eyes open...this is for your eyes.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is a cross posting of a discussion I have been involved in which I hope will expand your situational viewpoint and help you to cope. My best wishes are with you, regardless.

Sam Mcgee (weissacre@gwtc.net), October 28, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SAM sez:'Medical Mafia Cartel'? Your response is exactly why people, such as myself, are dubious of any "product" that claims to be a cure- all. Sam, if you read my post carefully, I do not say 'cure-all' as it relates to alternative medicine. I do not even imply it.

SAM sez: There are pros and cons to everything--except, apparently, anything to do with alternative medicine.

I agree, but when you go to your doctor with a chronic problem, does he offer you alternatives to cut, burn and medicate? Only very very rarely are you advised of alternatives. The doctor offers the pros and cons as it relates exclusively to allopathic practices, which leaves the average joe not much of a choice, that is unless he is apprised of non-invasive alternatives.

SAM sez: From what I've read on this and other forums and from innumerable websites, too many people who reject modern medicine absolutely will not admit that their favorite remedies may have any kind of a downside. Anyone who disagrees with them or tries to present "the other side of the story" is immediately slapped down and stomped on. Well, stomp away--you only discredit yourself and the alternative medicine field, which is a shame.

I don't reject modern medicine, Sam. It most definitely has it's place. I happen to appreciate emergency and orthopedic medicine, as I feel there is no replacement for the treatment of acute problems such as a severed artery, a heartattack in progress or a broken bone. My beef is with the medical establishment that attempts to treat the symptoms of chronic problems without addressing the cause while suppressing, maligning, belittling and crushing alternative therapies that treat the cause.

SAM sez: I have nothing against alternative medicine. There are many therapies that work very well. There are just as many that don't work at all. _________________(fill in the blank) will cure everything! No side effects! All natural! Kills all bacteria and viruses! Never go to a doctor again! Save Money!

Sam, I don't believe in cure alls either. It takes effort and commitment to get and stay healthy. There are no short cuts. There are health aids, health boosters and problem specific remedies, but cure alls? I have yet to run across one myself. Dr. Lorraine Day cured her cancer through diet + mind. Go figure. She didn't buy into anyone's claims of the cure-all product you are fingering, yet she is being villified and harrassed. Get my point? Sam, there are so very many wonderful ways you can make problems go away without cut, burn and medicate, I can't even begin to tell you. Many of them don't even involve anything more than what you can find in your kitchen cupboard. Having been a student of alternative therapy for 15+ years, I am still astounded at what allopathic doctors continue not to know. Patients are having to teach doctors about ways to deal with disfunctions of the liver, gallbladder, stomach, circulatory, intenstinal and nervous systems. Many of these 'diseases, maladies' can be rectified with adjustments in diet and additions of nutritional supplements.

SAM sez:( Oh, by the way, we are not doctors, we are not licensed, we do not diagnose, we do not prescribe, we do not advise, we do not recommend, this product is experimental, this product has not been clinically tested, this product has not been proven...) Sooooooo many disclaimers...Companies sell these products because they make money. They use testimonials from customers to circumvent FDA and FTC regulations. They use their customers for free advertising--of course, all big companies do that.

This is the exact reason why the allopathic cut, burn and medicate medical establishment must be referred to as a cartel, because you have to have millions upons millions of dollars to purchase acceptability from the FDA. Perhaps, many years ago, testing was real and results were actually used to protect the consumer from potentially damaging/harmful/deadly foods and drugs, but that was when there was 'some' integrity with regard to FDA standards. Thanks to corruption and collusion between the FDA and the drug/food companies cartel, our society has been harmed with items such as Prozac (flouride derivate), Aspartame aka Nutrasweet (pending lawsuits...Monsanto has 'divested' themselves of the product), Phen- Phen (deadly diet aid), Ibuprofin and Acetaminophen (causes liver damage-admitted by Dr. James C. Jamieson who holds the patent on acetaminophen aka Tylenol), oh and for you old timers, don't forget Thalidomide. Consider these drugs only a small sampling of the problem, all delivered to you, courtesy of the FDA, through the drug companies whose primary concern is to make money. The FDA is now one of the most corrupt arms of the government. Many FDA officials are former employees of these big companies.

One other aspect of drugs that many do not understand is that most are artificially produced versions of, or actual derivatives of, medicinal herbs. Artificial production of a medicinal herb or extraction of a specific property thereof fractionalizes and concentrates the properties of that herb. What is wrong with that? Well, that is why there are side effects to drugs. Actually, there are side effects to taking too much of an herb, or ingesting the wrong herb for a condition as well as possible harmful effects if taken under certain circumstances. Herbs are powerful, in their own right.

What occurs when you have a side effect? You have to understand how a composite versus a derivative works on the chemistry of the body. When an herb based (or artificial replication) drug is created to produce a reaction, it attempts to mimic a specific property of an herb inside the body. Herbs normally work subtley, taking days, if not longer, to produce reactions. Drugs produce reactions very quickly because they contain a particular property in much greater proportions, and the results can work, however, one has to deal with side effects because the other properties of the herb are missing. That is due to the body and it's reactions. Both herbs and drugs attempt to mimic brain chemical functions. These functions are a precise coordination of varying chemicals in exact proportions that no drug or herb will ever be able to properly mimic. Thus you have a choice. Herbs or drugs? One is less invasive over the other.

