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 / Nutrition / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TC - 23 Jan 2007 15:53 GMT
In 1864, William Banting published, at his own expense, a short booklet
on his experience in being obese and the long road to his successfully
losing his excess weight.

http://www.lowcarb.ca/atkins-diet-and-low-carb-plans/harvey-banting.html

In the booklet he explains how the medical people of the day completely
failed him until he found a Dr Harvey who suggested the diet that
finally produced results. It was definitively low-carb.

Here is the response to this successful dieting concept from the
European scientific and medical community:

The Half-yearly Abstract of the Medical Sciences: Being a Digest of
British and Continental... edited by William Harcourt Ranking, Charles
Bland Radcliffe, William Dommett Stone

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC67529652&id=CY-7TmES2OwC&pg=RA2-PA339&lpg=
RA2-PA339&dq=corpulence&as_brr=1#PRA2-PA339,M1


Note that there is little or no acknowledgement of the value of a
dieting strategy that actually works and results in major improvements
in virtually all the patients health concerns. And rather than call for
further investigation and/or implementation of this new paradigm, they
simply try to explain the theoretically *possible* bad health effects.
On the one hand, they have what appears to me a miraculously successful
weight loss with accompanying health improvements, and on the other
hand they object to possible theoretical negative health effects that
may or may not happen.

The sheer arrogance and ignorance and lack of scientific objectivity is
only eclipsed by their pathetic lack of willingness to examine and
investigate a simple paradigm, that could alleviate much suffering,
simply because they don't have the intellectual and professional
capacity to admit that their accepted paradigm may be wrong. They
completely ignore the succes of the low carb diet, both in successfully
achieving the weight loss and radically improving the general health of
the patient.

Note the weight loss advice being given by the Allopaths. Eat less and
exercise more. Sounds familiar? And here we are 143 years later with a
scientifically confirmed 95%-plus failure rate for this method. We are
still trying to unsuccessfully lose weight in the same allopathic way
they were trying to unsuccessfully lose weight in 1864. With record
levels of obesity and obesity related disease. We have never been
fatter and sicker. And these allopathic medical people are still the
ones we look to for advise on obesity today.

TC
TC - 23 Jan 2007 16:03 GMT
> In 1864, William Banting published, at his own expense, a short booklet
> on his experience in being obese and the long road to his successfully
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> TC

Forgot to post this:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0iJMgZwQCFGBPfoy&id=pXMFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP653&lpg=
PP653&dq=corpulence&as_brr=1


It illustrates the then current mindset and medically recommended
method if  weight control. Hence my last paragraph above.

TC
TC - 23 Jan 2007 17:21 GMT
> > In 1864, William Banting published, at his own expense, a short booklet
> > on his experience in being obese and the long road to his successfully
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> TC

And note that the concept of eat less and exercise more comes from a
book published in 1826.

181 years ago. Talk about long-term stupidity.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 23 Jan 2007 17:15 GMT
Wasn't atkins and other low carb advocates also "Allopathic"?  That term
invented by snake oil salesmen to allow "medicine" to be attached to the
label of their choice and to suggest regular medicine is somehow
inferior as a sub category.  It is used thusly by anti science and anti
medicine folk as a put down phrase.
TC - 23 Jan 2007 17:37 GMT
capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> Wasn't atkins and other low carb advocates also "Allopathic"?  That term

Technically, by way of training, yes. Obviously, they choose to not
accept the mainstream Allopathic treatment paradigm and to venture to
try something different.

> invented by snake oil salesmen to allow "medicine" to be attached to the
> label of their choice and to suggest regular medicine is somehow
> inferior as a sub category.  It is used thusly by anti science and anti
> medicine folk as a put down phrase.

That is the history of the use of the term.

