 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / March 2006Why Doctors So Often Get It Wrong
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/business/22leonhardt.html?_r=1&incamp=article_ popular&oref=slogin Read the article soon if you're so inclined; the free-access period is likely nearly over.  SignatureAlison Chaiken "From:" address above is valid. (650) 236-2231 [daytime] http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/ Waging a war is simple, but running a country is very difficult. -- Pham Van Dong, first prime minister of unified Vietnam, 1976 > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/business/22leonhardt.html?_r=1&incamp=article_ popular&oref=slogin > > Read the article soon if you're so inclined; the free-access period is > likely nearly over. This is another example of the media looking for a crisis because it makes for good press. The kid in the example was "misdiagnosed" for a number of reasons. The main one is that his condition was rare. Very few things in medicine are 100% certain. Every test has a probability of being right and a probability of being wrong and those probabilities are rarely 100%. An old dictum is that common things happen commonly and that an unusual presentation of a common disease is more likely than the usual presentation of an uncommon one. What all this means is that people with common diseases will usually be diagnosed quickly and correctly and people with unusual diseases will often have a delay, frequently with some incorrect diagnoses given before the correct one is finally reached. The fact that this boy's rare, unresponsive to chemotherapy, type of leukemia was not diagnosed initially and so he went through some chemo he didn't need is unfortunate. However, he was eventually correctly diagnosed (depsite the rarity of his disease) and the alternative would be to loose time treating all the other kids with chemo while we make sure they don't actually have a rare subtype with over-all outcomes being worse. Really, it is not like they thought he had leukemia when he didn't (he did) or that he didn't get the treatment that would have saved him (none would). The last part of this is that often a big pat of the diagnostic process is assessing how people respond to the treatment. For most this will result in the normal response but for a few it means that they will be counted amongst those who were initially misdiagnosed despite the fact that what was done was all normal and good and part of a process that has proved to do well. BTW - the mortality rate for childhood leukemia has gone from something like 80% to someting like 20% in the last few decades so don't be too harsh on those oncologists for rushing to chemo. When considering the study involving autopsies, where a 20% misdiagnosis rate was found, one must keep a few things in mind. People who have autopsies have died. The ones that got well will just have to wait a while longer to get theirs. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that the people who get well, the vast majority of hospitalised patients, will be misdiagnosed less than the ones that die. This is even more so when one considers that the people who are hospitalised are doing worse than the ones who are not and so even more predisposed to have been misdiagnosed. Also consider that the autopsy rate in the US is very low. Doctors and families tend to request autopsies when they suspect that something may have been missed. When everyone is confortable with the diagnosis usually no autopsy is done. What that stat really says is that in patients whose courses do not go as hoped and who eventually die 20% of the time the docs (or the familes) are right that something was missed. It really doesn't say anything about all those other people who went to their doc's office, got the correct diagnosis, and are not out and about living their lives all the better for it. The fact that the misdiagnosis rate has not changed actually does represent improvement, one editorialist's comment aside, because we are doing much fewer autopsies. That number has gone from refelcting total care for nearly all patients to reflecting just the most difficult cases and yet has not gone up as one would expect. Also keep in mind that when you look at the specifics of those misdiagnosis rates most of the things they find would have probably spelled death for the patient anyway. I do agree with the authors that high tech imaging has not lead to the dramatic increases in diagnosis that most people seem to think it should have. We have made most of our progress in screening for specific conditions, preventing certain conditions (notably heart disease, some cancers, and some childhood ilnesses), and in treatment. Just keep that in mind the next time someone tries to sell you a "whole body check-up" involving fancy scans and no actual visit with a real doctor. Signature00doc > This is another example of the media looking for a crisis because it > makes for good press. I agree with you. I thought that the most interesting question raised by the article was, would common use of "expert systems" software by physicians lead to an improvement in diagnosis rates? There are clearly dangers associated with the use of such systems: 1. Physicians could get lazy about thinking about diagnosis, leading to an over-reliance on the software; 2. The software might have an overall high success rate, but have a poor record in certain areas (which would be bad if you fall into that category); 3. The software could add to already high medical costs with little benefit. As 00doc points out, maybe there's no real problem for the software to address at all. OTOH, I definitely like the idea of *patients* having access to such software. If a patient received the same diagnosis from the software as their physician had given them, they would be reasssured. If they did not receive the same diagnosis, patients could expend their own time considering how likely it is that they have some rare condition. The type of people who read this newsgroup consider alternative diagnoses anyway, so why not provide them with (possibly) better information? Here's a BBC article on the same software: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2049248.stm Here's the software company's website: http://www.isabelhealthcare.com/ Disclaimer: of course I have nothing to do with this British company. SignatureAlison Chaiken "From:" address above is valid. (650) 236-2231 [daytime] http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/ Waging a war is simple, but running a country is very difficult. -- Pham Van Dong, first prime minister of unified Vietnam, 1976 >> This is another example of the media looking for a crisis because it >> makes for good press. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 3. The software could add to already high medical costs with little > benefit. I think they could have a place. They certainly would be good for suggesting connections and diagnoses that hadn't occured to the doc. People are still much better at pattern recognition than machines. It is amazing to me how bad software is at reading EKG's for instance. I think the "systems" in the near future would be good for expanding the differential diagnosis but not that good at narrowing or focusing it. Since you will always need to input the relevant symptoms and physical fidnings I doubt they will be replacing physicans any time soon. Probably they would be yet another tool that would require some skill to really learn to use. On a related note a while back I had to laugh when I read an article where the author, an older professor of medicine at a prostigious institution, comaplined about a case. The resident presented a difficult case and then much tot he professors surprise got right to the correct diagnosis. When he asked her how she had figured it out she responded that "she googled it". The proifessor was appalled but I thought it was funny. > As 00doc points out, maybe there's no real problem for the software to > address at all. No, I think things could always get better. I am not meaning to say there is no issue. I just don't think we are having the crisis that the article was trying to make out. If anything the crisis is that people have too high expectations. Just today I havd a woman come into the office and want to be tested for "poisons" (long story - don't ask). She's clearly been watching too much CSI. > OTOH, I definitely like the idea of *patients* having access to such > software. If a patient received the same diagnosis from the software > as their physician had given them, they would be reasssured. If they > did not receive the same diagnosis, patients could expend their own > time considering how likely it is that they have some rare condition. Probably what would happen is that the machine would spit out a long list of diagnoses and the patient would take it to the doc and want each and every one examined. This is what I was saying about "misdiagnosis" being part of the normal process. Usually