Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / October 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Re: Dictionary of Alternative Medicine

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
markd@toad-net.com - 26 Oct 2004 15:26 GMT
Having found himself so clever, he responds to himself in agreement.  Does
the below reflect iq or hfq,ie hissy fit quotient?  As he was outflanked
on his reason for returning to the news groups,ie. to build traffic on his
web box, sand that is, it is good to see some ernest confession.

>> Well, if you are incapable of a mature adult conversation then babble
>> all you want to.
>...
>> PS:  I guess that makes me smarter than you?
>
>Actually, I know that I am. :)
>
>The primary purpose of the dictionary is to attract hits to my web
>site. The next reason for its existence is to totally piss-off and
>infuriate all the science bigots at Wikipedia.  The third reason is to
>inform the public about the topic of alternative medicine.
>
>For shot-gun hits, I will have about a dozen index pages that talk
>about the subject of alternative medicine in general.  The place was a
>mess, but this actually works to my advantage. :)
>
>To really infuriate all the science bigots at Wikipedia even more, I
>will add the pages that I got into major battles over.  Of course, I
>will write them my way. :)
>
>I will of course copy topics similar to natural health like natural
>hygiene and naturopathy.
>
>But because my single web page on exercise consistently gets the most
>hits, I am  going to convert every article on exercise and physical
>fitness.  Should be a score or two of these articles. This is called
>the easy way of building a popular web site. :)
>
>By the time I get through with the dictionary (wont be long), the time
>I spent in developing Wikipedia would have proved to been well spent.
>And, I definitely plan on letting the boys at Wikipedia know about it.
>They actually think that they won.   Ha, ... Hah, Ha! :)
>
>Just thought that you might want to know.
>--
>john gohde
>http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/
markd@toad-net.com - 26 Oct 2004 15:34 GMT
If you are not informed as to the science of heavey metal effects in
humans, why would you assume your friends who prescribe these drugs to be
any more so?  

>Presuming there's a rationale for the question, then it is a good one
>and I'm sorry I don't know the answer yet. Haven't researched it. And
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>                George M. Carter
markd@toad-net.com - 27 Oct 2004 14:29 GMT
Think and demonstrate are two very different things.  As requested before,
please show bias on the scientific level for quackwatch by showing cherry
picking of research and/or fraud in some context.  At quackwatch each
topic is covered by a review of research relating to the claims of the
topic, it is at that level bias must be demonstrated.  The link below is a
discussion board which does not rise to the level of the above.

>Oh--it ain't just me that thinks those guys are biased:
>http://s.webring.com/forum?forum=freeadvancedheal;did=96
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>                George M. Carter
markd@toad-net.com - 30 Oct 2004 14:15 GMT
I understand your personal reasons to use them, it still doesn't change
the reality of cam.  Few clinical confirmations across the board they work
and/or are safe.  That is just one of those nagging facts that refuse to
go away.  What might be when and if clinical research is done some day is
no substitute for effective and safe.  I follow several journals and see
real research being done on some "traditional" drugs, that is good.  A
great majority of them involve isolating the active substance thought to
be the real possible cause for possible clinical results.  That is far
from the "traditional" trial and error the humans are the lab rats methods
cam employs, which still leave in the end all the questions at the start
of effective and safe because clinical demonstrated results are
impossible.  All the positive feelings toward cam can not erase this
hurdle which solution still means research.

>>No, I want demonstrated effective and safe first, not just testing a batch
>>to see if it contains what the label says.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>                George M. Carter
 
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.