The Medical Industry is psychopathic, has been for 200 years or so at a rough guess. Allopathy must turn over trillions every year, and nutritional medicine would just about destroy 98% of that, so supplements are the thin edge of the wedge as far as they are concerned. For example Vitamin C will cure most, probably all infections, prevent cot-death and reverse heart disease, among other benefits. That would destroy the vaccination and heart disease industry (bypass was $12 Billion USA years ago) at a stroke, and cause a dominoe effect taking down the rest of the pharma hoax
Known with infections for 50 years, would have saved half a million babies roughly, worldwide.
Secondly at the top of the medical cartel the covert agenda is to harm, that creates more business if you can stop anyone seeing the connection, and serves the depopulation agenda as well, and also keeps Africa for the whites, as most of our industry relies on African minerals.
"At the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them." Vaccines - Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher (2001) http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html
"My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand." [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html
My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business [medicine] is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organization and the unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' and ... [other vaccine promoting] organizations is one of murder and genocide. . . . I cannot see any other possible explanation. . . . You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995) http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kalokerinos.html
I can- you're a fool. Sorry, but you have to expect that sort of criticism if you come out with such grand claims with no evidence.
I'm not interested in your anit-phrma rant. You have no evidence for it and even if it was or wasn't the case, you will beleive it nomatter what. Its an ideal that appeals to you, alike a lifestyle choice of a world view that fits with what you see yourself to be. Evidence doesn't come into it.
Ok, but back in the real worls, lets look at the more tangible claims you make. Vitamin C will cure possible all infections. Right then, so all infection can be treated by simply eating oranges fast enough? Cholera, diptheria, small pox, ebola, MRSA, meningitis, HIV, Hepatitis? These are all illness that can be cured by eating oranges very quickly? Is that what you are saying.
Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis. Now here the had part (don't be afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this? Any research that supports this? Or do we just trust you on it?
Ok, how about the vitamin C reversing heart disease claim. Ho many oranges do you have to eat to reverse heart diease? What it is is very advanced? Do we hav to eat lemons then? How many? What have the researfh studies into this told us?
You know what I am going to ask for next- that's right, evidence! Go on, some peer-reviewed studies would be ideal really, but any evidence at all. We can all look at it then, judge it for ourselves and take nothing on faith or face value.
Thanks
H
No. I guess you haven't even heard of nutritional or orthomolecular medicine.
"Although we were able to cure many cases of polio with massive doses of ascorbic acid, one single instance demonstrates the value of vitamin C. Two brothers were sick with poliomyelitis. These two boys were given 10 and 12 grams of ascorbic acid, according to weight, intravenously with a 50 c.c. syringe, every eight hours for 4 times and then every 12 hours for 4 times. They also were given one gram every two hours by mouth around the clock. They made complete recovery and both were athletic stars in high school and college. A third child, a neighbour, under the care of another physician received no ascorbic acid. This child also lived. The young lady is still wearing braces."---Dr Klenner The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C Fred R. Klenner, M.D. 1949
"Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis. Now here the hard part (don't be afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this? Any research that supports this? Or do we just trust you on it? "
LOL. Dr Levy has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?) to back it up the infections and poisons use, I suggest you read his book http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable---Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D.
or read some of Klenners papers http://www.whale.to/m/klenner.html
and given that has been suppressed for 57 years it makes it odds on the other vitamin C research is true also, also Vitamin E eg for Heart Disease http://www.whale.to/w/nutrition.html
and Cayenne is full of vitamin C--that works well also http://www.whale.to/w/herbs.html
Cot-death http://www.whale.to/w/sids.htm
I'm, sorry whale but it just screams that you don't know what evidence is. look, this isn't a criticism, the default position is that when people tell you something works you say, great, it works! But around 500 years of scientific progress have taught us that is is false, that controlled experiments are the way to do this.
"has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?) to back it up the infections and poisons use"
Have you read them? What do you make of them? Any of them better than others? Some good some bad? Of does the fact you have read a book with someone who has 1200 scientific references enough for you to out your full faith behind that? I don' trust anyone that well. I would really have to critically analyse each and every one of these publications to decide if I agreed with this author or not.
Wouldn't you? Or do you just agree with what he says and 1200 uncriticised (by you) references enough?
Like I say, with all due respect, you're struggle to understand what I mean by evidence. A good read that makes you think "wow!" is not it!!!
Do you feel unde personal attack? Is there a need to be so aggressive ? You criticize Whale's 12 000 references... ("Have you read them? What do you make of them?..."). So ok, he doesn't know what evdence is. Do you? It's really ironic to hear you talk about 500 years of scientific progress... what do you mean by that exactly? You don't believe Whale and we should believe you.. you hasn't even lived a 100 years??? Don't you think you are being a bit presumptuous?
Only Allopathy says anecdotes don't count, unless an MD sticks one into a journal and calls it a case study http://www.whale.to/a/anecdotes_h.html
How else could they get us to ignore the 5,000 plus parent observations of vaccine autism? See how it works?
Vitamin C just by its lonesome would destroy Allopathy, and he would have to get a real job over marketing poisons that don't cure, kill 120,000 people every year (USA), addict millions every year (way way worse than heroin addiction) and give vaccine disease to 1 in 5 children, autism being one http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
So can you see why no amount of evdience is going to be enough for him?
I think this comment sums it up:
"Nancy Hokkanen came up with one of the greatest analogies ever to describe the autism and vaccine controversy and how it feels to us parents of kids with autism. She compared it to the Catholic Church's cover up of decades of sexual abuse."
57 years they have suppressed vitamin C cure for infections and cot-death, letting at least 500,000 babies die from cot-death, plus millions from infections. Not exactly a great thing to have on your CV is it? http://www.whale.to/w/sids.htm
"10,000 infants die every year--needlessly--from cot-death".---Linus Pauling
Harradine, the people here on this blog have made up their minds after having done some research at least and/or experienced the conventional side. Just as maybe you have made up your mind with a little research or whatever it takes to convince you.
The point is that attempts are being made to deny alternative medicines to people who want them. Why is this freedom being taken away? We should all have the choice.
Like I say, I have no problem at all with people using homeopathy amd feeling mucb better for it. I think there is a lot to be learned from how this happens. But I would like to see it studies honestly and properly.
When I mention 500 years of scientific progress I of course refer to the method as well as the results. Over those 500 years, experimental methods have been developed that are far and away the best approach to determining cause and effect, to progress knowledge. That's why all the calls for evidence. Without that, you are back in pre-enlightenment thinking.
Case reports are evidence. Just on their own do not rule out other possibile explanations and so cannot demonstrate causal associations. Just that two thing are associated.
As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide some decent evidence that homepathy works. How can that possibly be a biased request? How could anything be more neutral? That's what scientists ask each other all the time, part of their job- providing evidence.
that is the usual modus operandi of trolls (covert allopaths). I collected a few newsgroup ones http://www.whale.to/a/newsgroups_h.html
Most people who read forums or newsgroups are pretty unaware of medical politics.
Prett silly isn't it, an Allopath asking for proof homeopathy or nutritional medicine works? And giving the impression he is actually looking for something that would put him out of business. Daft really, but it fills people with doubt, and stops them asking the real questions, such as the effectiveness of Allopathy.
That 500 years of scientific progress can't be to do with Allopathy, as they have still to cure any disease apart from bacterial infections, and are responsible for 780,000 deaths every year in the USA alone, quite apart from the Allopathic suppression of non-Allopathic med http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html like the Vitamin C I mentioned. That suppression of cancer med causes the premature death of 500,000 people with chemo, and the use of AZT has killed 400,000 at least.
As well as never curing or being anywhere near curing mental illness, but addicting 10 million or so to benzos, 25,000 prozac suicides, 4 million kids on Kiddy Coke (Ritalin).
Progress? In Satan's eye, maybe.
The Modus Operandi of you, Whale, is to promite untested and ineffective therapies not based on evidence, but from the back of a system of spreadinf fear of genuine health benefits. Statements like Allopathy has not cured a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is depressing. Their are millions of people alive today who would not be were it not due to modern medicine.