what you do initially is to consider the common and the serious. Often the "test" is to try to a treatment and see if the patient responds. If the patient does respond to a common cause of the symptoms as expected with treatment then you have very likely all the diagnostic info you need. If all the tests are negative and they are not responding to treatment then (besides having committed the apparently unforgivable sin of "misdiagnosing" the person) start to move down to trying the less likely possibilities. Signature00doc I liked the part where the article said that conventional doctors are paid to do the tests, do the surgery, or dispense the drugs. That is the attitude that patients of alternative doctors despise. I would rather see a doctor that focuses on prevention. Alternative and naturopathic doctors are more focused on teaching their patients about healthy lifestyles, with fewer food additives, and gentler drugs. Because I found my Hidden Food Allergies, I no longer have to take much of the medicine for severe joint pain, IBS, eczema, and severe hayfever. Therefore, I have less to worry about in terms of whether they will cause cancer in the future. See the point. I got rid of these problems naturally, without a whole lot of drugs. How many people would not have to take Ritalin in the first place, if they had found their Hidden Food Allergies? How many of them would have been spared heart problems? Brad_Chad >I liked the part where the article said that conventional doctors are > paid to do the tests, do the surgery, or dispense the drugs. I missed that part. If it does say theat then they are wrong. I (and nearly all office based docs) get paid nothing to do (hardly) any tests. The ones we do get paid to do usually are office based procedures (like rapid strep tests) and are reimbursed at pretty near the cost of the test. By the time you get done figuring in labor it is not uncommon to lose money on them. The expensive ones that do generate a profut are sent out and profit someone else. We also do not get paid to prescribe. Dispensing drugs out of the office is much more common for alternative pracitioners. It is considered ethically suspect by conventional docs unless it is something that would be hard to get otherwise. OK docs do get paid to do the surgery. Usually the patient is referred for surgery by a doc who doesn't. > That is > the attitude that patients of alternative doctors despise. Only the ignorant ones. > I would > rather see a doctor that focuses on prevention. Alternative and > naturopathic doctors are more focused on teaching their patients about > healthy lifestyles, with fewer food additives, and gentler drugs. They are also much more likely to try to sell you a product. You are being a hypocrite on this one. You can argue the pros and cons of the doc prescribing and selling a treatment but you cannot say that conventiona docs are bad for doing this (when they usually don't) but alternative practitioners are good (when they usually do). Signature00doc Dear Dr. Ish, Your write: "We also do not get paid to prescribe. Dispensing drugs out of the office is much more common for alternative pracitioners. It is considered ethically suspect by conventional docs unless it is something that would be hard to get otherwise. " Yes but roaming drug company reps know what you are prescribing and can put pressure on you by withholding free meals, sailing cruises and support with publication of scientific papers or speaking at far away congresses with expenses paid. This possibility of pharma surveillance would seem to be nation-wide. Payment is just indirect. I am not being basically holier than thou, but I guess one should know about the tricks of other trades besides one's own. Judge others by yourself but don't forget to judge yourself by others My personal solution is to make maximum use of docs' diagnostic skills but to avoid medication as far as possible because of corruption. Regards, Richard Friedel >... or speaking at far away >congresses with expenses paid. Regarding speaking for pharma companies, this year there has been an across-the-board cap in the U.S. pharma industry (in cooperation with the FDA) on how much speakers are paid and what is included in covered expenses. It used to be that a speaker could command a higher fee based on his/her expertise, speaking experience, connections, etc. Now it's pretty much a set fee schedule that you either agree to or not when you update your speaker's bureau contract each year. For example, when I present locally (within driving distance), I am paid $500/hr (presentations are usually 1 hour long), plus there is an allowance for gas. If I fly somewhere, they double the fee, pick up the tab on the plane, hotel and food (up to a $ limit per meal). If you travel with your spouse, their expenses are not covered. So, when you factor in the time it takes to put together a presentation, travel to and from the event and the time/logistics hassles involved, there is less financial incentive than you might expect. I make every effort to avoid the free meals - mostly because I can't stand talking to the reps. While I understand the psychological research involving bias and small gifts and do not believe myself immune (the classic error) I can assure you that my prescribing habits are not being changed by the fear of not getting a sandwich. They probably would be changed if I accepted the sandwich but that is a different thing. They are not allowed to send docs on sailing cruises and other trips and have not been allowed to do that for some time. All gifts must be of trivial value and useful in the treatment of patients. Personally, I go to Office Depot and buy my own pens and sticky notes. My company gives me a book and CME allowance that I have a hard time exhausting so I am not particularly tempted by drug rep offers for them. I agree that pharmaceutical support of speaking fees and research papers is a problem. That is why I don't go to those talks and view that research with skepticism. Unfortunately, only now are the journals getting better at making those biases known. Just as unfortunately, the cure for that is to increase government funding of research and pass new legislation. Neither is likely to happen any time soon. There is plenty to be concerned about with these issues. Some of it is being addressed but not all. Your arguments would be more convincing if they kept closer to the facts and were not so peppered with fantasy and (decades) outdated information. Signature00doc > >I liked the part where the article said that conventional doctors are > > paid to do the tests, do the surgery, or dispense the drugs. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > -- > 00doc 00doc, one of your conventional medical colleagues has written a book called, "What Doctors Don't Want You To Know". I think that you should read it. It is written by Dr. Evan Levine. A Cardiologist in New York. He talks about how pharmaceutical companies send doctors on expensive vacations under the guise of "medical conferences". He also talks about how he was pressured by hospital administrators to write more prescriptions. He also talks about all the phony surgeries that he has seen. You should read it. Brad_Chad The part about the vacations is about 20 years out of date. They have not been allowed to do that for some time. Hosptials do not make money from the prescriptions he writes so I am not sure what that is about. If he is aware of "phony surgeries" then he is ethically bound to report it. I would question why he hasn't. Sounds like sour grapes meets a good book deal. Couldn't he just come up with a new diet? Signature00doc > The part about the vacations is about 20 years out of date. They have > not been allowed to do that for some time. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > 00doc I'm sorry. I guess that within the last 20 years, the medical community has found religion. I guess that it is also out of date for internist to perform dubious tests that they are not qualified to do, send the test results to a qualified specialist, and then pay the specialist a small fee, for doing the job of test interpretation. Everything is above board now. Why did I read an article in The New York Times, recently, about a pharmaceutical company getting caught in a phony clinical trial scam, with some doctors? It seems that they were supposed to give patients some free drugs for the trial, but they secretly charged the patients for the drugs (insurance). The patient's doctors were supposed to send the pharma company some type of drug evaluation, but the drug company didn't care whether they got the drug evaluation or not. I'm sure that hardly anybody is skirting the law today, in the medical community. Brad_Chad I never said that the medical profession was unlike every other profession and didn't have its share of people doing dubious things. I just said that it is not the normal and accepted practice. If those docs were knowingly committing fraud then I am sure their licenses are being reviewed. Most medical societies have a clause regarding "moral terpitude" where a license can be revolked for immoral behavior even if the state does not consider it a crime or the person is not convicted. FWIW - the doc should not be doing dubious tests and should not be ordering tests they are not qualified to interpret. That is not to say that they will always be able to interpret all results and should never ask the opinion of a specialist. With rare exceptions the Internist does not make money doing the tests and he does not pay or get paid by the specialist. > I never said that the medical profession was unlike every other > profession and didn't have its share of people doing dubious things. