...

Dunner
Dunner - 22 Jan 2008 23:35 GMT
> On Jan 21, 11:33 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> CH> While your about being underwhelmed, would you believe that the current
> orthodox treatment for cancer is about 90 years old? -

The current orthodox treatment?  Ummm.  Hate to burst your bubble but
there is no "the treatment" in conventional oncology.  Treatments vary
considerably depending upon the type of cancer, it's location, it's
stage, and numerous other factors (now with some genetic testing going
on to gauge potential responsiveness to particular types of
chemotherapy).  Admittedly, conventional oncology has had dismal
results with some cancers.  In other types of cancer some progress has
been made (demonstrated by rates of survival and years of being in
remission), and in others great strides have been made.  An example of
this, which I have personal experience with, is in childhood
leukemias.  An old dear freind of mine has a child that was diagnosed
two years ago with ALL.  Twenty years ago this would have pretty much
meant to begin preparing for a funeral.  Thanks to treatments (and to
the fact that the form he had was treatment responsive) He is now, two
years later, in remission and is in good health and cheer.  Admittedly
there can still be an increased rate of problems down the line, but
the fact that a child who would otherwise have died now has a chance
to grow and experience life, is, I emphatically believe, a good
thing.  And accomplished thanks to medical research.

Also, in some cases, surgeries and radiotherapy are merely
palliative.  They don't cure but can reduce little things like intense
pain and suffering - no small thing in my book.

Heck, just goto medline and do a MeSH search on neoplsms/drug
therapy,dietary therapy, Therapy, surgery, radiotherapy.  You will get
close to a half million articles going back to the 50's.  I'd hardly
think there'd be that many if there was only one "conventional
therapy".

(And MEDLINE does have selection criteria as to it's coverage and
though they certainly are weighted (for obvious reasons) to
conventional medicine, they have added quite a few alternative
journals over the years.)

>  http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Believe.html
> Chapter 13: Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Carolewww.cellsalts.net

Well, actually progress has been made, and modern medicine is not the
paranoid hellhole of nefarious evildoing conspiracists that you seem
to think it is.  Sure there is corruption, big money will lead to that
just as it will in alternative medicine or most any other lucrative
endeavor.  It is an (illogical) and rather large leap to say that
these incidents of corruption mean that the whole enterprise is
corrupt.  That demonstrates a very basic logical fallacy, a hasty
generalisation.

Anyway, to jump back to another topic, briefly, that ties in, you
never responded to my comment in the thread on Autism and thimerosal,
with regard to another potential causative factor.

That would be the simple fact of that population's genetic isolation
from the population at large and the fact that a large percentage of
their populationcan be traced back to just a few family lines.  A
consequence of this would be that they do not suffer from some
relatively common maladies effecting the population at large, but are
disproportionately effected by certin inborn conditions that are
almost unhear of in the general population.

A case in point here (and one for which the Amish owe a great debt of
thanks to conventional medicine) would be maple syrup urine disease.
This condition occurs rare in the general populace (somewhere in the
range of 1 in 250000 or so births [the exact number escapes me]), but
occurs amongst the Amish in about 1 in every 300 births (again the
numbers are not exact but close).

And not only do they have conventional medicine to thank for the
treatment for this once fatal condition, but the great all knowing
"Medico-pharaco-conspiracy" must have been caught napping, as the
primary treatment for this condition is dietary modification, all
thanks to conventional medicine...

But hey, no need to let things like mere details and facts stand in
the way of a good conspiracy theory...

Dunner
Dunner - 22 Jan 2008 23:42 GMT
> Heck, just goto medline and do a MeSH search on neoplsms/drug

Oops.  Meant "neoplasms" in the sentence above...

Dunner
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 05:27 GMT
:> Heck, just goto medline and do a MeSH search on neoplsms/drug
:
: Oops.  Meant "neoplasms" in the sentence above...

I would have been happier had your "oops" been for your inability to
correctly distinguish "it's" from "its," which, unlike "neoplsm" for
"neoplasm," cannot easily be explained as a typo.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Dunner - 23 Jan 2008 16:20 GMT
> In article <86dbe095-e0b6-401b-b836-988c72df7...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Dunner <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote:
> :
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> -----
> "I've lost my harmonica, Albert."