No one is saying it is perfect (although no doubt you will think that I am), it has massive areas of ignorance, plenty of reasons to be skeptical of drug companies and they ways they operate, plenty of work to do in providing people with better treatment options. There is a great deal of work to do. But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would all be much better off using water is dangerous.
Whale, I will say it again- my call for evidence is a universal appeal- to anyway. Always ask for the evidence. Don't trust pharma companies, GPS, homeopaths, politicians, without evidence. If they cannot provide it, do not beleive what they say. If they can, look at it for yourself to see if it supports what they are saying. Not all evidence is good evidence.
Now, how is that a biased view? I'm not picking on anyone at all, or representing anyone. Just trying to ensure that evidence is high on the agenda for anyone who makes a medical claim. Surely you would agree with that?
"Statements like Allopathy has not cured a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is depressing."
Depressing is the word, but tell me what disease you have cured? Not cancer, most folk still fear that, not alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis, aids.
"At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people of an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything, stop whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart
"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.
Life extending is not a cure. And then they live in fear that it will come back again, and then chemo actually causes cancer
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy."—John Diamond
And your only decent therapy for cancer is surgery. Calling it a therapy and medicine is stretching the word, it is draw dropping when you think about it.
I think that covers your success rate with drugs and surgery, and radiation therapy, please.
"But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would all be much better off using water is dangerous."
Dangerous to Allopathy, for sure. We would sure be better off without drugs (apart from 1% of them), they kill 120,000 every year just in the USA, I am sure they would have gone with plain water. And so would the 660,000 who died under Allopathy (USA), plus the 400,000 or so done in afore their time by chemotherapy.
Then the 500,000 with ASD here (UK) would have opted for the water over the vaccinations that gave most of them that condition.
So the homeopaths are 780,000 ahead of you guys. And I'd go to a homeopath if I had cancer, first call, last call would be Allopathy.
And, we don't need to pass anything by you anyway, we can make up our own minds, but if you want to play Judge and Jury over non-Allopathic medicine then go ahead, if anyone is silly enough to give you jurisdiction. I know you have gotten away with that game for 200 years+, but your medical monopoly isn't going to live forever.
Nice try though.
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. 1956
Of course you have the choice to use homeopathy instead of any medical treatment when you fall ill. Mostly this is what people do when modern medicine has utterly failed them (as it does, it does not claim to be infallable- that's why medical science exists, to improve it).
That is your choice. Based on the sots of evidence you rely on, I am not surprised that you would choose Homeopathy. Good luck to you should you!
My gripe is that you base this decision on poor evidence, yet portry it as fact. You argue very angrily about the downsides of Pharm (of which there are many) all as a means to avoid actually questioning what homeopathy is all about.
You certainyl don't have to ask for anyone's permission to reject treatment and accept water. But you will have to expect people (who have nothing to do with Pharm, do not benefit from this industry, are not affiliated to it) to ask you for evidence. Nothing will get you over that hurdle except for scientific, experimental evidence of which there is none.
People reject medical treatments for all sorts of reasons. Relgious, ethical, suicidal. Its best to avoid pharmaceutical treatment unless it is absolutely necessary (that is a very obvious thing to say, but worth saying- drugs should only be used as a last resort). But when they are necessary, they can be life savers, life prolongers, and increase the quality of life.
Of course you don't have to run it past me or anyone else before choosing any treatment you like. Vitamin C, diet, homeopathy, parying, anything. But people who make claims that their treatments are effective and can be used to treat illness should definitely NOT be allowed to practise without some evidence to support this. Whether you are selling homeopathy, pharmaceutical drugs, lifestyle changes, anything. You need evidence.
You are an Allopath or Pharmaboy, defending Allopathy pretending to be unbiased. It always looks better if they can hide the fact they are an allopath pharma person. Most folk are sleepwalking and your comments are usually just enough to stop them waking up, and thinking, God forbid.
"ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth."
Pharma trolls inhabit discussion arenas and attack/flame non-allopathic medicine, and defend allopathy.
P.Utz is a classic newsgroup one http://www.whale.to/m/putz.html
I think the classic lie that underpins the game is: "If it can be show to work it will be integrated into conventional medicine."
There is overwhelming evidence vaccination is ineffective and dangerous but you still use that 150 years after that fact was well known
Heart bypass, hysterectomy, cholestrol hoax, etc http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html
Still waiting for an aids cure
Psychiatric drugs etc
Ypur best defence of these unpalatable horrors is to attack
I do not support pharmaceutical companies at all. I am just as critical of their methods and the claims of other scientists(which I do that professionally). I apply that criticism to all who make healthy advice claims. I am not baised againt one group or another. Well, that's not true. I judge groups that are unable to produce good evidence as suspicious and even those that do (such as pharma companies) i take their evidence with a massive pinch of salt and analyse it for errors and misleading data (whcih it sometimes has).
This isn't trolling whale, its an invitation to discuss evidence. The same request I make of scientists, so how can it be biased.
So, this evidence that vitamin C can be used to cure polio. Would you like to start with that?
There is overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection and death. It has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern times!!
Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely). Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence.
Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they are. But they have turned people lives around from the days when there wer no treatment options at all. Again, what are you suggesting, that Vit C or homeopathy are more effective in treatment psychiatric illness? For that you would need evidence which so far says the opposite.
My defence of these treatments is the evidence that they work. Publically avaiable, open access, reems and reems or corroborating evidence. If you disagree with it, or interpret the evidence in a different way, then say so. Provide example. Evidence is the only defense.
"If treatments are evidence based (and especially if they are cheaper!) they will very quickly find themselves being used in the conventional way. Thast is not a lie at all, it is just inconsistent with your clearly very extreme and cynical view of what medicine is."
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Absolute nonsense. The Cancer conspiracy is probably the best example of that lie http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html
Of course, that is why Allopathy is a non-word, as it becomes glaringly obvious when you look at 40 or so non-allopathic cancer therapies, along with chemo, and then realise only Allopathic ones get used, even though they are the worst by a long street, as well as being the only ones highly toxic (surgery isn't too toxic, but there are/were exceptions like the Wipple http://www.whale.to/cancer/wipple.html)
"There is overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection and death. It has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern times!!"
That just shows your troll behaviour as vaccination is easy to shred purely on statistics, smallpox vaccine the easiest http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html
In 1880, for example, it was killing 25,000 infants (directly and indirectly) at the height of compulsory vaccination. As the Leicester statistics show easily--they lost 2,000 LESS babies in their non-vaccinating years. http://www.whale.to/a/deathssmallpox.html
Measles is the other simple vaccine shredder http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html Deaths declined by 99.4% before vaccination. Now MMR kills way more than measles would be doing, and they still say it is safe and doesn't kill.
"Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they are."
You sound more and more like an Allopath songster. Still waiting for your cure list.
tell that to the benzo addicts, benzo addiction is way worse than heroin, you can get effects 10 years afetr withdrawl. Over 12 million benzo addicts worldwide http://www.whale.to/a/benzodiazepines_h.html, 3.6 million children on ADHD drugs in the United States, 1.6 million of those are taking more than one psychiatric drug in 2005. http://www.whale.to/a/adhd_drugs_h.html
You need to read Robert Whitaker http://www.whale.to/a/whitaker_h.html to get the REAL facts.
I think the level or criminality here exceptional.
Bearing in mind nutritional medicine actually helps and cures people with addicting them http://www.whale.to/w/nutritional.html
For example heroin withdrawal, criminal they still use methadone http://www.whale.to/v/heroin_add.html
"I tell patients that tranquilizers alone never cure anyone. They merely reduce the intensity of the symptoms and make life slightly more endurable. They create a better behaved, chronic dependent person. Only with orthomolecular treatment can the majority of schizophrenic patients hope to become well and normally independent."---Abram Hoffer, M.D.
and the AP knowledge that would also blow it clean out of the water http://www.whale.to/b/ap.html
"Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely). Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence."
I worked out that racket http://www.whale.to/aids.html but Rappoport hits the nail http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html
You sound like you know what you are talking about, pity I spent 13 years investigating vaccination, so I know you are actually talking right out of your ear.
