Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007
Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
|
|
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.
|
|
|