Well, it's a sure bet that that I'd not be too concerned about the
happiness of a pedant...

But thanks for your contribution...  I prolly should'a rereaded more
closely, golly shawks an' all...

Dunner
Carole - 23 Jan 2008 00:39 GMT
On Jan 22, 11:24 am, "Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
> "Dunner" <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> CH> While your about being underwhelmed, would you believe that the current
> orthodox treatment for cancer is about 90 years old? -

The current orthodox treatment?  Ummm.  Hate to burst your bubble but
there is no "the treatment" in conventional oncology.

CH> The treatments are slash, burn and poison (surgery, radiation and chemo)
that haven't changed since the 1920s except some "improvements" in chemo
drugs to justify higher prices. It doesn't suit big pharma to cure disease,
especially with anything cheap and easily available, because their industry
would go down the drain and it needs to remain strong and viable. So they
use propaganda to convince people that it works, and a few cures to
demonstrate that it works.

Treatments vary
considerably depending upon the type of cancer, it's location, it's
stage, and numerous other factors (now with some genetic testing going
on to gauge potential responsiveness to particular types of
chemotherapy).  Admittedly, conventional oncology has had dismal
results with some cancers.  In other types of cancer some progress has
been made (demonstrated by rates of survival and years of being in
remission), and in others great strides have been made.  An example of
this, which I have personal experience with, is in childhood
leukemias.  An old dear freind of mine has a child that was diagnosed
two years ago with ALL.  Twenty years ago this would have pretty much
meant to begin preparing for a funeral.  Thanks to treatments (and to
the fact that the form he had was treatment responsive) He is now, two
years later, in remission and is in good health and cheer.  Admittedly
there can still be an increased rate of problems down the line, but
the fact that a child who would otherwise have died now has a chance
to grow and experience life, is, I emphatically believe, a good
thing.  And accomplished thanks to medical research.

CH> This customer may still not make it, or if they die of complications
from the treatments they will probably get listed as death from some
unrelated cause such as pneumonia, to keep the statistics looking good.

Also, in some cases, surgeries and radiotherapy are merely
palliative.  They don't cure but can reduce little things like intense
pain and suffering - no small thing in my book.

CH> What a convenient outlook to rationalise a therapy that can't produce
the goods.

Heck, just goto medline and do a MeSH search on neoplsms/drug
therapy,dietary therapy, Therapy, surgery, radiotherapy.  You will get
close to a half million articles going back to the 50's.  I'd hardly
think there'd be that many if there was only one "conventional
therapy".

(And MEDLINE does have selection criteria as to it's coverage and
though they certainly are weighted (for obvious reasons) to
conventional medicine, they have added quite a few alternative
journals over the years.)

CH> That's a pretty biased outlook, but typical.

> http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Believe.html
> Chapter 13: Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Carolewww.cellsalts.net

Well, actually progress has been made, and modern medicine is not the
paranoid hellhole of nefarious evildoing conspiracists that you seem
to think it is.  Sure there is corruption, big money will lead to that
just as it will in alternative medicine or most any other lucrative
endeavor.  It is an (illogical) and rather large leap to say that
these incidents of corruption mean that the whole enterprise is
corrupt.  That demonstrates a very basic logical fallacy, a hasty
generalisation.

Anyway, to jump back to another topic, briefly, that ties in, you
never responded to my comment in the thread on Autism and thimerosal,
with regard to another potential causative factor.

CH> Didn't I. Sorry about that.

That would be the simple fact of that population's genetic isolation
from the population at large and the fact that a large percentage of
their populationcan be traced back to just a few family lines.  A
consequence of this would be that they do not suffer from some
relatively common maladies effecting the population at large, but are
disproportionately effected by certin inborn conditions that are
almost unhear of in the general population.

CH> I thought of that, but it is a long shot.

A case in point here (and one for which the Amish owe a great debt of
thanks to conventional medicine) would be maple syrup urine disease.
This condition occurs rare in the general populace (somewhere in the
range of 1 in 250000 or so births [the exact number escapes me]), but
occurs amongst the Amish in about 1 in every 300 births (again the
numbers are not exact but close).