“We have not been able to discover any good reason why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is ...caused by..HIV. There us simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true (or) why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT...we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.”---Kary B. Mullis (Inventing the AIDS virus by Peter Duesberg)
"He was one of my most dramatic recoveries with AIDS, and the reason I say that is that he was the most far gone. He was in the absolute, end stage -- they have that wing in the hospital where they have given up on you. You can smoke pot and do anything you want. They had given up on him."—Dr Shulze, who cured 16 from last stage full-blown AIDS.
I see you don't beleive that AIDS is caused by HIV. Ok, that's a view. But you weill need some research evidence to support that. Do you have any, or maybe just some more quotes? This is a scientific problem, so will need some knowledge of virology and the research that they do specifically into HIV. Shall we discuss the research evidence that your 13 years of investigating has come up with?
That's really all I am trying to do here. Apllying the same criticism to alternative health claims as real ones. Ask for evidence. I'm not interesting in reading your quotes, they are not evidence of any sort. Case reports are, but on tiehr own not enough to provide causal evidence. If quotes and cae reports are the total of your evidence, then obviously your research (ofr 13 years) was a waste of time.
Lets look at the proper data. Do that and we don't need to get into personal attacks at all. The data will speak for itself. Can we see some? Then we can look at it impartially.
Anyway, as I say, I am happy for alternative treatments to be used by anyome thjat wants them, provided they do not make claims that they have no evidence to support. I don't beleive anyone should get away with that, pharma company, anyone.
Thanks.
Asking for a cures list shows a great deal of ignorance of basic biology and disease. Medicine does not "cure" a heart attack or a stroke. It can help prevent them and it can reduce damage, prlonge life and releive suffering. Are you saying the world would be a better place without these treatments? Without analgesics? Anti-clotting drugs? Drugs for hypertension? Insulin?
Vaccines. So, just to be absolutely clear, you believe vaccination is a bad thing on the whole? After 13 years of investigation, your studies have lead you to conclude that, with respect to human and animal health, vaccination has not been of medical benefit?
Yes, vaccination is a complete hoax, and plenty of evidence as I pointed out
eg Measles http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html
Quotes are great, to the point in one sentence.
"Whether we examine the long-continued records of London mortality, or those of modern registration for England, Scotland, and Ireland; whether we consider the "control experiment" or crucial test afforded by unvaccinated Leicester, or the still more rigid test in the other direction, of the absolutely revaccinated Army and Navy, the conclusion is in every case the same: that vaccination is a gigantic delusion; that it has never saved a single life; but that it has been the cause of so much disease, so many deaths, such a vast amount of utterly needless and altogether undeserved suffering, that it will be classed by the coming generation among the greatest errors of an ignorant and prejudiced age, and its penal enforcement the foulest blot on the generally beneficent course of legislation during our century."-----ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE [Book 1898] VACCINATION A DELUSION
you can read the whole book http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/1.html but I save anyone the trouble, and get the conclusion in one sentence.
See?
Your job is to obfuscate, not bad at it, but it is a pretty impossible job, defending Allopathy.
"Whale, medicines are not cures. They are treatments. Some highly efficacious, others less so. Some with mild side effects, some with very serious and dangerous side effects."
You said it. Highly efficacious --antibiotics only. Leading cause of death and disease in the western world today.
"The pharmaceutical "business with disease" is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product "health" promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the "products" most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death. While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry. The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world's largest investment industry." --Dr Rath MD http://www.whale.to/a/allopathic_med_q.html
What disproves this link?
No, a lack of "cures" as you call them come from a misunderstand of what disease and medicine are. The goal of all medical science is to find a cure or an effective treatment. Obviously the easier way to do this is to remove the agent causing the disease, but this cannot always be done, in the case of genetic disorders or ones with unknwon cause, such as Alzheimers Disease. It provides treatments that can either so so effective that they remove the problem, or are no ideal and not as effective and simply are the best (or only) treatment available at the time. That's why medical science exists- to improve treatments and find new ones.
Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat someone opinion, and we don't know what sources of evidence they are relying on, or whether these are any good.
Thats why I prefer to stick to the actual research data. It means one can study a claim impartially. Get the ball rolling by providing references to some studies and we can remove personal attack and look at the fact and apprais them. So much more wothwhile that jibing at one another.
"How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the Earth- A Short History of Modern Delusions"- Francis Wheen.
"Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations" - Jon Diamond
"How We Know What Isn't So: Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life " Thomas Gilovich.
Add these to your research.
H
and I know what the REAL snake oil is
http://www.whale.to/a/books_medcon.html.
My on line collection of 30 smallpox books http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox14.html is probably
the best document of the biggest snake oil killer of all time:
smallpox vax which killed millions. Leprosy into Hawaii for example.
Poor old Diamond, not exactly a poster boy for allopathy was he, the surgery butchers tried to stop him talking bull**** but they still failed.
A classic case of making the wrong decision, big time, and then denial kicked in,
big time, which led him to attack the very people who could have cured him
classic psychology, and of course, if you sing from the Pharma song sheet
you get massive publicity, which is good for the ego.
Incidently, snake oil was echinacea. A guy used to sell it by getting a snake to bite
him on stage, and then he took it to deal with the poison. Not bad for real snake
oil!
"Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat someone opinion"
See if you can get this from the second telling, at least
The quote offered was one from Wallace who looked at the stats and found that
to be snake oil . Now you can read his book to get the stats http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/book.html
or look at my other extracted stats http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_stats_h.htm
eg Phillipines http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html
or you can carry on saying there is no evidence, like a dead canary
But that is the best defence of real snake oil peddlars
the King of Snake Oil was smallpox vaccine http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html
25,000 babies in 1880, 6,000 in 1921
Herod would have been proud of that one
Introduced Leprosy into Hawaii http://www.whale.to/v/leprosy.html
just for starters
AZT is a classic, failed chemo drug used to kill a harmless virus http://www.whale.to/a/azt_h.html 400,000 killed with that years ago
Then the following poisons http://www.whale.to/a/arv_genocide.html
Spanish Flu was one of the first vaccine bioweapons http://www.whale.to/v/spanish_flu.html
Swine Flu vax was a classic poison http://www.whale.to/vaccine/swine.html
Then DPT --main cause of Cot death running at 10,000 (1984) http://www.whale.to/vaccines/dpt.html
Along with main cause of autism
helped a lot by MMR http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
hep B vax is another killer http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hepatitis.html
One of those quotes you love so much:
"The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.........The hep B adverse event cover-up is way bigger then the AHP diet-drug cover up."--Michael Belkin
to help with the URL fatigue
The early TB vaccines (Koch no less) were a nice line in snake oil http://www.whale.to/c/tuberculin_h.html
"Shortly after it was announced, test experiments were carried out in Berlin, but, unfortunately for both the discovery and the discoverer, from November, 1890, to February, 1891, the deaths of no fewer than 123 selected cases were reported in the "Zoophilist," of 1st May, 1891 (page 18). After this, both Koch and his tuberculin fell under a cloud."
and the later BCG http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bcg4.html
Early Diptheria vaccines, great snake oil! http://www.whale.to/a/diptheria.html
good old Chemo, given to 50%, slight use to 7%, go figure http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.html
OPV Africa, 600 dead kids in one swoop http://www.whale.to/a/genocide_opv.html
"At the main hospital in Mbarara during that month of 1977 more than 600 children had died following polio vaccination. 600 children!"
And not one single life saved by any vaccine, amazing, but true.
Then the 10 million addicted to Benzos, you should try that, million benzo babies, and million brain damaged by things like Thorazine http://www.whale.to/a/thorazine_h.html http://www.whale.to/a/psychiatry_h.html
Nice of you to give 4 million kids Kiddy Coke (Ritalin), keeps them off the street
Vioxx, http://www.whale.to/a/vioxx_h.html not sure of the death rate there, 40,000?
Wouldn't want to forget your little line in 'preventive' snake oil, eg Mammography http://www.whale.to/a/mammography_h.html
Or some surgery 'highlights' like hysterectomy http://www.whale.to/a/hysterectomy1.html
"Today, three quarters of a million hysterectomies are performed annually in North America. Yet a huge majority are unnecessary. .....After the surgery, almost half of the women suffer from digestive problems, incontinence, loss of maternal feelings, depression, memory loss and absence of sexual drive or pleasure."