***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine

"Allopathy or Allopathic medicine (from Gr. allos, other, and pathos,
suffering) is the name given by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of
homeopathy,[1] to the methods of his medical foes. The term is
sometimes used today to refer to conventional medicine. The correct
meaning and use of the term is a point of disputation, even among the
authorities.[2]"

***

Allopaths use "cures" or treatments that tend to try to reverse a
conditon by applying a treatment that affects the body in a way
opposite to the problem. For example, If you have inflammation, they
prescribe a pill that is shown to reduce swelling. If you have a pain,
they prescribe a pill that numbs the pain. If your appendix gets
infected, they remove it.

Apply this approach to obesity and you can see the extremely simplistic
(read "idiotic") conclusions that Allopaths came to.

1) Obesity appears as an excess of body mass, apparently (on the
surface, anyways) caused by eating excess amounts of food. The response
of Allopaths is to restrict the consumption of foods in general.

B) Obese people appear to not be very mobile or appear to not be (or
not able to be) very active. The response from Allopaths? Move more.
Exercise more.

Failure to investigate simple things like the actual composition of the
diet simply seems to not have occurred to early Allopaths. Why? Because
they believed that they already figured it out. In spite of the
constant 95% failure rate of the eat-less/exercise-more paradigm.

Hence todays all-permeating Allopathic arrogance and ignorance of our
most pressing health problem, obesity.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 23 Jan 2007 19:59 GMT
> Wasn't atkins and other low carb advocates also "Allopathic"?  That term

"Technically, by way of training, yes. Obviously, they choose to not
accept the mainstream Allopathic treatment paradigm and to venture to
try something different."

No, but such is the usual course in science, even in the degree of
greatest difference they did not adopt any but scientific explanation,
all of which is far from the snake oil "medicine" folk who use that term
as a rheetorical spin device.
TC - 23 Jan 2007 20:48 GMT
> > Wasn't atkins and other low carb advocates also "Allopathic"?  That
> term
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> all of which is far from the snake oil "medicine" folk who use that term
> as a rheetorical spin device.

What irony. That is quite funny, considering that some of the the most
famous of historical allopaths were essentially snake oil salesmen and
what you call "medicine" folk. The whole allopathic industry comes from
those roots historically. Where do you think the modern medical
paradigms come from?

It was the naturopaths and the homeopaths that coined and popularized
the term Allopathy, and it was directed at the glorified snake oil
salesmen, or those doctors who bought into the snake oil, and had a
pill or a concoction for every ill. Snake oil was the first ineffective
pharmaceutical marketted in the guise of an effective medicine. Kinda
like Statins and SSRIs and COX-2 inhibitors. They claim to do something
but they don't and, in fact, are more often than not, dangerous.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 23 Jan 2007 22:22 GMT
"What irony. That is quite funny, considering that some of the the most
famous of historical allopaths were essentially snake oil salesmen and
what you call "medicine" folk. The whole allopathic industry comes from
those roots historically. Where do you think the modern medical
paradigms come from?"

Proof please, bald assertions do not serve.  Posting unexplained links
do not serve either.

"It was the naturopaths and the homeopaths that coined and popularized
the term Allopathy, and it was directed at the glorified snake oil
salesmen, or those doctors who bought into the snake oil, and had a pill
or a concoction for every ill. Snake oil was the first ineffective
pharmaceutical marketted in the guise of an effective medicine. Kinda
like Statins and SSRIs and COX-2 inhibitors. They claim to do something
but they don't and, in fact, are more often than not, dangerous."

Proof please for the "snake oil" quib above please, links as above.  The
term was coined as the kind of spin device as is being used above, where
science fails create labels instead.

The drugs mentioned had to pass the fda threshold of showing they do as
claimed,ie. they work.  If there are other problems they are apart from
this fact.  Those who push the rhetorical labels can not point to even
their methods or drugs working as a bare minimal bit of support for
their claims in a majority of cases.  We can only make guesses as to
adverse effects because they are not required to report them, we learn
of them by word of mouth when enough people have had an adverse effect
only.