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > does not make money doing the tests and he does not pay or get paid by > the specialist. Get back to the real world, doc. What "should" happen and what "does" happen are not necessarily the same thing. We live in a corrupt world. I find it interesting that a doctor's license can be revoked for immoral behavior. Why not amoral behavior? I find conventional medicine very amoral in some respects. You see, I was not born yesterday. Conventional medicine will try to make you feel O.K., but there is no incentive for conventional medicine to make you feel OUTSTANDING. Finding my Hidden Food Allergies made me feel outstanding. I also know, that there is enough not known about the human body to drive a truck through. Doctors are not God. Alternative doctors are not God, but they have the courage to admit it. I also listen to my doctors very well. Conventional doctors have their medical prejudices too. One conventional doctor told me that I shouldn't see an alternative doctor, because of the extra costs involved. What does cost have to do with safety? He should have left it to me to consider the costs. My alternative doctor stays in business because he deals with a lot of subclinical aspects of medicine. His procedures may seem worthless to many conventional doctors, but the patients say that they feel better. Conventional medicine doesn't have "proof" that the patients aren't getting better, but they want him out of business, nevertheless. But see, if I feel better, I can get on with my life. That is worth more than the small sum that I pay my alternative doctor. I am now healthy enough to work overtime at my job. I earn more than enough to cover my alternative bill. The side effects from the drugs the conventional doctors gave me, made life unbearable. Brad_Chad > Get back to the real world, doc. What "should" happen and what > "does" happen are not necessarily the same thing. Cerrtainly not. But everything that does happen is not what normally happens. Also, don't believe everything you read. If someone wrote a book that said medicine has considerable room for improvement but is not all that bad no one would buy it - so that's not what they write. > We live in a corrupt > world. I find it interesting that a doctor's license can be revoked for > immoral behavior. Why not amoral behavior? Amoral behavior is neither good nor bad by definition. > I find conventional medicine > very amoral in some respects. What isn't? At least they have some governing bodies and are subject to regulation to try to keep a damper on immoral behavior. Naturopaths and other alt practitioners answer to no one. You don't really believe that the decision to go to med school or mail away for a naturopathic degree is made based on virtue with the allopaths losing out, do you? > You see, I was not born yesterday. > Conventional medicine will try to make you feel O.K., but there is no > incentive for conventional medicine to make you feel OUTSTANDING. Conventional medicine has every incentive that every other practitioner does. > Finding my Hidden Food Allergies made me feel outstanding. Good for you. But that is not everyone's problem. > I also know, > that there is enough not known about the human body to drive a truck > through. True. > Doctors are not God. Alternative doctors are not God, but they > have the courage to admit it. My experience is exactly the opposite. Allopaths tell paitents that they don;t know the answer all the time. It is the alternativ epractitioners that will spout gobbledy-gook when faced with uncertainty. > I also listen to my doctors very well. I think you hear exactly what you want to hear. > Conventional doctors have > their medical prejudices too. Who doesn't? > One conventional doctor told me that I > shouldn't see an alternative doctor, because of the extra costs > involved. What does cost have to do with safety? He should have left it > to me to consider the costs. You're right. He gave the right advice just for the wrong reason. > My alternative doctor stays in business > because he deals with a lot of subclinical aspects of medicine. IOW - He tells people with no verifiable sign of disease what they want to hear after other docs have admitted they didn't have an answer. What were you saying above? > His > procedures may seem worthless to many conventional doctors, Only if he can't show they work. > but the > patients say that they feel better. That is the reason we do blinded studies. If you could go by that we wouldn't need a control group. > Conventional medicine doesn't have > "proof" that the patients aren't getting better, It is not their burden to prove. Besides, you can't prove a negative. > but they want him out > of business, nevertheless. I doubt "they" (whoever "they" are) are paying that mich attention to him. > But see, if I feel better, I can get on with > my life. Like I said...... > That is worth more than the small sum that I pay my > alternative doctor. I am now healthy enough to work overtime at my job. > I earn more than enough to cover my alternative bill. The side effects > from the drugs the conventional doctors gave me, made life unbearable. Then don't take them. Signature00doc People have a moral right to know about Hidden Food Allergies as an option, because it is safe. Conventional doctors kept a safe option from me, because of their own self-serving reasons. That is amoral. I would respect conventional doctors more if they did the MORAL thing, like alternative doctors. One of your conventional doctors, Dr. James Braly, says that there are several things in conventional medicine that have not been as thoroughly studied as conventional medicine demands of alternative medicine. At the end of the day, I felt much better after seeing an alternative doctor. Where are all these thousands of people who are being screwed up by naturopathic doctors? Naturopathic doctors are supposed to be so badly trained, yet you don't here of that many people complaining. Brad_Chad > People have a moral right to know about Hidden Food Allergies as an > option, because it is safe. Conventional doctors kept a safe option [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Brad_Chad Dead men tell no tales. >> At the end of the day, I felt much better after seeing an alternative >> doctor. Where are all these thousands of people who are being screwed >> up by naturopathic doctors? Naturopathic doctors are supposed to be so >> badly trained, yet you don't here of that many people complaining. > Dead men tell no tales. LOL <g> .... and lawyers only sue deep pockets. Docs were never sued that much either until someone got the bright idea to buy malpractice insurance. The only thing that accomplished was to create a pool of money that attracted lawyers. Alt docs are just in the pre-malpractice insurace phase of their existance. If they are ever dumb enough to start buying it they will start to be sued more. The other thing is that, besides suing the doc, the only other thing you can do is to complain to his licensing board. Most alt providers don't have a comparable body to file a complaint with. So basically you can't sue them* (because there is not enough money to interest most lawyers) and there is no one to complain to about them. Signature00doc * OK - I admit that "can't" is an exaggeration. The point is that lawyers follow the money so by not having much money (compared to an insurance company) they make themselves much less tempting a target for suits. Sure, if it egregious enough they will be sued - but not nearly as much or for the same kinds of things. > >> At the end of the day, I felt much better after seeing an alternative > >> doctor. Where are all these thousands of people who are being screwed [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > 00doc Wow, it is amazing how the public media won't talk about all these bad LICENSED naturopathic doctors either. Brad_Chad > * OK - I admit that "can't" is an exaggeration. The point is that lawyers > follow the money so by not having much money (compared to an insurance > company) they make themselves much less tempting a target for suits. Sure, > if it egregious enough they will be sued - but not nearly as much or for the > same kinds of things. > > People have a moral right to know about Hidden Food Allergies as an > > option, because it is safe. Conventional doctors kept a safe option [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dead men tell no tales. So, thousands of people are dying each year, after seeing naturopathic doctors, and nobody is noticing. What dope have you been smoking? Brad_Chad > People have a moral right to know about Hidden Food Allergies as an > option, because it is safe. Conventional doctors kept a safe option > from me, because of their own self-serving reasons. That is amoral. I > would respect conventional doctors more if they did the MORAL thing, > like alternative doctors. You need a good dictionary. Not knowing about it (assuming they had no obligastion to know) is amoral. Keeping it from you knowingly to serve their own purposes is immoral and, if true, could result in loss of licensure and civil, and possibly even criminal, actions. The one thing you alt types never seem able to explain is how the docs benefit from keeping you sick. At first blush it seems obvious, to keep you comming back, but when you think about that a bit further it doesn't hold water: For one thing it would require cooperation from a whole profession (all several hundred thousand of them). Medicine is a business and it is competitive, both between allopaths and with other practitioners. If one suddenly started curing people others weren't (s)he would instantly be rich and famous. Ather is that it assumes we are in danger of running out of sickness and disease. As long as there are other illnesses to treat the docs won't lose patients by curing any one condition (or group of them). Only the most looney of all the alt loons suggest that we have the cure for all disease at hand and there is some conspiracy at hand to keep it hidden. I mean think about the scope of the conspiracy and what it requires: Simultaneously all the people aware of the cure have to be loyal enough to not profit from it personally and self serving enough not to let it out for the good of humanity. Just how many people in that narrow band of the greedy/altruistic spectrum do you thinmk there are? The last is that it assumes a need for docs to suppress alt treatments. There is no need for them to do that since there is no reason why they can't use them themselves (and I would hazzard a guess that most, if not nearly all, conventional docs at least sometimes recommend some non-pharmaceutical treatments). If some alt provider comes up with a treatment that seems to work we don't disparage them, make the paitents decide, and lose some of those battles. We just go ahead and use it and keep the alt's beat on both fronts. That is the main difference between real docs and alt providers. The real docs are free to use whatever works while he alt providers are limited to non-prescription products and so must denigrate them since they can't use them. > One of your conventional doctors, Dr. James Braly, says that there are > several things in conventional medicine that have not been as > thoroughly studied as conventional medicine demands of alternative > medicine. He is right and he is not the only one saying that. Another favorite trick of people trying to sell books, besides making mountains out of molehills, is to take things that are well known and pretend they are their own ideas or some hidden secret. I'll go him one further and say that there are "standard practices" in medicine that have been proven to not work and possibly even be detrimental but yet still persist (routine fetal monitoring during labor being the glaring example that immediately comes to mind). I have never said "conventional medicine" was perfect - just that it is better than alt in terms of regulation and safety - basically knowing what you are paying for. > At the end of the day, I felt much better after seeing an alternative > doctor. Where are all these thousands of people who are being screwed > up by naturopathic doctors? Naturopathic doctors are supposed to be so > badly trained, yet you don't here of that many people complaining. Evidence to refute that has not only been already posted but more has been offered. Signature00doc > > People have a moral right to know about Hidden Food Allergies as an > > option, because it is safe. Conventional doctors kept a safe option [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > true, could result in loss of licensure and civil, and possibly even > criminal, actions. I think that it is amoral if you know about it, but delude yourself into believing that it only works because of placebo. There have been many books written about Hidden Food Allergies over the years. How many conventional doctors give all of their patients information about the Hidden Food Allergy controversy, when it doesn't interfere with the patients treatment? Brad_Chad > The one thing you alt types never seem able to explain is how the docs > benefit from keeping you sick. At first blush it seems obvious, to keep you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suddenly started curing people others weren't (s)he would instantly be rich > and famous. You are assuming that we are talking about a level playing field. Remember, people have to pay, out of their pocket, to see a naturopath. So, there is a huge incentive for them to only think about conventional doctors. Due to the fact that you can't patent a herb (herbal supplements), pharmaceutical companies have a greater incentive to hitch their cart to conventional medicine. Why has the government always been the frontrunner in vaccine research? Remember, the processed foods industry would take a heavy blow if most people started looking for their Hidden Food Allergies. Did you ever study the history of the Flexner Report, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the AMA. They wanted people cured with patented drugs. This is why the "system" is set up like it is. Medical school courses try to keep you mostly focused on pharmacology, not nutrition, right? Brad_Chad > Ather is that it assumes we are in danger of running out of sickness and > disease. As long as there are other illnesses to treat the docs won't lose [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > humanity. Just how many people in that narrow band of the greedy/altruistic > spectrum do you thinmk there are? Greed seems pretty universal. I'm saying that the system gives little incentive to consider much treatment without drugs, or expensive medical procedures. Nobody knows ALL of the effects that processed foods have on the human body, but conventional doctors couldn't care less about getting some processed foods out of people's diet. I have never had a conventional doctor ask me anything about my diet. Conventional medicine has a huge number of health companies on the stock market, compare that to naturopathic medicine. Which one has more economic force? Which one has a greater ability to shape public opinion, with a good public relations campaign? Do you think that the pharmaceutical companies, and the processed foods industry, will let "60 minutes" do a story on the Hidden Food Allergy controversy? An outbreak of people getting well by "placebo" will be bad for business. The medical establishment has more control over individual doctors than you might think. Look at the medical school funding, to see who is pulling the strings. Brad_Chad > The last is that it assumes a need for docs to suppress alt treatments. > There is no need for them to do that since there is no reason why they can't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to non-prescription products and so must denigrate them since they can't use > them. I saw both an alternative doctor and a naturopathic doctor at the same time, briefly. My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) basically agreed with my naturopathic doctor, but he gave me a choice of herbs or prescription.. Brad_Chad > > One of your conventional doctors, Dr. James Braly, says that there are > > several things in conventional medicine that have not been as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > than alt in terms of regulation and safety - basically knowing what you are > paying for. In spite of what you think, I am no naive dolt. I study everything that my alternative doctor says, and does. I didn't have to be a genius to see that looking for my Hidden Food Allergies was not that risky. I am hesitant about some things, but I realize that with other things, it's not a matter of safety, but effectiveness. Alternative medicine has been more effective than conventional medicine on some things. Brad_Chad > > At the end of the day, I felt much better after seeing an alternative > > doctor. Where are all these thousands of people who are being screwed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Evidence to refute that has not only been already posted but more has been > offered. > I'm saying that the system gives little incentive to consider much > treatment without drugs, or expensive medical procedures. "The system" gives no incentive to most docs (meaning the primary