Well over 98% are unecessary.
Heart bypass hoax http://www.whale.to/w/heart_disease.html
and so on and on.
Don't even mention snake oil again or I'll expand the list to its true length ;0)
Some of the claims made are also just wrong and unreferenced, they present only very poor cross references to other books and authors and don't even mention all of the data and studied that provide contrary evidence.
In your world this is probably enough to be convinced, and for many other people too. But your views can hardly be said to be balanced. You repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I don't trust pharmaceutical data at face value either. But your bias is extreme! Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly biased and unreliable sources!
Why not lets pick one thing at a time, one claim you would like to support and we can explore that impartially. If they data supports you, I promise (my professional intergirty stands on it) I will agree with you. But if it doesn't I wont.
rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at any of them impartially.
Pick one, choose your supporting evidence and I will take a look at it and tell you what I make of it. I keep an open mind at all times as I hope you do to (otherwise let me know right now so I can stop wasting my time). Open minded, or mind made up?
That isn't an argument, just an appeal to majority or authority. A logical fallacy.
"You repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I don't trust pharmaceutical data at face value either. But your bias is extreme! Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly biased and unreliable sources!"
You are obviously biased as you are an Allopath (end of story), whereas I aint, as I don't belong to any medical outfit, I am only interested in the truth, and the truth shuns groups.
As to bias, any medical thought not allopathic would be biased in your view, naturopathy, natural hygiene, homeopathy, nutritional med, herbalism, chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy, diet therapy, macrobiotic, ayurvedic etc. That is quite a large area of medical knowledge outside your blinnkers, isn't it? You represent at a rough guess 10% of medical thinking, even though it is 90% in numbers. Whereas I have investigated most medical thinking, so bias doesn't come into it in its generally accepted definition---as something that sways you away from truth.
"you just keep posting links to wesbites"
Only one website, a database essentially. And we all know you haven't looked at it.
Here is a bit of 'lousy' evidence you missed, re measles and measles vaccination:
Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968. http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html Ref: Gov' very own stat CD
Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline? Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.
As Clifford G Miller - trained scientist (physicist) & commercial attorney (not vaccine damage litigation) points out, measles deaths would have declined to one or two a year with or without the vaccine http://www.whale.to/v/offitt.html
If you follow the death graph line to today deaths would be 1-3 with or without the vaccine, see graphs http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html
FOIA shows in 1990 in the UK there were approximately 70 deaths associated with triple vaccines (DTP and MMR) Ref: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller333.html
media report 26 deaths http://www.whale.to/v/mmr101.html and the UK gov has paid out for deaths, as has the USA gov.
It is admitted even by gov only 10% of vaccine reactions are reported (more like 1-3%), so if you cut the 70 deaths in half, but say 20 as DPT is more toxic, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 20 are killed by MMR. Whatever, it is certainly way more than would be killed by measles.
2. Q. What is the point of using a vaccine that kills more kids than the disease? Even assuming it eliminated deaths, which it didn't as the stats show.
And that is before the autism.
I am still waiting for what sort of evidence you want if 1,200 citations, 40 years clinical evidence, and the top 2 nutritional scientists opinion, isn't enough? Re Vit C and infections.
"rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at any of them impartially."
I have a huge amount of evidence, and I am not trying to convince you am I? I am just exposing the game of medical politics you are playing, for my own amusement and education. And anyone who can think for themselves can see the links are to well documented resources.
What do you mean I am an allopath?
By that do you mean that I beleive pharmaceutical treatments have thier place? Yes, I do. But also I beleive they are often overpresrcibed, they often do damge and they often shouldn't even be on the market.
Youre wrong in certain assumptions. I do beleive that natural hygiene and diet therapy definitely have a front line place in all medical treatment. And herbalism. They all have evidence behind them and I fully accept them or parts of them, to be valid, acceptable treatment that I endorese here and advise others to use.
As for "naturopathy, homeopathy, chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy, macrobiotic, ayurvedic etc"- I just don't know, they may be of benefit and they may not be. I don't think there is sufficent evidence yet to say one way or the other. So I don't. But you do. Based on what?
Ok, my mistake, you link to one website. Not your own by any chance. That wouldn't be biased, would it?
1200 reference may very well be excellent, conclusive and downright perfect evidence. But I haven't seen these references yet. All I am doing is asking you for the actual references. If they support what you say then I will support what you say. But how can I know unless I read them for myself.
Lets pick one claim, look at some of the papers that support it and we are there. I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what the data says. Not what you or I say. Lets try (not that website again though, I mean the original studies.)
H
I don't know what you are but you walk, talk and sing like an Allopath.
An Allopath is an MD who only uses pharma drugs essentially
You could be a pharma boy, one who works in Allopathy Inc
Not much difference.
being a mild critic of pharma drugs doesn't mean much, Brain Deer, who is on Wakefields back took apart Septrin.
I was just pointing out you don't know anything much about non-Allopathic medicine, so are biased. I doubt you know anything about Natural Hygiene. If you knew anything about Tilden or Trall you wouldn't be using drugs.
"Ok, my mistake, you link to one website. Not your own by any chance. That wouldn't be biased, would it?"
Just shows you never follow the links, and if you did you would know Whale is a resource of information, not a political party. For example if I link to the measles statistics that I extracted from the Governments CD, then that isn't bias is it?
Everything on whale will be biased to you as you are by definition biased, so anything that doesn't sign the song of allopathy will be bised to you.
and it doesn't take long afore an allopath will try any excuse to avoid whale, must be an allergy to the truth.
Another example, Klenner's original papers http://www.whale.to/m/klenner.html 5 of them, go to it.
Notice how the Allopaths deleted his page from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R._Klenner
Full time job keeping the truth at bay with you Allopaths. I list just the ones of mine they deleted or attempted to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whaleto
"I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what the data says. Not what you or I say."
LOL
Ok, well by your own definition, I am not an allopath. I do beleive pharmaceutical treatment have their place, often this they are the best treatment. But often they are not and I do not agree with anyone who says that medical treatment should be reduced to simply prescribing drugs.
I don't beleive in childish name calling to make a point. There is a certain profile that you would like me to fit so you can reduce these issues to black and white, polarised name calling. I just don't like inaccurate, misleading or incorrect information.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by natural hygiene. Is that different from hygiene?
You really don't know much about basic biology or scientific methods, so of course (by your own definition again) you are biased.
Ok, I'll have a look for those papers. Have you read them?
I did but you ignored it. See measles deaths above.
"natural hygiene"
http://www.whale.to/w/nat.html
natural hygiene knowledge is enough to destroy drug medicine, as Trall said 100 years ago +
"The Drug Medical System cannot bear examination. To explain it would be to destroy it, and to defend it even is to damage it."---R.T. Trall M.D.
"I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given."----Dr Trall, 1862. http://www.whale.to/v/trall2.html
I can see why you don't like quotes ;0)
Why are you both so worked up about whether or not certain medicines and/or homeopathy work? Let people believe what they want to believe and experience methods themselves. People will make the right decision for themselves as it's basic human instinct. They listen to both parties and make up their own minds. This discussion will never end......like in history whether the Evolution or the Creationism Theory is correct...let people believe what they want to believe.
Be nice to each other...
Here is a graph similar to the one your posted, but as well as showing measles deaths, it also shows the number of measles infections. This provides important information since after all, in a developed country like the UK, deaths from measles are thankfully rare, but measles can have other serious effects in children other than death. Looking at the graph one can clearly see the value of vaccination.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/measles_deaths2007.htm
Ok, that's in the UK. What about the rest of the world. Vaccination has been even more effective there since measles is one of the developing world's greatest causes of vaccine preventable infant mortality. Its is a more serious disease in children for many reasons, But just look at the data to see how many lives vaccination has saved.
Here is a story from the Guardian outlining the success globally of measles immunisation programmes.
Between 1999 and 2005, there was a 60% reduction in annual measles deaths worldwide, from 873,000 to 345,000, according to United Nations figures reported in the medical journal the Lancet. Africa, where children are most prone to die when they catch measles because of poor nutrition and other infections including HIV, has led the way, with a 75% drop in deaths. In 1999, 506,000 African children died - 90% aged under five. By 2005, the figure had fallen to 126,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1994033,00.html
"What clearer proof could there be of the value of investing in immunisation?" Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of Unicef
Some more on the story here:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10987.html
An international vaccination programme to combat measles has exceeded targets, reducing child deaths from the disease by 60% between 1999 and 2005.