The term is used as shorthand for anti science based medicine.
TC - 24 Jan 2007 00:18 GMT
On Jan 23, 4:22 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> "What irony. That is quite funny, considering that some of the the most
> famous of historical allopaths were essentially snake oil salesmen and
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> The term is used as shorthand for anti science based medicine.

Hey, I did my homework. You do yours.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 01:38 GMT
"Hey, I did my homework. You do yours."

Smile, when asked for proof to support bald assertions we get the above,
but not for the first time, par for the course.  We are bing asked one
presumes to provide the support asked ofhim?
TC - 24 Jan 2007 04:10 GMT
On Jan 23, 7:38 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> "Hey, I did my homework. You do yours."
>
> Smile, when asked for proof to support bald assertions we get the above,
> but not for the first time, par for the course.  We are bing asked one
> presumes to provide the support asked ofhim?

So you can immediately label it as cherry picking without even glancing
at it?

You show me I'm wrong. I know I'm right.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 16:50 GMT
> Smile, when asked for proof to support bald assertions we get the above,
> but not for the first time, par for the course.  We are bing asked one
> presumes to provide the support asked ofhim?

"So you can immediately label it as cherry picking without even glancing
at it?

You show me I'm wrong. I know I'm right."

That is what we are asking you to provide support for, beyond your
feeling you are "right".  He who advances a notion is bound to provide
the support for it.  Others are not bound to do anything but may choose
to respond when support is provided.
TC - 24 Jan 2007 18:03 GMT
On Jan 24, 10:50 am, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> > Smile, when asked for proof to support bald assertions we get the
> above,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the support for it.  Others are not bound to do anything but may choose
> to respond when support is provided.

OK, right off the bat, we know that *you* are here not to debate
anything logically, but simply to try to cast aspersions on anything
that is contrary to your food industry cult agenda. Your asking me to
provide proof is just a ruse for you to accuse me of cherry picking
when I do provide proof.

So I see no reason to provide proof to *you* just for your predictable
accusations of cherry picking.

I provide information to everyone to read and to prompt discussion. If
you disagree with the info, fine, if you agree, even better. But in the
end, I don't give a rats a.s what *you* think. So take your food
industry cult troll garbage and go to aitch eeee double hockey sticks.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 19:03 GMT
"OK, right off the bat, we know that *you* are here not to debate
anything logically, but simply to try to cast aspersions on anything
that is contrary to your food industry cult agenda. Your asking me to
provide proof is just a ruse for you to accuse me of cherry picking
when I do provide proof.

So I see no reason to provide proof to *you* just for your predictable
accusations of cherry picking.

I provide information to everyone to read and to prompt discussion. If
you disagree with the info, fine, if you agree, even better. But in the
end, I don't give a rats a.s what *you* think. So take your food
industry cult troll garbage and go to aitch eeee double hockey sticks."

Smile, continued "proof" is not yet seen, but squeals of "uncle" are,
so be it.
TC - 24 Jan 2007 19:58 GMT
On Jan 24, 1:03 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> "OK, right off the bat, we know that *you* are here not to debate
> anything logically, but simply to try to cast aspersions on anything
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Smile, continued "proof" is not yet seen, but squeals of "uncle" are,
> so be it.

Funny how the one who advocates the so-called "evidence-based"
allopathic paradigm has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to
support his food industry cult agenda.

That means that you've lost the debate.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 20:10 GMT
"Funny how the one who advocates the so-called "evidence-based"
allopathic paradigm has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to
support his food industry cult agenda.

That means that you've lost the debate."

Smile, he who squeals "uncle" can't even keep track of the thread.  You
made some assertions without support, just bald assertions of the kind
one can hear at any bar any night of the week for any topic.  Proof for
them was requested, until now we see this rhetorical tap dance.  If it
had been I who advanced a notion then it would be proper that I also
provide support, but this is not the case here.

"Debate" it is not because support is required to even start one, but
hope blooms eternal.
TC - 24 Jan 2007 20:55 GMT
On Jan 24, 2:10 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> "Funny how the one who advocates the so-called "evidence-based"
> allopathic paradigm has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> "Debate" it is not because support is required to even start one, but
> hope blooms eternal.