As an aside, if a drug is produced without an herb based chemistry...then it is created to reproduce brain chemical function, by experimentation on same. Period.


-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 29, 1999


"....if a drug is produced without an herb based chemistry...then it is created to reproduce brain chemical function, by experimentation on same. Period."

Ahhh-- In the development of penicillin, what "herb" was involved? Fungus (Penicillium notatum) is not an herb.

What brain function does penicillin reproduce? I can't even guess.

Sulfanilamide and other sulfa-type antibiotics are synthesized from chemicals. Herbs are not used, and no brain function is reproduced when sulfa drugs are administered.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 30, 1999.

Tom, do a little research. Start with Dr. Candace Pert. She discusses this topic in the book called Megabrain by Michael Hutchison

All chemical functions are a complex intricate series of many interrelating properties of which drugs and herbs (and fungus) imperfectly mimic the action.

Perhaps one day we will be using an externally applied stimulus to aid in our naturally occuring chemical releases inside the body to address disease or malfunctions.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 30, 1999.

Thats what I get for doing late night postings...

"then it is created to reproduce brain chemical function"

In the above statement 'brain' should be replaced with 'body'

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 30, 1999.

I am a glutton for punishment...

OR--suggested reading for you: "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

-- Sam Mcgee (weissacre@gwtc.net), October 30, 1999.

Sam, exactly what in my above post do you think is weird?

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 30, 1999.

Read the book.

-- Sam Mcgee (weissacre@gwtc.net), October 30, 1999.

OR--suggested reading for you: "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer

I am not familiar with this book, but its title implies that one should disbelieve anything that's outside a society's prevailing frame of reference. I find fault with this. Many medical practices that are widely accepted today, were regarded as weird when they were introduced.

I can't see why alternatives, many of which were around for thousands of years before Modern Medicine took its first breath, don't deserve a fair hearing, though why they aren't given one is no mystery.

I also object to the implication that the prevailing wisdom need not be questioned. Science says that the testing and retesting of accepted ideas must not stop, as there could always be a counterexample. But the invariable reaction of Modern Medicine to evidence that contradicts its fundamental beliefs is to attack the messenger. Modern Medicine isn't science, it's religion.

I could see a lot more value is a book titled, "Why People Dismiss Weird Things." Come to think of it, it's already been written: The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas Kuhn.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 30, 1999.

Read the book. You needn't get so defensive--it has nothing to do with medicine, alternative or otherwise.

-- Sam Mcgee (weissacre@gwtc.net), October 31, 1999.

According to the publisher's description of the book you recommend, which I found on amazon.com, the authors consider five reasons why people believe weird things, and of course "evidence" is not among them. My earlier post seems to have been right on target in exposing the hypocrisy of the authors' thesis, yet you urged that I read their book anyway. Considering that you did not even take trouble to constructively address my post, I find rather presumptious of you to suggest that I read an entire book.

Since you did not indicate why you were recommending the book, prefering instead to say in effect "I'm right, shut up," I surmise that you have faith that our government and institutions will sagely guide us ignorant citizens. This faith must not be shattered by genuine consideration of evidence to the contrary, hence your reliance on the "weird is wrong" argument to shield you against such heresy.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 31, 1999.

The reason I didn't describe the book (which you've gotten all wrong, BTW) was simply to see what sort of response I would get. An experiment of sorts. You did not disappoint me. From one brief, ambiguous statement you extrapolated all sorts of erroneous information about my beliefs and my personality. You couldn't have been more wrong. Thats what happens when you take small pieces of information and try to draw big conclusions.

I have not "presumed" to analyze or criticize you or anyone else on this forum. I have only been critical of some of the, shall we say, fantastic claims that have been broadcast here in regards to colloidal silver and zappers. I have been researching both items for weeks now and I have yet to find any data from controlled studies that supports those claims. Yes, silver is antibacterial and bacteriostatic. That has been proven in controlled studies. Yes, colloidal silver will kill some bacteria in petri dishes and it is effective for cleaning skin wounds. That has also been proven. However, I have yet to find any data that supports the claim that colloidal silver is beneficial when taken internally. The fact that it kills bacteria on surfaces does not prove it will kill bacteria inside the human body. Once again small pieces of imformation are being used to draw big conclusions.

I choose to believe verifiable facts and evidence rather than testimonials from people I don't know (and that applies to all issues). That is my nature and I make no apologies for it. If that bothers anyone, so be it.

-- Sam Mcgee (weissacre@gwtc.net), October 31, 1999.

Sam, you are turning this post into a pissing contest. You have yet to address the contentions I have posted with relevant contrary information.

Until you address my posting, everything else you have posted is a waste of space and is an attempt to lead the reader away from the real issue at hand.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 31, 1999.

Sam, I was disappointed that my earlier post which I thought was relevant to this thread, elicited only an admonition about being defensive (which was a personal criticism, though a mild one), so I figured I'd compose a post that was offensive. 8^) I admit to getting carried away, but if one provokes a bee and it stings, putting all the blame on the bee doesn't seem right. Let's put this behind us.

I share your passion for personally verifying ideas before accepting them. I concur with your skepticism regarding third-hand testimonials, and I think some skepticism toward those who conduct and publish studies is healthy too. Not all researchers are as competent and objective as we'd hope, and their source of funding may color their judgment and conclusions. I've seen some frightful errors in study design or logic, and I'm sure you have as well.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 31, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