 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / February 2006Quackery
As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a discredited author out to sell a book with no information other than innuendo and the unsupported claims. A great web site that deals with "questionable" medical claims is www.quackwatch.com Allergy is not the most reputable specialty in medicine. You did bother to go to medical school though. >As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a >discredited author out to sell a book with no information other than >innuendo and the unsupported claims. Make your own infomercial then, and perhaps they will rather believe what you have to offer. >>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Make your own infomercial then, and perhaps they will rather believe > what you have to offer. If it doesn't involve a clutzy, hyperactive, 3rd grade dropout, fruitcake it won't work. >>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Make your own infomercial then, and perhaps they will rather believe > what you have to offer. Why is everyone jumping on this guy? He sounds pretty rational to me. >>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the >>>American Public [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why is everyone jumping on this guy? He sounds pretty rational > to me. I don't know if he sounds rational, as he doesn't note the book and author he's referencing, but I, too, wondered about the pile on. >>>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't know if he sounds rational, as he doesn't note the book and author > he's referencing, but I, too, wondered about the pile on. I gathered that he was referring to brad_chad's library, *the* book, although his post wasn't explicit about it. He sounded rational to me because he was warning against unsupported, populist "science". >>>>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>>>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >although his post wasn't explicit about it. He sounded rational to me >because he was warning against unsupported, populist "science". I'm guessing he is referring to Kevin Trudeau's infomercial, selling the book with all the answers that "they" (you know, the vast medical/pharma conspiracy cartel) don't want any of us to know about. > >>>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public > >>>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > although his post wasn't explicit about it. He sounded rational to me > because he was warning against unsupported, populist "science". I was trying to make the point that conventional medicine doesn't know as much about the human body as they try to make people believe. There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative doctors disagree with them on many things. Alternative doctors go to state medical schools just like conventional doctors. Alternative doctors are smart enough to realize that food sensitivities create many medical problems, and they also realize that some prescription medicines are overkill in certain situations. Sometimes a mild herbal supplement is sufficient. Brad_Chad >> >>>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American >> >>>>Public [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I was trying to make the point that conventional medicine doesn't > know as much about the human body as they try to make people believe. And your naturopathic doctor who claims that he has an 80% cure rate with asthma isn't indulging in hyperbole? Please. I'm still waiting for his name and information. It would be interesting to see what his local credentialing board has to say about such claims, and his ability to back them up. > There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative > doctors disagree with them on many things. If they can back that disagreement up with science, that's OK. It's what makes advancements in treatments. Unfortunately, I've seen lots of claims that are just that: claims. > Alternative doctors go to > state medical schools just like conventional doctors. A few do, most don't. > Alternative doctors are smart enough to realize that food > sensitivities create many medical problems, and they also realize that > some prescription medicines are overkill in certain situations. > Sometimes a mild herbal supplement is sufficient. Any chemical, whether compounded by an herbalist or by a pharmacist under a doctor's orders, has an effect on the human body. Drugs have to pass muster for purity, efficacy and safety, while herbs do not. Don't you think that there is ever a time when herbs are "overkill"? Say--echinaeca being used as a treatment for asthma? BTW, I recommeded the Brostoff book for a friend who has a son with ADHD; it's a possiblility that is worth a try to alleviate the meds that he has to take. That doesn't mean that it will work in this case, and certainly not in all. Most diseases are much more complex that those with pet panaceas are willing to concede. > And your naturopathic doctor who claims that he has an 80% cure rate with > asthma isn't indulging in hyperbole? Please. > I'm still waiting for his name and information. It would be interesting to > see what his local credentialing board has to say about such claims, and his > ability to back them up. I already invited you to contact any naturopathic doctor (Yellow Pages) or alternative doctor (www.acam.org) to see what they say. I guess it's too hard to pick up a phone. > > There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative > > doctors disagree with them on many things. > > If they can back that disagreement up with science, that's OK. It's what > makes advancements in treatments. Unfortunately, I've seen lots of claims > that are just that: claims. I have said this a thousand times. The organizations with the big bucks to do this elaborate research that you want, are not going to do it. I told you that big business does not want to do research that "proves" that people can beat many health problems without the use of medicine. Follow the money. Pharmaceutical companies lose money when people find their Hidden Food Sensitivities. Processed food companies lose money when people find their Hidden Food Sensitivities (HFS), because these foods are loaded with common allergens (wheat, corn, soy, dairy, and eggs). Tell me something. Lets say, you were living 200 years ago, and you had scurvy. If somebody told you that oranges were good for your scurvy, would you say that that was anectdotal and refuse to eat the orange? Would you say that that was the "placebo" effect? I know, you would rather have died waiting for "science" to "prove" that oranges were good for scurvy. Brad_Chad > > Alternative doctors go to > > state medical schools just like conventional