CH> I've never heard of this disease. What is it?

And not only do they have conventional medicine to thank for the
treatment for this once fatal condition, but the great all knowing
"Medico-pharaco-conspiracy" must have been caught napping, as the
primary treatment for this condition is dietary modification, all
thanks to conventional medicine...

CH> So what is the treatment?

But hey, no need to let things like mere details and facts stand in
the way of a good conspiracy theory...

CH> Conspiracies are going on all the time. There are people in high places
plotting and manipulating to get rich at the expense of the poor people, and
we know about some of these big corporations how they would sell their souls
to get more money.
Those at the top of the foodchain plot to create legislation to remove
people's rights, to take over their lands and assets, to mind control and so
on. There are conspiracies to get rid of certain influences, think tanks on
how to manipulate the masses, black budgets, deep underground bases and lots
of suppressed technology for reasons of "national security". People wouldn't
know a fraction of what is really going on behind their backs, while all the
time they are entertained with human interest and superficial stories by the
media.
Don't kid yourself that conspiracies are the exception.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

Dunner
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 01:08 GMT
> Don't kid yourself that conspiracies are the exception.

No, Carole -- everyone is in on it except you.
For more details check out the definitive account by
Richard Matheson.

| 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> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 05:30 GMT
: In message <47968cb1$0$17238$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole wrote:
:> Don't kid yourself that conspiracies are the exception.

: No, Carole -- everyone is in on it except you.

If I'm in on the conspiracy, how do you explain my discovery that every
museum in London has a special exhibit that closes two days before I am
going to be in London?  (Except for the terra cotta soldiers at the
British Museum -- which only has tickets available for the 11 pm entrance,
i.e. an hour after my plane is scheduled to leave.)

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Carole - 23 Jan 2008 09:58 GMT
> > Don't kid yourself that conspiracies are the exception.
>
> No, Carole -- everyone is in on it except you.
> For more details check out the definitive account by
> Richard Matheson.

As I've said to you before, it wouldn't hurt if you left a bit more of the
paras leading up to your response.
Definitive account of what?

> --
> | 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> --------------+
Dunner - 23 Jan 2008 04:13 GMT
> "Dunner" <Dun...@singapore.com> wrote in message

> CH> I've never heard of this disease. What is it?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> CH> So what is the treatment?

Well, I won't adress the conspiracy stuff, as I don't really see much
point.

As to your question, classical MSUD is relatively rare except in
certain populations.   And you see it alot in areas with Amish (and
Mennonite) populations.  It's an inborn error of metabolism that
causes amino acids to be improperly digested and they subsequently
intoxicate instead of nourish and eventually leads to coma and death.
One distinguishing feature is that the urine has a distinct maple
syrup odor.

Treatment consists of severely restricting proteins and periodically
checking levels of certain amino acids top avoid acute toxicity and
supplementing with vitamins and other supplements to avoid
deficiencies.

Dunner
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 13:45 GMT
> Treatment consists of severely restricting proteins and periodically
> checking levels of certain amino acids top avoid acute toxicity and
> supplementing with vitamins and other supplements to avoid
> deficiencies.

Aha!  You see, Evil Orthodox Medicine hasn't got a clue about this
and so parents turn to the only thing that reliably works: nutritional
medicine!

| 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> --------------+
Debbee - 23 Jan 2008 14:14 GMT
> Aha!  You see, Evil Orthodox Medicine hasn't got a clue about this
> and so parents turn to the only thing that reliably works: nutritional
> medicine!

The smart conventional ones do.  My father had gout--his doctor
prescribed "sauerkraut
juice," whenever he got an attack of gout.  Worked like a charm.
D. C. Sessions - 24 Jan 2008 19:59 GMT
>> Aha!  You see, Evil Orthodox Medicine hasn't got a clue about this
>> and so parents turn to the only thing that reliably works: nutritional
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> prescribed "sauerkraut
> juice," whenever he got an attack of gout.  Worked like a charm.

Whooooooooooooooosh!