We subscribe to Life Extension magazine. They are constantly doing clinical
studies. (Not on the cellfood), but on the benefits or certain vitamins &
minerals and some herbs.
They come out with their studies years before the medical community finally
comes around to embrace some of the very same findings.

Rae

That's just the problem - I don't think you are understanding what we
are saying.

You give "choice" too much of a role in determining what you believe.
As much as is humanly possible you shouldn't be chosing what you want
to believe. You should be examining the evidence and letting that tell
you what to believe.

When you look at a website that gives vague explanantions of
physiology (that even at that have obvious errors) and testimonials
from names unknown to you you chose to believe it.

Instead, I look at the evidence. Does the explantion make sense? (In
the case of orally available forms of oxygen it does not). Is there
scientific evidence to suggest it works? (In this case there is not).
Is there evidence that shows it does not work? (In this case, yes).

So I do not believe it works but not because of some consious
decision, but rather, because of the evidence, both theoretical and
practical. That is the difference.

Let me give you another example. I'm sure by now you are thinking that
I am just plain biased against alternative meds and as a corrolary you
think that there is something systematic that does not allow evidence
for them to emerge.

I have been taking fish oil supplements (100mg per day) for some time
both for heart health and because it has some anti-inflammatory
effects on joints (amongst some other bone and muscle effects). I
think it has helped my knees feel better than they have in 10 years
(but there have been a few other things that may have contributed to
that).

Recently I went to a talk given by the head of the hyperlipidemia
clinic at Hershey Medical Center (Hershey, PA) - can't get any more
main stream establishment then that. In it he advocated strongly for
taking fish oil to treat hypertriglyceridemia at doses of up to 12
grams per day.

Soon after that I read a meta-analysis of studies on lipid lowering
drugs. In it the "drug" with the strongest negative association with
death was not statins (about 0.87 OR) but fish oil (0.77 OR) - 13%
reduction vs. 23% - it was not even close.

So now I have upped my intake of fish oil several-fold. I also take
glucosamine for my knees as there is considerable evidence to suggest
a moderate effect for it.

Similarly, CoQ for vascular disease, St. John's Wort for mild to
moderate depression, Saw Palmetto for prostate disease, Vitamin E for
a number of things (like menstrual cramps), and B vitamins for
migraines (B6 50 mg per day) and as an insect repelant (thiamine 100mg
bid) all have data to support their use (just to name a few off the
top of my head - not an all encompassing list). And, yes, I have
recommended all the above to patients.

So you can't really paint me as a rabid anti-alternative
medicine/supplement pharma-shill. You also can't really claim that
alternative meds can't be studied either due to politcal reasons or
because of their nature.

So now you are left without any explanation as to why I am not
accepting the things you are espousing and why there is not more
support for them - except, of course, the obvious.

Actually, I'll be glad to add to your list:  Lister and Harvey.  These, and
the examples that you gave, are familiar ammunition for quacks to make it
appear that they are "just ahead of their time", as were  these pioneers of
medicine.  The times in which these innovators lived were much less
scientific, and religious dogma often dictated which treatments saw the
light of day.  The reason that these pioneers' ideas were adopted was that
they were vindicated by scientific scrutuny.  While those proponents were
anxious to subject their ideas to such scientific examination, the quacks
resist such scrutiny.  This is not a battle of medical philosophy (as the
nostrum peddlers would have one believe), but a battle of the fradulent
versus the provable.

There is a reason that I asked for that list.  I knew that you would be able
to provide a  number of examples who  exemplify some misunderstood pioneers.
Now, for part two (and the longer part):  Provide a list of all the people
who were called quacks and turned out to really be quacks.  I hope that
you're not susceptable to writer's cramp...

The author is showing his bias witht at statement. "All medical
innovations are alternatives and are labelled quackery initially"? -
How absurd.

Nearly all medical innovations are immediately recognized as such and
are never considered quackery. At worst they go through a period of
cautious optomism where they are considered promising but unproved.

I like how you have to go back centuries and look to pioneers of new
fields in eras before the scientific method was universally adopted to
find just a few examples. It really proves A Robert's point.

Oh, geeze.

No wonder you have the ideas you do. Go ahead and try to verify some
of the facts he spews forth in this diatribe - it should be
interesting.

Mercy, truth at last.  Thanks, Bob, for an intelligent summation.

I am? Gee, I didn't realize I had such powers!

Well I did supply a true quack link for Alan's amusement since he
'requested' me to do so so nicely.

But getting back to the qwakery comment. You really don't have to go back as
far as penicillen and the others we mentioned.

It wasn't until the past few of years that doctors finally started opening
their minds to the fact that we do benefit from supplements. Up until recent
years, they all would respond to questions about vitamins and supplements
the same way, "if you eat a balanced diet, you don't need that".... It was
all quackery!!! Why? Because they weren't taught it in school. Now they are
finally catching up so guess what? It's no longer Kwakery!

Grow up and smell the coffee beans! And btw, Jack didn't say "nonsense". I
believe the word he used was "morons"....

Rae

a-roberts1@comcast.net (aroberts),wrote:

Raeka8@yahoo.com (Rae) wrote:

Rae

Keeping in mind that quackery involves making unsubstantiated health
claims, as you are given to do on a regular basis, yes, there has been
and continues to be quackery among some chiropractors.  These
individuals do a disservice to their profession and should be
disciplined.  In fact, at least in the U.S., each state has a
licensing board that disciplines those who are in the practice of
making fraudulent treatment/health claims.

It is no suprise. There are good ones and bad ones. I have one or two
that I refer patients to and I know of one or two that I try to
dissuade them from seeing.

It is an incrulous statement. Deciding, based mostly or soley on
personal choice, what scientific theory to believe is rediculous. By
this argument I should probably just concede the point and then decide
not to believe you exist.

Bob is the chiropractor. I'm sure that is why NSCEO brought it up. He
doesn't need to defend his profession.

Yeah, today.  Thirty, forty, fifty years ago they were all viewed
as quacks that only whacked out people put any faith into.
Insurance companies wouldn't reimburse anyone for chiropractic
care.  The feeling that they're all quacks is still alive and
well in many of the more rigid seniors today who grew up with
this belief and can't open their minds to anything else.

Having said that, I will add that I believe Rae gives too much
credence to supplements and not enough to traditional medicine.
My point is that she is right in saying that there are a number
of accepted practices today that were once ridiculed, and Bob, of
all people, should know that's true.