Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2008
Why there is no scientific evidence to support alternative medicine
|
|
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!
|
|