doctors. > > A few do, most don't. My doctor is a licensed state doctor. I checked him out, and he hasn't had any disciplinary problems with the state board. Brad_Chad > > Alternative doctors are smart enough to realize that food > > sensitivities create many medical problems, and they also realize that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there is ever a time when herbs are "overkill"? Say--echinaeca being used > as a treatment for asthma? Wouldn't it be healthier to avoid drugs if you can by adjusting people's diet? You don't have to worry about future side effects if you never take drugs. Think about it. Brad_Chad > BTW, I recommeded the Brostoff book for a friend who has a son with ADHD; > it's a possiblility that is worth a try to alleviate the meds that he has to > take. That doesn't mean that it will work in this case, and certainly not > in all. Most diseases are much more complex that those with pet panaceas > are willing to concede. Brostoff is a smart guy. His book gives an overview of the whole conventional/alternative debate about food allergies and intolerances. He also explains how the medical community has screwed up research on Hidden Food Sensitivities, and advertised this flawed research. I learned from his book what precise questions I should ask my conventional allergist so that I would not be mislead by his answers. Brad_Chad >> And your naturopathic doctor who claims that he has an 80% cure rate with >> asthma isn't indulging in hyperbole? Please. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Pages) or alternative doctor (www.acam.org) to see what they say. I > guess it's too hard to pick up a phone. I'll be glad to pick up a phone when you give me the name of the doctor who claims an 80% cure rate with asthma. >> > There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative >> > doctors disagree with them on many things. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have said this a thousand times. And that's the problem. It's just too much and too mindlessly applied. The organizations with the big > bucks to do this elaborate research that you want, are not going to do > it. I told you that big business does not want to do research that > "proves" that people can beat many health problems without the use of > medicine. Follow the money. Then your naturopathic doctor just donates his treatments? It doesn't take money to make false claims, just dishonesty. As in an 80% cure rate for asthma. > Tell me something. Lets say, you were living 200 years ago, and > you had scurvy. If somebody told you that oranges were good for your > scurvy, would you say that that was anectdotal and refuse to eat the > orange? Would you say that that was the "placebo" effect? I know, you > would rather have died waiting for "science" to "prove" that oranges > were good for scurvy. Two hundred years ago, most of medicine was anecdotal. Let's turn it around: suppose that the person had recommended an amita mushroom instead of an orange. More died from misinformation of that kind that were helped. The fact is that when something works, that success can be tested under controlled conditions and then becomes "conventional" medicine. That was true of vitamin C, and after it was scientifically demonstrated to be effective, it was accepted as part of medical orthodoxy. You'll need to provide better than that weak logic to support your desire to pursue untested, guess-medicine. Most of what you have been posting has been subjected to rigorous testing and dismissed as not withstanding scrutiny, including your specious claim about the prevalence of asthma from hidden food sensitivities. >> A few do, most don't. > > My doctor is a licensed state doctor. I checked him out, and he > hasn't had any disciplinary problems with the state board. If he continues to claim that he can cure asthma (at at an 80% rate), he will. > Wouldn't it be healthier to avoid drugs if you can by adjusting > people's diet? Sure, but it isn't always possible. > I'll be glad to pick up a phone when you give me the name of the doctor who > claims an 80% cure rate with asthma. I didn't say "cure". I said that patients will show improvement. Many people never have asthma again. It is in the double digits, percentage wise. It is in no way "scant". Look, are you going to get off your butt and make the call or not? > >> > There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative > >> > doctors disagree with them on many things. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> claims > >> that are just that: claims. There have been small studies involving less than 100 people. The results were anything but insignificant. It would be extremely difficult (and costly) to get a large enough group of people to perform a study that would satisfy your "scientific" expectations. I never said that this is a cure, or that it works for everybody. This is something that takes only a few days, and is safe, so from that perspective your request are petty. If we were living 200 years ago, and had scurvy, you would need a "scientific" report to "prove" that oranges are good for scurvy. I would just eat the orange and call it a day. I can see how scientific proof would be important in many cases, but in some cases it is just petty. Brad_Chad > > I have said this a thousand times. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > money to make false claims, just dishonesty. As in an 80% cure rate for > asthma. A sucker is born every minute. Conventional doctors have rigged the system so that people have an economic incentive to use their health insurance with conventional doctors. That does not make conventional medicine better. People may not be paying for health insurance through the front door, but they are paying for it through the back door. Patients of alternative doctors are forced to pay for their service through the front door. Conventional medicine just hides the way that it rips off the consumer. Read "What Doctors Don't Want You to Know" by Dr. Evan Levine. He's a Cardiologist at a hospital in New York. He explains how conventional medicine is corrupted. Brad_Chad > > Tell me something. Lets say, you were living 200 years ago, and > > you had scurvy. If somebody told you that oranges were good for your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > including your specious claim about the prevalence of asthma from hidden > food sensitivities. Hidden Food Sensitivities involves taking problem foods OUT of your diet. How can that be harmful? The fact that it can only take a few days to see results makes your argument petty. I said from the beginning that it DOES NOT work for everybody. That still doesn't mean that it's not worth trying. The results will be overwhelming for many. If 100 people are trapped in a burning building, do you give up trying to save any of them if you can't save ALL of them. Brad_Chad > >> A few do, most don't. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sure, but it isn't always possible. You can reduce the need for drugs if you find people's food sensitivities. Conventional medicine just wants to hide a safe alternative like HFS from people. That is why I have less respect for them than I used to. I suffered with severe joint pain for years with conventional medicine. They just gave me pain relievers that made me drowsy. If I had paid to see an alternative doctor, my health would have been outstanding much sooner. I would rather live a great life with "placebo", than a life in pain, using a lot of drugs. Conventional medicine wouldn't tell me about HFS because they don't know why it happens. Knowing why it happens is important when there is a possibility of danger. There is no possibility of danger with Hidden Food Sensitivities (HFS), so the only reason you need to know why is for egotistical reasons. Alternative medicine just accepts that they don't know, and don't need to know. They just know that people need to get over their suffering so that they can get on with their lives. Since this is not dangerous, everything else is PETTY. Brad_Chad > And your naturopathic doctor who claims that he has an 80% cure rate with > asthma isn't indulging in hyperbole? Please. > I'm still waiting for his name and information. It would be interesting to > see what his local credentialing board has to say about such claims, and his > ability to back them up. I already invited you to contact any naturopathic doctor (Yellow Pages) or alternative doctor (www.acam.org) to see what they say. I guess it's too hard to pick up a phone. > > There is a whole lot that they don't know. That is why alternative > > doctors disagree with them on many things. > > If they can back that disagreement up with science, that's OK. It's what > makes advancements in treatments. Unfortunately, I've seen lots of claims > that are just that: claims. I have said this a thousand times. The organizations with the big bucks to do this elaborate research that you want, are not going to do it. I told you that big business does not want to do research that "proves" that people can beat many health problems without the use of medicine. Follow the money. Pharmaceutical companies lose money when people find their Hidden Food Sensitivities. Processed food companies lose money when people find their Hidden Food Sensitivities (HFS), because these foods are loaded with common allergens (wheat, corn, soy, dairy, and eggs). Tell me something. Lets say, you were living 200 years ago, and you had scurvy. If somebody told you that oranges were good for your scurvy, would you say that that was anectdotal and refuse to eat the orange? Would you say that that was the "placebo" effect? I know, you would rather have died waiting for "science" to "prove" that oranges were good for scurvy. Brad_Chad > > Alternative doctors go to > > state medical schools just like conventional doctors. > > A few do, most don't. My doctor is a licensed state doctor. I checked him out, and he hasn't had any disciplinary problems with the state board. Brad_Chad > > Alternative doctors are smart enough to realize that food > > sensitivities create many medical problems, and they also realize that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there is ever a time when herbs are "overkill"? Say--echinaeca being used > as a treatment for asthma? Wouldn't it be healthier to avoid drugs if you can by adjusting people's diet? You don't have to worry about future side effects if you never take drugs. Think about it. Brad_Chad > BTW, I recommeded the Brostoff book for a friend who has a son with ADHD; > it's a possiblility that is worth a try to alleviate the meds that he has to > take. That doesn't mean that it will work in this case, and certainly not > in all. Most diseases are much more complex that those with pet panaceas > are willing to concede. Brostoff is a smart guy. His book gives an overview of the whole conventional/alternative debate about food allergies and intolerances. He also explains how the medical community has screwed up research on Hidden Food Sensitivities, and advertised this flawed research. I learned from his book what precise questions I should ask my conventional allergist so that I would not be mislead by his answers. Brad_Chad Yeah Doctor, I apologize for the crack about Allergists. We surely welcome your expertese, your generous comments Jack. >>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Why is everyone jumping on this guy? He sounds pretty rational to me. If the medical profession (not the pharma companies) put together a series of cogent and compelling infomercials encouraging people to seek their services through educating them, they would benefit many people who are desperate for answers yet don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision as to where to turn. Then hopefully fewer people would be duped by the bait and switch type con marketing that the doc is referring to. As for rationality, he wants to chuck his medical career and sell booze in a hurricane zone. No offense, but that scenario just tickles my funny bone. >>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public >>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why is everyone jumping on this guy? He sounds pretty rational to me. I agree. He is welcome as far as I am concerned. Bob and I just need to help him with his delusions of getting out of debt.  Signature00doc > >>>As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public > >>>falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > 00doc I am appalled that certified allergist are treating people for severe hayfever symptoms with steroid shots, and not giving them the chance to relieve their symptoms by finding their Hidden Food Sensitivities. My alternative doctor has to finish their job of treating severe hayfever by changing the patients diet. Brad_Chad > As a board certifed allergist, I am appalled at what the American Public > falls for. Many would rather believe a 30 min infomercial by a > discredited author out to sell a book with no information other than > innuendo and the unsupported claims. What percentage of people seem to have measurable improvement with their asthma after removing certain foods from their diet (including the "placebo" effect)? Is it true that alternative doctors claim much success with their patients asthma by finding certain foods that they are sensitive to? How accurate are your tests for food allergies and food intolerances? Brad_Chad Little Johnny One Note. Get a life! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.