doc in the general office where people generally start out in search of treatment) either way. We don't get rewarded or punished either for using pharmaceuticals or herbs or diet or anything else (or nothing). When there is information that herbs and supplements work many docs do recommend them. I said it before and I'll say it again that I believe that most docs, if not nearly all, at least sometimes recommend something that would be considered "alternative" or a supplement. So if a conventional doc recommmends a particular product it is because he believes it is what will work the best. What you have to remember about alternative practitioners is that they CAN'T use pharmaceuticals. When they recommend an herb you have no way of knowing if it is what they think is best or just what is the best that they have. > Nobody knows > ALL of the effects that processed foods have on the human body, but > conventional doctors couldn't care less about getting some processed > foods out of people's diet. I have never had a conventional doctor ask > me anything about my diet. I do all the time. > Conventional medicine has a huge number of > health companies on the stock market, compare that to naturopathic > medicine. What the heck are you talking about? Man you have the most twisted logic and the most conspiracy theories of anyone I have met in a long time. You imagine a more convuluted plot than anythign the writers of "24" could ever imagine. You really should be in show business. I imagine the only problem would be that what everyone else thinks of as an action thriller you would think is a documentary. Wall street has nothing to do with whether I recommend Relafen, Motrin, Glucosamine, surgery, or diet and exercise for your knee pain. I have a feeling that this is going to come back around to your misunderstandings about the patentability of herbal products and profitability. No, your are correct, that an infdividual natural herb cannot be patented. However extracts and methods or preparation can be patented. Also, the supplement industry is booming and quite profitable and these herbs are largely available to the public so there is no barrier to use there. > Which one has more economic force? Which one has a greater > ability to shape public opinion, with a good public relations campaign? > Do you think that the pharmaceutical companies, and the processed foods > industry, will let "60 minutes" do a story on the Hidden Food Allergy > controversy? "60 minutes" and similar news shows attack pharmaceutical companies and their products all the time. There is no barrier to that. > The medical establishment has more control over > individual doctors than you might think. Look at the medical school > funding, to see who is pulling the strings. Yeah, which one of us would know about that? > I saw both an alternative doctor and a naturopathic doctor at the > same time, briefly. My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) basically > agreed with my naturopathic doctor, but he gave me a choice of herbs or > prescription.. Did your naturopath give you the same choice or did he just recommend the herbs? If the M.D. agreed with the naturopath what is your beef witht he M.D.? > In spite of what you think, I am no naive dolt. I never said you were a dolt. Signature00doc > "The system" gives no incentive to most docs (meaning the primary doc in the > general office where people generally start out in search of treatment) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > use pharmaceuticals. When they recommend an herb you have no way of knowing > if it is what they think is best or just what is the best that they have. My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) gives me a choice of prescription or herbal supplements. Brad_Chad > > Nobody knows > > ALL of the effects that processed foods have on the human body, but [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > industry is booming and quite profitable and these herbs are largely > available to the public so there is no barrier to use there. I bet that if all the conventional doctors started helping people find their Hidden Food Allergies, stocks would tumble. A huge number of people wouldn't need the drugs that conventional doctors push. Brad_Chad > > Which one has more economic force? Which one has a greater > > ability to shape public opinion, with a good public relations campaign? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "60 minutes" and similar news shows attack pharmaceutical companies and > their products all the time. There is no barrier to that. I said "Hidden Food Allergies". 60 minutes will never do a story on Hidden Food Allergies. The pharmaceuticals and processed foods companies won't let them. Brad_Chad > > The medical establishment has more control over > > individual doctors than you might think. Look at the medical school [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Did your naturopath give you the same choice or did he just recommend the > herbs? My naturopath couldn't write prescriptions, but I wasn't there long. I developed a problem that required something stronger than herbs. I primarily recommended naturopaths for Hidden Food Allergies though. Brad_Chad > If the M.D. agreed with the naturopath what is your beef witht he M.D.? Right now, I prefer to see my alternative M.D. Brad_Chad > > In spite of what you think, I am no naive dolt. > > I never said you were a dolt. > I bet that if all the conventional doctors started helping people > find their Hidden Food Allergies, stocks would tumble. A huge number of > people wouldn't need the drugs that conventional doctors push. Stocks in what? Pharmaceutical companies? Why would the docs (the guys not finding the hidden food allergies and writing the prescriptions - remember?) care? You seem to be operating under the delusion that the doc and the drug comapny are part of one enemy and that the doc gives a rat's behind about the stock of pharmaceutical companies. Have you considered that if prescription drug use plummetted and everyone got welll that the insurance company stocks would soar? Not that that matters to the doc either but it is just further proof that you have not even thought this whole conspiracy theory out very well. >> "60 minutes" and similar news shows attack pharmaceutical companies and >> their products all the time. There is no barrier to that. > > I said "Hidden Food Allergies". 60 minutes will never do a story > on Hidden Food Allergies. The pharmaceuticals and processed foods > companies won't let them. Sooooo............ according to you..... big pharma has enough influence to stop them form reporting on hidden food allergies but not things like Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Rezulin, phen-fen, etc.? >> > I saw both an alternative doctor and a naturopathic doctor at the >> > same time, briefly. My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) basically [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My naturopath couldn't write prescriptions, but I wasn't there > long. Then how do you know that the herbs he recommended were better than prescription drugs (even in his own opinion)? Do you really think that if you had a condition bettter treated by pharmaceuticals that he would send you back to the doc rather than just sell you the (second) best thing that he has? That brings up a good question (that I know you will never answer): At the time when you were seeing both the M.D. and the N.D. and the M.D., "agreed with everything the N.D. said but offered both herbs and a prescription," (and you decided the prescription was the better option) - Did the N.D. tell you about the prescription and suggest that you consult with an allopath? Or did you go off and do that on your own? >> If the M.D. agreed with the naturopath what is your beef witht he M.D.? > > Right now, I prefer to see my alternative M.D. IOW - you are seeing an M.D. This is just too funny. You have got to be the biggest hypocrite to ever come to this board. You blast away at all conventional docs and say they are all immoral bastards (your words) who not only won't but also can't (due to some mysterious influence of the drug companies) prescribe herbs and extoll the virtues of N.D.'s. Then it comes out that many of the N.D.'s get their diplomas by mail order and you change your story to say only certain N.D.'s (despite previously recommending any that you find in the yellow pages). You claim that N.D.'s don't get sued or have complaints but then ignore the links when people show you that they do (and you keep repeating that claim after knowing full well that it is false). Now, after all that, you admit that you have eschewed your N.D. and are now seeinng an M.D. You just try to dress him up as an alternative doc but the truth is that he is an allopathic physician prescribing prescription drugs for you (which you take despite being given the option of taking herbs). Despite the fact that you are currently seeing "an M.D. who prescribes herbs" you have been blathering