The international Measles Initiative launched in 2000 by the World Health Organization and UNICEF had aimed for a 50% reduction in 45 target countries.
“Deaths have fallen from 873,000 during 1999 to 345,000 by the end of 2005,” said WHO director-general Margaret Chan, on Thursday. “This is a 60% reduction.” And the news is even better in Africa, Chan said. “Deaths there declined by 75%, so Africa is leading the way.”
Measles deaths in children under five fell from 791,000 to 311,000 over the same period, globally.
The new figures estimate that, altogether, measles vaccinations have prevented 7.5 million deaths between 1999 and 2005, and 2.3 million of these were attributable to the intensified programme. “This is tremendous news for the world’s children,” said Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF.
For some UNICEF propaganda in the third world
No surprise there. Called a distraction.
That link doesn't work.
You intepret the success of the global vaccination programme as "UNICEF progaganda", a distraction. And you claim not to be biased.
Re:- MMR, which the Government assures me does not cause Autism. My grandson had his MMR ayear late because he had been premature and the Doctor wanted him to grow a bit before having the jab. Then he had a run of colds and virus problems. All through this he was a happy, cuddly baby, and knew several words and was dry day and night. He screamed like a trapped animal for 3 days after the jab and had high fevers, sleeping fitfully from exhaustion. I was told to give him Calpol. To get his fever down we had to wrap him in damp sheets and have a fan on him. A week later we noticed he made no eye contact. We feared he was losing his sight. He forgot how to speak and went back into nappies. Then we were told he was autistic "and always had been"! No he hadn't. Now, at 20, he has never worked and maybe never will, because he can't travel on a bus or train on his own.
It seems to me obvious that the ammount of time spent on this site by such people is unrealistic if they have proper jobs. You seem to have chosen to do the same but speaking for the other side and I applaud you in this as I am sure it is not funded by any major pharma companies etc.
I would also like to thank you for the many useful weblinks which I shall look at instead of wasting too much more time on these sorts of discussions.
@ Harradine - do you call the Guardian newspaper scientific? Surely you must have stronger arguements than that?
You also said that it was up to whale ot choose homeopathy over allopathy and you wished him luck, but from where I am standing it seems that you would rather homeopathy was not available until it can be proved scientifically -according to allopathic criteria. SO much for CHOICE.
One thing - maybe for harradine since you are probably permanently online watching I thought we were supposed to be talking about vitamins? Harradine maybe you could let me know why is Codex trying to reduce the levels so that they are so low they will be pretty much ineffectual - what is the arguement in that when there is really no danger in taking too much when we can pee it out if we do?
Infections is just a red herring. Here is the question again:
Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968. http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html Ref: Gov' very own stat CD
Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline? Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.
Your UNICEF stats were just a distraction from my UK death stats. A completely different time and continent, for one. And secondly, we know the UK death stats are correct as they have to be kept by law, whereas African stats are dubious as I can easy show.
"the Drug Companies did bogus tests using oral vitamin C"
Yes, most folk don't have the slightest idea about how evil these people are.
Look at 2 fraudulent Mayo studies on Vit C and Laetrile
http://www.whale.to/a/mayo_clinic.html
No doubt MMR causes autism, and they know it alright.
"I was told to give him Calpol."
Sorry to hear about your grandson. You can see how they usually treat vaccine victims http://www.whale.to/a/vaxvictims.html tip of iceberg
"Could the increase in all forms of meningitis and other infectious disease complications and deaths be because for the last 40+ years, the first thing parents do at the slightest sign of temperature is push paracetamol? I believe so."--Hilary Butler http://www.whale.to/a/west8.html
"Guardian newspaper scientific?"
Thanks for your comments. Guardian is home of most Pharma advertising masquerading as Editorial, like the Allopath know as Goldacre given free rein (his article also in mail today, and the opposing view was put by a, get this, a NOVELIST!) http://www.whale.to/b/goldacre_h.html
Homeopaths don't have the time or resources of Allopathy whose funding is unlimited, and who aren't going to give up their monopoly through not playing politics, witness Harriden.
Monopolists tend also to be psychopaths (1 in 100 people walking the street are one), and they go straight for the throat.
And homeopaths have to avoid upsetting the top dog as it also is the Gov, and Gov' Health Dept, all of which are staffed and run by Allopaths like Salisbury. And Allopathy has control of the media, see Goldacre.
"Codex trying to reduce the levels so that they are so low they will be pretty much ineffectual"
Codex is just the name for the drug monopolists plan to kil the competition, known as Nutritional medicine, which they have known for 50 years is the replacement for Allopathy http://www.whale.to/w/ortho.html
Eg Alzheimer's:
“Not a single one of the scores of middle-aged-to-elderly people who have consulted me since 1981 for memory-loss or early Alzheimer's dementia - and who stayed on my program - has ever gone on to develop the full-blown Alzheimer's Disease.”
"Viral hepatitis of all types is one of the easiest diseases for ascorbic acid to cure."---Dr Cathcart, M.D.
http://www.whale.to/a/banner_q_nutrition.html
In a nutshell:
"For every drug that benefits a patient, there is a natural substance that can achieve the same effect." — Pfeiffer's Law
The magnitude of evil done under the banner of Allopathy over 200 years, and now (Eg MMR/vaccine- autism suppression) is hard to imagine for most people, which is it's greatest defence.
“It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the evil to suspect good.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Whale...Is there anything to do about this whole Codex regulations thing??? I've looked for petitions to no avail. I've written to my local and EU MP's, councillors,also with no response on this scary agenda...What can we do? Start stocking up the pantry before Dec '08??? It's making my blood boil. Any advise would be great. All the best.
I agree with Whale about you being a "Pharma Troll". I wouldn't be surprised if you were sent here by a pharmaceutical company to find ways to beat down homeopathy, naturapathy, and alternate practioners.
Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?
A 2003 article in the BMJ showed that “systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research.” One way round this is to be very sceptical and critical of the research methods and trial results. Another is to demand a clinical trials register, so that negative results cannot be buried.
I think this level of scrutiny should apply to everyone. I have nothing against homeopathy (or any other treatment) per se. If they work, then they should definitely be available. My gripe is when anyone (big pharma, GPs, homeopath etc) giving medical advice without evidence. In the case of a drug company, this can be very dangerous, since people can end up taking medicine that are not as safe as they believe, or simply don’t do anything. Likewise any other treatment.
In the case of homeopathy. Although no one can deny that the treatments are all perfectly safe, they can be dangerous if taken for a serious illness which they might not help and where another form of treatment can.
My background is not industrial, but academic (pharmacology). If I am biased, it is strongly towards a universal requirement for evidence. Pharma companies are guilty of distorting evidence and we have to be wise to that. But equally, we should not allow anyone to make health claims and say that their treatments don’t require evidence, as is often the case in alternative medicine.
Regarding the Codex regulation of vitamins. I really don’t know. Unless there is any actual evidence that these supplements do harm, it seems unnecessary to impose regulation when the same level of vitamin can be derived from food. Perhaps it’s a mean to standardisation, but from what I gather, it doesn’t make obvious sense to reduce levels. Surely people can then take as many tablets as they want to anyway.
And no, apologise, the Guardian is far from scientific! Here is the reference to the original Lancet article : Wolfon et al, Lancet 2007:369:191-200
Harradine if you are here just to emphasize the fact that people should question everything, you are extremely antagonistic and are going about it wrong. Whale has put forth numerous links to articles for you to check out and you just keep on plowing through. Instead, check out Whale's links and then come back and preach your pro-medical/pharmaceutical jargon so a new arguement can be raised.
I think that's right. When patients seek answers, to a large extent they have to trust what experts are telling them. This should not be manipulated by congomerates, I completely agree. Nor should health advice be based on methods that are untested.
I am here becuase I beleive that medicine should be evidence based, yes. i have no inherent support for pharmacetical methods, although I do beleive they have their place when needed. I have just as much support for lifestyle interventions (obviously), herbal treament when they have evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g St John's Wort) or anything else.
