Does this place serve any purpose?



M

m nesbitt

Guest
So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
one thing that constantly amazes me.
Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
around with research? You bet.

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
customers? Not usually, no.

Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe
that there is a huge government conspiracy to keep these discoveries
down? No. Most governments can't work a balance sheet. How do you
expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all
this time. And if you all weren't so busy beating each other over the
head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might actually learn
something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to
research the topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

Thanks for the entertainment.

M Nesbitt
 
"m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
> one thing that constantly amazes me.
> Is it possible that people actually believe:
>
> A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
> B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>
> Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
> money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
> around with research? You bet.
>
> But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
> customers? Not usually, no.
>
> Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe
> that there is a huge government conspiracy to keep these discoveries
> down? No. Most governments can't work a balance sheet. How do you
> expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?
>
> So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all
> this time. And if you all weren't so busy beating each other over the
> head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might actually learn
> something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to
> research the topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

All good points.

> Thanks for the entertainment.

;)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
m nesbitt <[email protected]> wrote:
>So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
>one thing that constantly amazes me.
>Is it possible that people actually believe:
>
>A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
>B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?

Absolutely. I know John Scudamore and "Dr" Cee, just to name a
couple, believe exactly that, and Jan Drew is pretty close to such a
belief. (OK, let me amend that -- Scudamore does not think *all*
doctors are bad, just any that don't agree with all his looney
beliefs.)

>Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
>money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
>around with research? You bet.

Yep.

>But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
>customers? Not usually, no.

Depends on how many, of course, but the "Evil Organized Medicine"
crowd is confident that the companies really don't care how many
patients die as long as the costs of those deaths are less than the
profits on the drug.

>Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe
>that there is a huge government conspiracy to keep these discoveries
>down? No. Most governments can't work a balance sheet. How do you
>expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

People who think the government can keep the wraps on a vast
conspiracy have not been paying attention to history.

>So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all
>this time. And if you all weren't so busy beating each other over the
>head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might actually learn
>something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to
>research the topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.
>
>Thanks for the entertainment.

You're welcome, and thanks for the good words.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
"m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
> one thing that constantly amazes me.
> Is it possible that people actually believe:
>
> A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
> B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?


> Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
> money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
> around with research? You bet.

Yes they do!
And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is top
priority.

> But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
> customers? Not usually, no.

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when
the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.

> Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe
> that there is a huge government conspiracy to keep these discoveries
> down? No. Most governments can't work a balance sheet. How do you
> expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

Amazing how pharm companies can puppet governments typically the Nazi
government.

> So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all
> this time. And if you all weren't so busy beating each other over the
> head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might actually learn
> something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to
> research the topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

Yup best bet, in here you get coral calcium and cell salts.

> Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> M Nesbitt

Anth
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>Date: 1/14/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>m nesbitt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
>>one thing that constantly amazes me.
>>Is it possible that people actually believe:
>>
>>A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
>>B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>
>Absolutely. I know John Scudamore and "Dr" Cee, just to name a
>couple, believe exactly that, and Jan Drew is pretty close to such a
>belief.

Do post your proof of this statement.

Can't? I didn't think so.

So you can stop lying.

Then you can look up my posts that prove it is a lie.

So much for David Wrong.

Jan
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
> > one thing that constantly amazes me.
> > Is it possible that people actually believe:
> >
> > A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
> > B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>
>
> > Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
> > money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
> > around with research? You bet.
>
> Yes they do!
> And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is
top
> priority.
>
> > But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
> > customers? Not usually, no.
>
> Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when
> the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.

The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try in
desperate circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not
significantly different to that of conventional care. Yet we constantly
hear such whining at conventional medicine trying to prolong life and
alleviate suffering with methods that actually do often work. There are
few areas where it can known definitely in advance, for example, that
chemotherapy is not worth a try for two or three months, and both surgery
and radiotherapy have their place as well-tested options for particular
circumstances.

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.
But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with free
public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
require doctors to be either fools or villains. We have our share of
those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.