on and on about how they can't and don't. Now I know you have had the trouble with the meanings of some basic terms during this discussion so just in case you need it pointed out - That is a bald faced lie. And just to review previous lessons - it is immoral (not amoral). There is a saying that you should never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by incompetance. Until the last day or two I have been applying that dictum to you and considering you just some clueless naive twit who believes what he wants to believe and selectively reads and felt a little sorry for you. Now I know that you are a lying hypocrite. You are pathetic loser. Signature00doc > That brings up a good question (that I know you will never > answer): Even if he DOES answer, who would believe him????? > > That brings up a good question (that I know you will never > > answer): > > Even if he DOES answer, who would believe him????? I never said that prescription meds are dangerous. I think that they are overused. I think that medical treatment should be more holistic. Brad_Chad > > That brings up a good question (that I know you will never > > answer): > > Even if he DOES answer, who would believe him????? I never said that prescription meds are dangerous. I think that they are overused. I think that medical treatment should be more holistic. Brad_Chad > Stocks in what? Pharmaceutical companies? Why would the docs (the guys not > finding the hidden food allergies and writing the prescriptions - remember?) > care? You seem to be operating under the delusion that the doc and the drug > comapny are part of one enemy and that the doc gives a rat's behind about > the stock of pharmaceutical companies. How much of medical school funding is provided by pharmaceuticals? I do know that if more people found their Hidden Food Allergies, there would be less visits to the doctor, less medical procedures. I had a colonoscopy (for IBS-type problem) before I found my Hidden Food Allergies. My doctor couldn't find anything. I took care of it by finding my HFA. How many unnecessary medical procedures are performed because the root problem is HFA? The doctors are still paid. Brad_Chad > Have you considered that if prescription drug use plummetted and everyone > got welll that the insurance company stocks would soar? Not that that > matters to the doc either but it is just further proof that you have not > even thought this whole conspiracy theory out very well. Insurance companies make more money when the cost of health care goes up. Brad_Chad > >> "60 minutes" and similar news shows attack pharmaceutical companies and > >> their products all the time. There is no barrier to that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stop them form reporting on hidden food allergies but not things like Vioxx, > Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Rezulin, phen-fen, etc.? You are talking about single drug items. Hidden Food Allergies may affect dozens of health problems (acne, asthma, eczema, psoriasis, migraines, arthritis, epilepsy, autism, depression, etc.). HFA can't "cure" some of them (epilepsy, autism, arthritis, etc.), but it can help make major improvements. HFA could have a devastating effect on the processed foods industry. How would Dominoes Pizza be affected if millions of people realized that they were sensitive to wheat or dairy? We are talking BILLIONS of dollars. Brad_Chad > >> > I saw both an alternative doctor and a naturopathic doctor at the > >> > same time, briefly. My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) basically [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Did the N.D. tell you about the prescription and suggest that you consult > with an allopath? Or did you go off and do that on your own? I left the naturopathic doctor after I read a book (by a doctor) that said that my problem in its late stages was better treated by precription. I had all the signs of being in the late stages, so I left the naturopath. Brad_Chad > >> If the M.D. agreed with the naturopath what is your beef witht he M.D.? > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > 00doc I am just skeptical that naturopaths trained at the best schools (and licensed) are really that horrible. My alternative doctor is involved in a lot of controversial treatments, like chelation therapy, and I think acupuncture. I really didn't shun the naturopath. I just have a controversial condition, and I thought prescription drugs might solve it faster. Brad_Chad > How much of medical school funding is provided by pharmaceuticals? Little to none. You are confusing medical research with education. > Insurance companies make more money when the > cost of health care goes up. I understand you idea that the insurance company profits are a fixed percentage of the premiums. I just don't think it is correct. My prediction is that if cost went down your premium would stay pretty much the same and profits would go up. > > Sooooo............ according to you..... big pharma has > > enough influence to stop them form reporting on hidden > > food allergies but not things like Vioxx, > > Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Rezulin, phen-fen, etc.? > You are talking about single drug items. Hidden Food Allergies > may affect dozens of health problems..... Oh come now. You don't really believe that they could have suppressed all those scandals but didn't, do you? If they could have they would have, They would not just be saving their influence for this one issue - even if you do think it would have a bigger impact. > I am just skeptical that naturopaths trained at the > best schools (and licensed) are really that horrible. I never said they were all that horrible. You are the only one saying certain groups are horrible. Signature00doc > > How much of medical school funding is provided by pharmaceuticals? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > 00doc Big Pharma plus the processed foods industry have a tremendous influence on the advertising industry. Therefore, they can influence what is on television. Brad_Chad > Big Pharma plus the processed foods industry have a > tremendous [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Brad_Chad Another one of these sweeping generalizations that is driven by paranioa instead of fact. They don't have a tremendous influence on the advertising industry. They may spend a lot of dollars advertising, but they don't control or influence the advertising industry. Again - post links to prove your b.s. > > Big Pharma plus the processed foods industry have a > > tremendous [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Again - post links to prove your b.s. I think that I remember something about Oprah Winfrey being sued by the beef council (or something) because she made some statement against beef. Money talks. You really think that these industries won't fight against any type of negative publicity. Brad_Chad >> > Big Pharma plus the processed foods industry have a >> > tremendous [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Brad_Chad Publicity is not the same as advertising. Look those things up. Second, any person or company has the right to sue any person or company if they feel something was said or done that resulted in the loss of revenue. This has nothing to do with any agenda or conspiracy. Learn the law. > > I think that I remember something about Oprah Winfrey being > > sued [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the loss of revenue. This has nothing to do with any agenda or > conspiracy. Learn the law. Learn to read. I was talking about the processed foods industry and Big Pharma using its economic influence to shape criticism against it. Brad_Chad Fight? - Sure. Win? - I don't know. After all, Opra did still make her comments and 60 minutes runs with some regularity stories slamming pharmaceuticals and the companies that make them. Signature00doc > Fight? - Sure. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > 00doc When I'm talking about Hidden Food Allergies, I'm talking about something that can get people off many drugs permanently. This is not what you are talking about. I'm talking about giving people an alternative to pharmaceutical products. Brad_Chad >> Fight? - Sure. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When I'm talking about Hidden Food Allergies, I'm talking about > something that can get people off many drugs permanently. Like you? Who goes to a conventional doc and are still taking meds while claiming both are terrible? No wonder the other groups where you show up (just about all of the medical ones), despise your presence as well. Hypocrite doesn't begin to describe you. > >> Fight? - Sure. > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (just about all of the medical ones), despise your presence as well. > Hypocrite doesn't begin to describe you. I'm going to explain this one more time to your simple behind. I never said that taking meds was bad. I SAID that if conventional doctors explored things like Hidden Food Allergies, they wouldn't need to prescribe as much medication. Which part of this don't you understand? The point that I have been making all along is that prescription medicine is overused, because lifelong knowledge of your HFA will prevent many health problems in THE FIRST PLACE. Brad_Chad >> >> Fight? - Sure. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to prescribe as much medication. Which part of this don't you > understand? The part where you don't believe this enough to end up using it yourself. > > I'm going to explain this one more time to your simple behind. I > > never said that taking meds was bad. I SAID that if conventional [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The part where you don't believe this enough to end up using it yourself. What planet do you live on? I have been saying forever that I have already found my Hidden Food Allergies. Get off the drugs. Brad_Chad >> > I'm going to explain this one more time to your simple behind. I >> > never said that taking meds was bad. I SAID that if conventional [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Brad_Chad Listen liar, You come in here recommending naturopaths because you can't stand conventional doctors for several hundred posts, then belatedly admit that you ended up going to an MD to get better. Most people would slink out in shame, but you are such a brazen piece of crap that you keep showing up trying to redeem your sorry reputation. It's already long gone. Nobody believes you, but you're too stupid to comprehend it. You are a collection of pathologies, the least of which are physical. Regarding hidden food allergies (you keep capitalizing it to attempt to confer the bankrupt notion with legitimacy), you have been saying that conventional doctors don't know about them, yet one of your early posts said that an allergist was responsible for detecting and treating those. An allergist. You can't even keep your lies straight. December 15, 2004 you said: "Did you know that at least 70% of people with asthma have food allergies? Hidden food allergies can trigger a lot of medical conditions. Many doctors will not refer you to an allergist because they want to try a quick fix. The best fix may be an allergist. Food allergies may also be robbing you of some of your energy without you knowing it. Talk to an allergist. You won't regret it. An allergist got rid of my asthma. " Imagine that--not a naturopath, but an MD "got rid of my asthma". Here's what you continue to recommend in spite of that: Over and over: "Nobody wants an alternative treatment for asthma. I have told people a hundred times that about 80% of people who have had asthma as kids have hidden food sensitivities. They can reduce or eliminate their symptoms by finding and removing these foods from their diet. Their energy level might skyrocket as well. They would know this if they talked to an alternative doctor (www.acam.org) or a naturopathic doctor (in the Yellow Pages). " Notice how the percentage jumped from 70% to 80%, and the doctors who can help you aren't allergists but naturopaths. You just make up new lies to suit your other lies. A person with an ounce of brains would know that his game is over, but you're a pathological liar who doesn't understand when he's uncovered. > >> > I'm going to explain this one more time to your simple behind. I > >> > never said that taking meds was bad. I SAID that if conventional [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > game is over, but you're a pathological liar who doesn't understand when > he's uncovered. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of the term "at least." I told you that I saw a conventional doctor (allergist) FIRST. I had not seen a naturopath by Dec. 2004. Leave me alone. Brad_Chad >> >> > I'm going to explain this one more time to your simple behind. I >> >> > never said that taking meds was bad. I SAID that if conventional [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Brad_Chad No. First of all, either percentage is false; there is zero evidence that food allergies or sensitivities play a significant role in asthma. You've never been able to support that contention but just repeat the same falsehood over and over anyway. In the first quotation, the allergist "got rid" of your asthma, but your recommendation to everyone here is not for an allergist, but for a naturopath--over and over. You won't be left alone to scam people with false information. You were put on notice by others here that you will be exposed. It will happen every time you post your lies. >>> >> > I'm going to explain this one more time to your >>> >> > simple behind. I [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > You were put on notice by others here that you will be exposed. > It will happen every time you post your lies. For someone who kept posting b.s., followed by, "I just want people to know the truth" and "Traditional M.D.'s and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know the truth", he sure isn't interested in telling people the truth about his fallacies, is he? > >> Notice how the percentage jumped from 70% to 80%, and the doctors who can > >> help you aren't allergists but naturopaths. You just make up new lies to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > on notice by others here that you will be exposed. It will happen every > time you post your lies. I told you, before, that traditional allergist often missed food sensitivities that triggered DELAYED reactions. alternatives or naturopaths were more likely to go through all the necessary steps to find their patient's Hidden Food Allergies. 200 years ago, people could not support the idea that citrus fruit was good for scurvy. Were people supposed to die waiting for proof? You just don't get it. This is not expensive or hard to try. It is not dangerous. I see no reason why people can't change their diet around for a few days to see what happens. Brad_Chad >> >> Notice how the percentage jumped from 70% to 80%, and the doctors who >> >> can [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > people can't change their diet around for a few days to see what > happens. So.... First you claimed to have seen an allergist who got rid of your asthma. Then later you change your story to say that conventional doctors just made you sicker and didn't help you but the naturopath did. Then you reveal that you actually self diagnosed the hidden food allergies after reading a few books and searched for a provider who agreed with you who happened to be the ND. AT this point you were recommending people pick an ND out of the yellow pages. When we called you on the mail order MD degree issues you then said that you didn;t mean for them to just pick one at randon out of the yellow pages but rather that they should carefully select one who attended one of four schools and is licensed. Later you let it slip that you still were not feeling well after seeing the ND and having your asthma cured and are now back to seeing an MD. Now you are claiming that you never maligned MD's or prescription drugs and are back to repeating the hidden food allergies stuff. I see no reason why anyone shoudl believe a word you say. Signature00doc >> >> Notice how the percentage jumped from 70% to 80%, and the >> >> doctors who can [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Brad_Chad Actually, this is what Brad told us before: 70 From: Brad_Chad - view profile Date: Wed, Dec 15 2004 2:32 am Email: "Brad_Chad" <Brad_Cha...@yahoo.com> Groups: alt.support.asthma Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author I had chronic fatigue and asthma as a small child. My asthma seemed to disappear for many years, until I got hayfever and joint pain. When I was 40 I read a magazine article that said that Hidden food allergies may trigger several medical conditions. I saw an allergist. I found out that I was allergic to corn and dairy products. All of my problems seemed to disappear in a matter of days. I had enough energy to compete in the Olympics. Many doctors will not refer you to an allergist because they want to try to give you a quick fix. The quick fix is not necessarily the best fix. Did you know that 70% of asthma is triggered by food allergies? Talk to an allergist. Food allergist are more complex than most people think. Brad_Cha...@yahoo.com > Fight? - Sure. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pharmaceuticals and > the companies that make them. Doc, he's not talking about the scenario or the example he gave. ROFLMAO I guess you'll have to put on a tin foil hat to communicate with him. > Doc, he's not talking about the scenario or the example he gave. ROFLMAO > > I guess you'll have to put on a tin foil hat to communicate with him. Yes, he is failing the Turing test again. Signature00doc > Big Pharma plus the processed foods industry have a tremendous >influence on the advertising industry. Therefore, they can influence >what is on television. > Brad_Chad Post an example of that influence, with independent documentation to support it. Or are you just making it up, once again? Not that I refute what you said above but I'm not seeing the connection between anything I said and this. To what, specifically, are you trying to relate this? Signature00doc > My alternative doctor (licensed M.D.) gives me a choice of > prescription or herbal supplements. What is this nonsense of calling your M.D., an "alternative doctor"? He's an M.D. A doctor. Call him that. > I said "Hidden Food Allergies". 