Well, you keep requesting your proof. No one is your lapdog here.

I stopped "debating" you the moment you rejected huge amounts of
scientific proof on your groundless assumption that it was cherry
picking on my part. You showed no proof of cherry picking, nor did you
attempt to show any science contrary to the point being presented by
me. Typically trollish behavior. And clearly indicative of a food
industry agenda.

If you think you are engaging in debate, or if you think others believe
that you are engaging in debate, then you are the fool we know you to
be.

Your lack of actual real discussion of the topics shows you to be a
troll, and a pretty poor troll at that. So frankly, in the absence of
any intelligent discourse on your part, go f.ck yourself.

TC
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 22:04 GMT
"Well, you keep requesting your proof. No one is your lapdog here.

I stopped "debating" you the moment you rejected huge amounts of
scientific proof on your groundless assumption that it was cherry
picking on my part. You showed no proof of cherry picking, nor did you
attempt to show any science contrary to the point being presented by me.
Typically trollish behavior. And clearly indicative of a food industry
agenda.

If you think you are engaging in debate, or if you think others believe
that you are engaging in debate, then you are the fool we know you to
be.

Your lack of actual real discussion of the topics shows you to be a
troll, and a pretty poor troll at that. So frankly, in the absence of
any intelligent discourse on your part, go f.ck yourself."

Do you feel better yet?  Your idea of "debate" is to string some sound
bites and call it a day.  Debate requires both evidence and the logic of
how it fits in support of your notion.  Almost without fail you lack one
or both of these elements,ie. evidence and/or logic.  The best you could
do is throw out a string of links with no logic expressed as to what
relation to your notion they provided.  By choice of search terms you
cherry picked the results you wanted, that was in the debate sense
neither evidence nor logical rationalizaion in support of your notion.

Smile, playing the victum card are we?  In some ways you are correct,
you don't debate you sling mud and hope some of it sticks, that is about
the best one ever sees from you.  You are an ideolog whose best response
is a personal attack Go in peace.
TC - 24 Jan 2007 15:46 GMT
On Jan 23, 4:22 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
> "What irony. That is quite funny, considering that some of the the most
> famous of historical allopaths were essentially snake oil salesmen and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> term was coined as the kind of spin device as is being used above, where
> science fails create labels instead.

A cyclopedia of domestic medicine and surgery: Being an Alphabetical
Account of the Various... - Page 506
by Thomas Andrew - 1842 - 692 pages
The Tincture of Snake Runt. Snake root bruised, one ounce and half. ...
of fixed
alkaline salt, in a state of combination with animal or vegeta-ble oil.
...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC19529841&id=SG-AfOUde4AC&pg=RA5-PA506&lpg=
RA5-PA506&dq=snake+oil&as_brr=1


Written by an MD.

TC

> The drugs mentioned had to pass the fda threshold of showing they do as
> claimed,ie. they work.  If there are other problems they are apart from
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> The term is used as shorthand for anti science based medicine.
capmack@shipper.com - 24 Jan 2007 16:45 GMT
In an attempt to provide "proof" that medicine today is derived from
"snake oil" from previous times we find:

The Tincture of Snake Runt. Snake root bruised, one ounce and half. ...
of fixed alkaline salt, in a state of combination with animal or
vegeta-ble oil."

Smile, not even close, the snake root mention is not relevant.  Here is
the real source:

"   snake oil

  A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's
  marketing hype. The term comes from the 1800s in which elixirs and
  potions of all kinds, even ones that supposedly included the oils
from
  snakes, were sold as a cure for everything that ailed a person."

The first use of it as above was an actual person who traveled around
selling snake oil purely as a marketing gimmic to attract attention, a
label which then came to be associated with all nostrums of dubious
origin and value, not unlike many "alternative drugs" today.

It is good you are now doing some homework, but getting it right is
important also.
 
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



©2008 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.