Modern medicine has failed many people and obviously it is understandible for them to look for help wherever they can get it. Often homeopaths etc are particularly good at delivery care and making people feel better. I think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual remedies they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the patient, which is obviously their key strength. This is something I think should be properly studied.
What I object to are dug companies OR anyone else making health claims they cannot support. Its dangerous.
I do not beleive I have been antagonistic. Bloodyminded and absolutely unshakeable in my requirment for evidence but not, I hope, antagonistic (although I am towards anyone who says evidence doesn't matter!).
I have read Whales links. That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never be changed. Its up to people to use their common sense and look at whatever information they can to make their own minds up.
get a zapper http://www.whale.to/a/zapper_q.html
Look into Herbal medicine by Shulze http://www.whale.to/c/shulze.html
They can't make herbs illegal and they are better than nutrients!
I am not a great believer in supplements, most are made by them and contain nasty chemicals as well, maybe Vit C, but if you juice often you wont need them anyway.
I doubt if they can make Nutritional medicine illegal under an MD.
There is a great book called the Myth of Medicine by a Natural Hygienist, Shelton.
Great title which gives a clue, but haven't got around to reading it yet.
Natural Hygiene& healing http://www.whale.to/a/nat4.html is the thing to look into also and cleansing by Shulze. Also disease theory http://www.whale.to/v/disease2.html
They can make all supplements illegal for all I care. I did try Reams http://www.whale.to/a/reams_h.html supplements for a bit.
Green food is another.
"Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?"
Because Pharma med/Allopathy is 98% a hoax http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html, and homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism are the REAL medicine. They know that--so there is the fear.
Harradine was sent here by Pharma Central
"herbal treament when they have evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g St John's Wort) or anything else. "
That isn't herbal medicine by the way, just something mostly MD got into and pushed. Using a herb like a drug to mask symptoms.
"I have read Whales links. That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never be changed."
Some are OK, antibiotics seem to keep farmers going, and anaesthetics obviously.
But when you know nutrients can do a better job without side effects, and you know the real side effects reality of vaccines, AIDS drugs, chemo etc, then the truth is going to sound nasty to a Pharma shill, obviously.
The one physician who is finding an alternate way to handle a disease and being shut out of funding, name discredition is wrong also, but done. Being forced to see "X" number of patients and encouraging the "pop a pill" mentality is wrong also, but done. There are many ways to cure ailments. Unfortunately, things that cause these ailments are not explored thoroughly enough (the extent of causes is large and is another topic not being dealt with here right now) and the end result is "pop a pill".
Modern medicine failing many people, yes it has. By being unattainable with high costs. The fact that "all drugs are evil no matter what anyone or anything says to me belief" is a conclusion jumped to by yourself. You jumped in and started attacking whale for providing why they believe what they believe with evidence for which you choose not to recognize. Bud, it's there, whether you recognize it or not. And yes, people are believing it also, just like people are blindly following other advice that has been proven wrong. This is a forum for collecting experiences, information, statistics - exactly what alternative health care is about. One that the medical profession refuses to accept. It's their way or the highway!
People always want a quick fix to everything.
"I think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual remedies they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the patient, which is obviously their key strength. This is something I think should be properly studied."
More with their ability to interact with the patient. Yes, it is that combined with the remedy that works. Caesarean sections have proven to be widely misused. Why, because they can help a doctor set up their day more effectively, the hospital can make money on the procedure and aftercare. They say it is more beneficial because of no complications. Using a midwife does not employ, in some cases, even a hospital. There are no ultrasounds ($), no epidural ($), hardly any hospital care, definitely no need for extra people (nurses, operating staff, etc), no opportunity to discourage breastfeeding and advise on formula ($), and the list is more. My point is that why are c-sections highly promoted? ($) Midwives were and are now making a comeback. But not as exclusive means for birthing, but as a complement to and acceptance into hospitals.
This is just one example of where alternate care can be beneficial. Drugs can be offered, but not as the only way, but as an alternative and along with.
Totally agree with you, Whale. There are some who believe in doctors and pharmaceuticals as Gods, and guess what, there are things that need to be challenged in religions, too, but again this is a different topic not to be dealt with here!
The bottom line is people like to live the life and not have to deal with their health issues and if they have to they will grab anything that fixes (?) quickly or are willing to believe that the "doctor will make it better with pills", when it has proven wrong. I guess we should have degrees in order to make these statements and that will give us credit. LOL!
People are also lazy and do not want to do the footwork, this is why they will believe or accept anything. But more and more are waking up and taking their heads out of the sand. They get hired in large companies and find that they have to be against what is right and it doesn't matter cause they get the big bucks! LOL!
This is the whole crux of the matter. Why are the strengths being tampered with - is it as I suspect because they actually work in high strength doses? Also as fresh food is so lacking in nutrients these days the average person who wants to stay in good health would need to take extra supplements just to get what they need. - that is without fighting cancer or any other disease.
they can't suppress carrot farming, and that is the better medicine, with juicing--the core of Gerson and Kelly cancer cures. http://www.whale.to/cancer/kelley.html
"80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."--Richard Shulze, ND., MH http://www.whale.to/m/cleanse1.html
Dr Shulzew wont work with anyone if they don't buy a juicer.
I have looked at Whale's evidence. Its not that I discount is, I just simply disagree with it. It ignores a much larger body of evidence. Specifically regarding vaccines, when I presented evidence of the efficacy and value of measles vaccination, this was dismissed as "Unicef propogana". I disagree with that and you have to admit, it does beging to sound a little like a vendetta on Whale's part.
(I've had a look at the rest of Whales website and I don't beleive that the evidence supports organon energy or astrology either.)
St John's Wort is not a herb? I didn't realise that.
I've said probably 5 or 6 times now that I definitely do not believe that drugs are the only tool that medicine should use. Heaven forbid, its would be a pretty poor GP who would practise like that. Although no doubt it happens, that definitely doesn't get my support at all (since it is not evidence based). Often drugs are not the best option at all. They are an option, often vital and life-saving, often misused and overprescribed. But they have their place and for some coditions there place is as first line therapy. So let's be clear, I for one do not beleive pharmaceutical companies or the medical orfoession in general should be seen as Gods and their advise taken at face value. The very idea is absurd! But nor would I put blind faith in alternative medicine, many people do.
That's the difference, the evidence suggests homeopaths can make people feel better, but also that the remedies they use are not part of that. More accurately, they are a part of the overal treatment, but if swapped with tap water the effect would be no different. That's not bias, pharma propoganda. It's what the evidence (not mine) says.
The fact that the codex is trying very hard to almost obliterate vitamins and minerals is in itself questionable. The most obvious reaction to this is to question why and investigate it further. Not whether or not vitamins/minerals work. We have all agreed on that, except Harradine. Homeopaths treat with herbs and vitamins and explore what could be causing the problem through non-invasive procedures which is the whole idea behind homeopathy.
"Wether vitamins/minerals work". I am not disagreeing with that, but it depends on what one claims they are effective in treating. Vitamins and minerals are essential for good health, but some claims about the benefits of vitamins and minerals are not supported by any evidence.
Yes homeopaths do spend a lot of time talking to their patients, but this is not just an empathetic conversation it has a purpose - we are trying to establish various factors such as what has caused the person's problem in the first place whether it be an emotional factor, or a physical factor such as a trauma or toxicity, or possibly an inherited factor. We also look at other areas of the problem such as how it is expressed - for example eczema presents in different ways and we look at that individuals symptoms ( unlike medics who often just prescribe steroid cream) We are then able to look at this information and give an individualised remedy from one of the 3000 + remedies available to us. This is why homeopathy works and this is how the homeopathic conversation/ consultation helps the treatment.
Whale - someone told me this afternoon that the "success rate" for medical drugs is 33% is this true? if this is true then that means that they are happy with a 67% failure rate - I can hardly believe this since if that were so in the world of homeopathy and other alternative therapies which are supposedly lacking in evidence we would a) go out of business because most of our patients come through word of mouth and a poor success rate would not enable this and b) we would go out of business through sheer disillusionment with the therapy.