60 minutes will never do a > story > on Hidden Food Allergies. The pharmaceuticals and processed > foods > companies won't let them. I, for one, would like to see proof of this assertion. Please provide a link to the source for this. >> > I saw both an alternative doctor and a naturopathic >> > doctor at the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Allergies > though. What a hypocrite. You CONSTANTLY tell people to go see a Naturopath, and to look for one in the yellow pages, no less, but you only saw one for a brief period of time because he couldn't help you, since he couldn't write prescription drugs you needed? And you're constantly bad mouthing THOSE, too? WHAT is your DEAL? > Brad_Chad >> >> If the M.D. agreed with the naturopath what is your beef witht >> he M.D.? > > Right now, I prefer to see my alternative M.D. Hey, 00doc - since you sometimes tell your patients to take supplements to solve their problems, do you think you should be calling yourself an "alternative M.D.???" >> > In spite of what you think, I am no naive dolt. >> >> I never said you were a dolt. No, Brad - the problem is that you think the people reading your hypocritical tyrades are naive dolts. Now we know the truth: 1) Brad Chad puts down M.D.'s. 2) Brad Chad puts down what he calls "traditional medicine" and prescription drugs 3) Brad Chad continues to insist that traditional doctors (aka M.D.'s), know nothing about hidden food allergies, despite evidence to the contrary 4) Brad Chad has consistently said he would never go to an M.D., he would go to his alternative doctor, instead 5) Brad Chad has consistently told people here to do what he does, go see a Naturopath 6) Brad Chad just stated a day or two ago that he only goes to Naturopaths that have graduated from Bastyr 7) Brad Chad has been irresponsible by telling people to find Naturopaths by looking in their yellow pages, saying nothing about Bastyr 8) Brad Chad just admitted he see's an M.D. himself, and only saw a Naturopath for a short period of time 9) Brad Chad has now stated that the Naturopath he saw couldn't help him, as he needed something stronger than what the Naturopath could prescribe 10) Brad Chad has just admitted he takes, or has taken, prescription drugs, despite his protestations that they're dangerous, that he doesn't take them, that he didn't need them to get better, and that M.D.'s and the pharmaceutical industry are involved in some grand conspiracy 11) Brad Chad has just admitted he sees an M.D., which means he doesn't have to pay cash for services, he gets to file a claim with an insurance company 12) Brad Chad has clearly twisted the truth, withheld important details to give false impressions and deceive, and apparently cannot be trusted on any front The unravelling of Brad Chad...... > Hey, 00doc - since you sometimes tell your patients to take supplements to > solve their problems, do you think you should be calling yourself an > "alternative M.D.???" I guess by Brad's defintion I am. The problem is that I think most M.D.'s are. So if most of them are doing it then are they really "alternative" anymore? Alternative to what? Certainly not the "mainstream". Alternative to the altenratives? So what do we call the alternatives now? Nevermind, I think I already know the answer. >>> > In spite of what you think, I am no naive dolt. >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The unravelling of Brad Chad...... More unravelling..... 13) He has claimed N.D.'s don't get sued or have complaints filed against them and then repeats those claims after examples of such complaints have been posted for him. 14) He claims M.D.'s have no incentive to make people well as N.D.'s do (and never supports that claim despite arguments against) but yet is currently seeing an M.D. and not his N.D. (Doesn't he want to get well?) 15) Tries to pass his allopathic M.D., who prescribes prescribes prescription drugs for him, off as an "alternative doctor". The one thing that is not clear at this point is whether his conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical control of the media and the source of healthcare funding are also lies or just paranoid delusions. Signature00doc >> The one thing that is not clear at this point is whether his >> conspiracy > theories about pharmaceutical control of the media and the > source of healthcare funding are also lies or just paranoid > delusions. Oh, I think most of us think it's clear...... > More unravelling..... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and the source of healthcare funding are also lies or just > paranoid delusions. Okay!! We're up to 15. Anyone else have anything to add? > > Hey, 00doc - since you sometimes tell your patients to take supplements to > > solve their problems, do you think you should be calling yourself an [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > them and then repeats those claims after examples of such complaints have > been posted for him. I don't think that naturopaths get sued to an extraordinary degree. Brad_Chad > 14) He claims M.D.'s have no incentive to make people well as N.D.'s do (and > never supports that claim despite arguments against) but yet is currently > seeing an M.D. and not his N.D. (Doesn't he want to get well?) I think that conventional doctors have an incentive to make people feel O.K., but not their BEST. Brad_Chad > 15) Tries to pass his allopathic M.D., who prescribes prescribes > prescription drugs for him, off as an "alternative doctor". > > The one thing that is not clear at this point is whether his conspiracy > theories about pharmaceutical control of the media and the source of > healthcare funding are also lies or just paranoid delusions. > I don't think that naturopaths get sued to an extraordinary > degree. Well, then you ARE a dolt. I found a few cases of wrongful death lawsuits and barely looked. There are only 2,500 naturopaths in the country. The percentage is going to be a lot higher than cases of wrongful death against M.D.'s. >> 14) He claims M.D.'s have no incentive to make people well as >> N.D.'s do (and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people > feel O.K., but not their BEST. And yet, you stopped going to your N.D., and started seeing an M.D., because you were in such a big hurry to feel.....what...okay, but not your best? Hypocrite. > > I don't think that naturopaths get sued to an extraordinary > > degree. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > M.D., because you were in such a big hurry to > feel.....what...okay, but not your best? Hypocrite. I told you before, I stopped going to a naturopath because I wanted to heal quicker. I wasted so much time seeing conventional doctors, that by the time I saw a naturopath, my condition had become entrenched. I kept giving conventional medicine another chance. When I saw a naturopath, I noticed improvement, but I was impatient. Before I saw a naturopath, I told a conventional doctor what I thought the problem was. He didn't believe in this particular medical condition. My alternative doctor did believe in it. I wish that I had switched from conventional doctors while my symptoms were small. Brad_Chad >. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Brad_Chad Since you keep bringing this up as an argument, I'm going to just come out and ask what the medical condition was/is. It may give us a better understanding of what you're talking about. Apart from that, you keep trying to absolve what you're preaching to people by bringing up your own unique circumstance. The truth is - naturopaths never have anything strong enough to solve anything big when it comes to health problems. Not to mention that you're still proving how dishonest you've been here. All this time you've blamed everything on hidden food allergies that only your naturopath could fix, and now there's some other medical condition that was the problem, that your naturopath was going to take too long to fix for your liking. Your whole position has been a sham. "Not to mention that you're still proving how dishonest you've been here. All this time you've blamed everything on hidden food allergies that only your naturopath could fix, and now there's some other medical condition that was the problem, that your naturopath was going to take too long to fix for your liking. Your whole position has been a sham. " Let's not forget that what he is saying about "conventional" docs (you know - the MD's he doesn't like as opposed to the ones he does) is that they use "sledge |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message