Dgehring - just a small point - whilst homeopaths do advocate a healthy diet and lifestyle and this is included in Hahnemann's Organon homeopaths do not treat with herbs and vitamins and this is the problem that a lot of allopathic doctors have with homeopathy. We make mother tinctures using sources from accross the animal, mineral and vegetable kingdom and then dilute them and succuss (shake them vigorously) them to release the energy. Remedies above 12c potency have no physical molecules left in them and are based purely on the energy released by the original source. This is why it is such a safe and non-toxic therapy.
Indeed Dr Samuel Hahnemann devised this method at the end of the 18th century in reaction to the extreme, dangerous and highly toxic medical practices he witnessed at the time (remind you of something?). He tested all his remedies out on himself (not rats or guinea pigs) before introducing them and was not satisfied until he had erradicated the side effects, aiming for a "gentle and long lasting cure".
I hope this information helps people to understand the methods of homeopathy and resort a little less to the myths.
Yes homeopaths do spend a lot of time talking to their patients, but this is not just an empathetic conversation it has a purpose - we are trying to establish various factors such as what has caused the person's problem in the first place whether it be an emotional factor, or a physical factor such as a trauma or toxicity, or possibly an inherited factor. We also look at other areas of the problem such as how it is expressed - for example eczema presents in different ways and we look at that individuals symptoms ( unlike medics who often just prescribe steroid cream) We are then able to look at this information and give an individualised remedy from one of the 3000 + remedies available to us. This is why homeopathy works and this is how the homeopathic conversation/ consultation helps the treatment.
Whale - someone told me this afternoon that the "success rate" for medical drugs is 33% is this true? if this is true then that means that they are happy with a 67% failure rate - I can hardly believe this since if that were so in the world of homeopathy and other alternative therapies which are supposedly lacking in evidence we would a) go out of business because most of our patients come through word of mouth and a poor success rate would not enable this and b) we would go out of business through sheer disillusionment with the therapy.
Dgehring - just a small point - whilst homeopaths do advocate a healthy diet and lifestyle and this is included in Hahnemann's Organon homeopaths do not treat with herbs and vitamins and this is the problem that a lot of allopathic doctors have with homeopathy. We make mother tinctures using sources from accross the animal, mineral and vegetable kingdom and then dilute them and succuss (shake them vigorously) them to release the energy. Remedies above 12c potency have no physical molecules left in them and are based purely on the energy released by the original source. This is why it is such a safe and non-toxic therapy.
Indeed Dr Samuel Hahnemann devised this method at the end of the 18th century in reaction to the extreme, dangerous and highly toxic medical practices he witnessed at the time (remind you of something?). He tested all his remedies out on himself (not rats or guinea pigs) before introducing them and was not satisfied until he had erradicated the side effects, aiming for a "gentle and long lasting cure".
I hope this information helps people to understand the methods of homeopathy and resort a little less to the myths.
Harmless enough though, so not so bad. But very frustrating to hear so much nonsense around when we are supposed to live in a post-enlightenment era.
Bascially, scientists get rattled at anyone making claims based on nonsense. Met some, ask them. People making claims without evidence (doctors, advertisers, politicians, homeopaths, pharma folks, etc) are enemies of reason if they make a claim without evidence. Therefore, scientists take them to ask (i.e. ask them for evidence).
That is where I am coming from, but have no wish to offend anyone.
Thanks for that info. I do see what you mean about the homeopathy. I think the example you give of eczema is a very good one. Many people suffer from allergies which are hard, if not impossible to treat. Steroid creams can help, but they are not a solution.
I know many people who suffer from eczema and there is obviously an emotional compnent to that. It is well know that emotion (particualy anxiety and stress) interact with the immune system.
I see what you mean, but do you understand my point about the actual remedied? They are water and the evidence (from trials that have been conducted) that the remedies are not what underlies the therpeutic benefit. I don't have any problem with that at all. But can I ask, are there any illnesses or serious symptoms where you would say to a patient "look I am just not qualified to treat this and I recommend you see a doctor?"
Many thanks
H
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-27-2007/0004712571&EDATE=
Then I agree with you. You have my support. We may disagree on the point about how the remedies themselves work. But you accept that drug therapy has its place so your methods are nor harmful and I am sure do real good.
My gripe is against those who take it to the point that they would never recommend seeing a GP, the conspiracy theories and the like. I just find that irrational.
If a patient was on medication I would never advise them to stop it straight away and would rather work with the Doctor to try and reduce this alongside the hoomeopathic treatment.
All this is exactly why it would work so much better if homeopathy was a proper part of the NHS.
If a patient was on medication I would never advise them to stop it straight away and would rather work with the Doctor to try and reduce this alongside the hoomeopathic treatment.
All this is exactly why it would work so much better if homeopathy was a proper part of the NHS.
I can only speak for homeopaths in the SOH but I think you will find that most homeopaths work as I do. Homeopathy has a very strict code of ethics and we are continually striving to present a professional approach. We carry out regular research and many are in fact Doctors and scientists.
I would draw the line with Hannemans pinciples and the memory of water/vital force part though. Honestly, I don't think that has a place in modern medicine. It comes from a time when modern medicine was a lot worse that actually doing nothing at all. The evidence just doesn't support this idea about water. The science just isn't there.
Whale, it makes sense now. I really didn't mean to offend or upset you. I understand now that you are an astrology/orgonite/Baal type belief individual.
I'm not. I am a scientist and follow a prerequistise for evidence from anyone. I did not realise I was offending your faith in the power of astrology, organite etc. You are free to follow any beleif you choose.
But really, you should be passing on health advise based on that type if thinking. Or any other sort of advice. Its you personal beleif, just leave it at that.
Bless.
You can't offend me, but bless you for thinking you have the ability.
That was a nice try at ad hominem, but BAAL was one of your God's actually (an Allopathic one), do try and keep up. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/deaths.html
http://www.whale.to/b/baal_h.html
Faith, belief and knowledge. I know (knowledge) God exists, orgonite works and astrolgy has merit, from direct experience. Whereas you have to believe it is a load of cobblers purely due to your belief in the False god of Allopathy/Mammon/BAAL, which decrees they are all nonsense, along with Homeopathy.
Faith doesn't come into it.
As John Lilly discovered, spiritual psychology 101, you see what you believe, and then believe what you see.
Anyway, Emoto has completely shredded your belief that water doesn't retain information, which was one of your main beliefs against Homeopathy.
You are telling me all about baal, organite and astrology and telling me I beleive in cobblers. Baal, organite. Fairies, santa and the boogy man. All very well, no wish to change you mind. But your health advice is like saying "don't receive medical treatment because Santa says not to. Have a word..
[If there are any seruous homeopaths reading this, is this the sort of thinking you want on your side? Whale, do you think you are doing them any favours?]
At least now we are at the nub of the issue. Now people can read what I say about heath advice, and then what you say about health advice, baal and organon.
Now I understand your hackles up appraoch to evidence.
I've met people who think the earth if flat (please tell me you don't) and that ghosts are real. Thankfully not in charge of making decisions about anyone's health (exceopt their own).
Whale I do hope you are ok in there.
Not everything is evidence based. When we confide in a friend about a life-changing problem, is that open to double blind scrutiny? Could we lpnk a stranger in the chair and ask them to make us feel better? Maybe, but it wouldn't be the same. We are human after all.
When we feel down and perhaps go to a faimilia place, when we hear kind words or see good intentions, are these things that make us feel better? Of course they do, but are they open to clincal trial. Maybe, but not the way drugs are.
Don't get me wrong. I would not recommend this approach to any illness that would resond much better to drug (I would not recommend kind words over medical treatment), but as I said from my very first posts, they are vital. Even with all the best medical treatment in the world somone surrounded by a loveing family with best thoughts and wishes is more lielly to get better in the main than someone with non one, in isolation who is treated only by hospital doctors.
This I have said from my first posts here. It is not to deny modern medicine, and not to accept the memory of water. And certainyl doesn't go near Whales beleifs in Baal, and other weirdness.
Nor does it acceot many of the premises of this website, which are irresponsible in advising people away from very real treatments that work towards those that might, just to suport those who want thm to or make a living using them.
If this is the view of a Pharma Troll, then I wonder what sort of Pharma it is I troll for. Anyone can use peronal attack and labelling as a means to discredit. I only ask you judge me on what I actually say.
H
As for advising people away from very real treatments that work towards those that might, you are very mistaken. Cancer has been beaten by hard work, consistent effort from the patient and yes, emotional support from family members. All too often, though, the medical professional is way to quick to put doubt into the patients minds as well as the people around them. Instead of being supportive of the choice that has been made and for what? The inability to make any money from alternative methods.
Check out this "You Can Heal Your Life" by Louise L. Hay
On this website Susan Insole is allowing readers to read about, support, offer advice and show people it is possible, and I am sure many are appreciative of this, I know I am. She is also making it known how frowned upon by the medical profession what she is doing. As though she needs more battles to fight. Often the medical profession does more harm than good.
I am a Hypnotherapist and work with the mind in healing. Something people are slow to believe is that the mind is quite capable of making us do things as well as not do things. Again, something for another forum.
You keep asking for proof and yet, Whale has provided ample proof and many of the other readers have seen or read about proof and that is why they are on this website. I am sure some of the people are gullible, but more so than not they have done the investigation and the questioning and seeking of proof and are quite well informed, infact a lot are alternate practioners or very close to them because they are fed up with getting the same answer from their physician of "pop a pill" and not enough investigation.
Like you, I used to veer towards science and at times still do, but I also realize science, et al are narrow minded and not willing to be proven wrong. They are also hired by the conglomerates. Thank goodness for the information age. It is up to us to investigate until we find what we, the public, are looking for. And to question the "experts" until we find an answer we are ok with.
When I came on this forum, it was my belief that the medical profession obviously has flaws. As I have said many times, non-evidence based practised such as over prescription of some drugs does take place. Equally, in medical science, some beliefs held by practitioners are not supported by the data being produced by scientists. It can take some time before scientists convince doctors to adapt their practices accordingly.
My views have not changed. My opening posts providing advise for a family member of a patient with BPD pointed out that the value of family and support. I believed then and still do that the practise of homeopathy has retained an element of patient care that many GPs have lost.
The information age is wondering provided you know how to tell the difference between good evidence and bad 9and on this site there is a great deal of bad). I have not at all discounted Whales evidence, it is just bad evidence. A graph with half the data missing, endless lists of quotes and references to books where the evidence is to be found, name calling then telling me I serve some strange fictional God called Baal? Contrast this with the evidence in favour of homeopathy that Rachael provided above. Peer reviewed studies! Not personal attacks and labels of trolling when asked to provided evidence, just providing it.
I appreciate that you find this website useful, but much of the information on it is simply wrong and therefore misleading. Statements from the main authors on this site such as
“Until recently, doctors operated under the assumption that a fetus, a baby, even a young child, wasn’t yet human—not in the fully formed sense of the word”
“Astonishingly, doctors often don’t consider the basic fact of scale. Because a child may not, in their view, react to a drug in the same way an adult would, they often administer a drug dosage appropriate for a full-sized adult to a person one-third that size.”
..are simply wrong. This is a deliberate distortion of how any doctor thinks or practises. This sort of view cannot go unchallenged. Much of this site seems to be not only about providing impartial alternative health advice, but also creating a sense of distrust and fear about the medical profession generally by distorting much of what is does. This no doubt sells books and provides a living for those involved, but also can cause people to refuse treatment and advice that might save their lives! All the while attacking such approaches as purely profit driven.
One of the first posts I read was by a man about to go on a holiday looking for advice to alternatives to tropical disease vaccination, and being given homeopathic advice! That is my point, this is dangerous advice. This is not a useful resource, but a misleading one. Rachael, again, thank you for some reasonable sense on that matter.
It is saddening to hear someone say that scientists are narrow minded and not willing to be proved wrong. With the greatest of respect, that just betrays a real ignorance of what science is. It is a process of generating hypothesis then testing through repeated experiment and observation, then peer scrutiny of methods and result. Sciences ability to update its knowledge in the face of new evidence is its core strength. That is why it has moved on from the 1800s, unlike homeopathy.
That’s not to say that all scientific claims are correct. That’s why evidence is important, so it can be scrutinises and its claims tested. Once more, my underlying principle and objective is to encourage everyone to ask for evidence, good evidence. Study the evidence, not the claims.
Although you provide quotes of misrepresentation, I beg to differ. I have experienced first hand with doctors and have found much of what this site says to be true. Perhaps until you experience some of what they are talking about, it will still be a disbelief for you.
The bottom line still exists for many and until healthcare is put infront of the dollar, proper honest trials, neglecting truths, stamping out other means, using minorities as guinea pigs, etc. I find this site opens up for questions, where there weren't before and for that it is good.
The fact that you keep repeating your request for evidence when I have posted it makes me wonder whether this is the only arguement that you want people to read or hear.
As for homeopathy not changing since the 1800s well I would like to just point a few things out there. While the methodology has not changed, because the safety and efficacy of that has proved itself, the profession has changed.
1. We were left 250 remedies proved by Hahnemann - we have built on this and now have now over 3000
2. Homeopaths have united and come together into organisations such as the Society of Homeopaths which are regulated and insist on Continuing professional development and training.
3. We are now focussing a lot of our efforts into the areas of research and have learned that in order to be recognised by the public and scientific community (LOL) we must present our results in concrete form hence the establishment of large research bodies.
4. Homeopathy is practised world wide and in India where resources are lower and the population is less accepting of western medicine most Indian Doctors are practising homoepathy alongside with no terrible outcries by their patients or President Bush for crimes against humanity!!!!
Here is your evidence - the top article shows that homeopathy is more than just placebo. The rest may interest other readers.
The reason Scientists continually bay " where is the evidence " is precisely because they know that homeopathy does not work in the same biomedical model as their "tested" medicines. We have numerous different remedies for one single problem - as with the example of eczema - we prescribe on multiple factors both emotional and physical symptoms so we cannot produce successful results under the one drug treats all trial.
However although homeopathy doesn't work in this function ie to provide evidence to scientists, it does work in the function of providing evidence to patients who as I reiterated before would not come back time and again if there were no improvement.
AS for Whales website I find it very interesting and it provides an useful source of information from the other camp.
So once again here is the evidence and a little more:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071127/netu125.html?.v=19
http://www.hpathy.com/research/chatfield-research-overview.asp
So let's move on from this arguement
The fact that you keep repeating your request for evidence when I have posted it makes me wonder whether this is the only arguement that you want people to read or hear.
As for homeopathy not changing since the 1800s well I would like to just point a few things out there. While the methodology has not changed, because the safety and efficacy of that has proved itself, the profession has changed.
1. We were left 250 remedies proved by Hahnemann - we have built on this and now have now over 3000
2. Homeopaths have united and come together into organisations such as the Society of Homeopaths which are regulated and insist on Continuing professional development and training.
3. We are now focussing a lot of our efforts into the areas of research and have learned that in order to be recognised by the public and scientific community (LOL) we must present our results in concrete form hence the establishment of large research bodies.
4. Homeopathy is practised world wide and in India where resources are lower and the population is less accepting of western medicine most Indian Doctors are practising homoepathy alongside with no terrible outcries by their patients or President Bush for crimes against humanity!!!!
Here is your evidence - the top article shows that homeopathy is more than just placebo. The rest may interest other readers.
The reason Scientists continually bay " where is the evidence " is precisely because they know that homeopathy does not work in the same biomedical model as their "tested" medicines. We have numerous different remedies for one single problem - as with the example of eczema - we prescribe on multiple factors both emotional and physical symptoms so we cannot produce successful results under the one drug treats all trial.
However although homeopathy doesn't work in this function ie to provide evidence to scientists, it does work in the function of providing evidence to patients who as I reiterated before would not come back time and again if there were no improvement.
AS for Whales website I find it very interesting and it provides an useful source of information from the other camp.
So once again here is the evidence and a little more:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071127/netu125.html?.v=19
http://www.hpathy.com/research/chatfield-research-overview.asp
So let's move on from this arguement
You did not resort of ad hominem attack or criticise the evidence for other methods. You posted references to orignial studies.
The perfect response.