Peter Moran
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>

>I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
>aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.
>But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with free
>public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
>doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
>there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.
>
>The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
>require doctors to be either fools or villains. We have our share of
>those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.
>
>Peter Moran
>
All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and properly
brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.

B I G D E A L

A dog, properly trained, will salvate at the sound of a bell.
A doctor, properly trained, will prescribe at sound of a bell....Ka ching.

DrC PhD.
 
"DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
> >Date: 1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au
>
>
> >I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
> >aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.
> >But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with
free
> >public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
> >doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
> >there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.
> >
> >The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
> >require doctors to be either fools or villains. We have our share of
> >those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.
> >
> >Peter Moran
> >
> All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and
properly
> brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.

All you are telling us is that if you believe in a conspiracy, everything
can be explained by reference to the conspiracy.

Peter Moran
>
 
>Subject: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: [email protected] (m nesbitt)
>Date: 1/14/04 2:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
>one thing that constantly amazes me.
>Is it possible that people actually believe:
>
>A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
>B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?

All drugs are not bad. Properly used they can save your life. However, to
become a "prescription drug junkie" is usually what happens.

The pharmaceutical companies are inheirently evil due to the fact that they
profit at the expense of the public's health and offer only "cures" while
fighting and not offering "healing."

Doctors are a mixed bag. "Newbies", those recently graduated are out to poison
the world into being healthy so they can repay their medical loans and secure
that condo in the Caribbean.
Those over 55 are relatively safe. It is among this group that you will find
those willing to speak out about medical atrocities and even write books to
warn the public.

Generally, never trust a MD under 55. His brain is still washed and he may
not be debt free yet.

You are considered to be on the pharma payroll if the only thing you offer this
group is harassment, insults, and the advice "go see your doctor, he/she/it
knows best." and only they have "scientific" answers.

DrC PhD.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
>
>
>"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
>> > one thing that constantly amazes me.
>> > Is it possible that people actually believe:
>> >
>> > A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
>> > B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>>
>>
>> > Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
>> > money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
>> > around with research? You bet.
>>
>> Yes they do!
>> And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is
>top
>> priority.
>>
>> > But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
>> > customers? Not usually, no.
>>
>> Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when
>> the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.
>
>The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try in
>desperate circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not
>significantly different to that of conventional care.

That's mainly the purpose of some here, all of them brainwashed by organized
medicine who keep repeating the same thing over and over, even though they have
been shown otherwise.

Look in the archives and you will find the same things being said time and time
again.

The debunkers refuse to accept the FACTS that many are turning to
alternative/complementary for cancer and with success.

Jan

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/sept11HS_508939Alternati
veCancerTreatments020910.html

Many Cancer Patients Turn to Alternative Medicine
From HealthScoutNews

— TUESDAY, Sept. 10 (HealthScoutNews)-- More than 70 percent of adult cancer
patients in western Washington use alternative therapies, and almost all report
improvements in well-being as a result, a new study shows.

Related Webcasts
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 1
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 2
• Can Needles Heal?
• Acupuncture: Can Needles Heal?
• Homeopathy: Helping Your Body Heal Itself

The research, the first population-based study of its kind to look at
predictors, motivators and costs of different types of alternative medicine use
in adults with cancer, was conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. The findings were published in yesterday's issue of The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

Researcher Ruth E. Patterson and her colleagues at Fred Hutchinson's Public
Health Sciences Division led the study, which was supported by grants from the
National Cancer Institute and funds from Fred Hutchinson.

"This is the first study to specifically inquire about patients' attitudes
regarding the effectiveness of alternative treatments," Patterson says.

Patients were considered users of alternative medicine if they received care
from an alternative provider within the past year or had used at least one
alternative supplement or therapy.

Depending on the type of therapy, 83 percent to 97 percent of patients surveyed
said they used alternative medicine for general health, and nearly all reported
that use of these therapies improved their well-being.

A smaller number of those surveyed, between 8 percent and 56 percent, turned to
alternative interventions to actually treat their cancer.

The most common form of alternative treatment was the use of dietary
supplements, which were taken by 65 percent of the patients, many of whom used
several such products simultaneously.

Cancer type also appeared to influence alternative therapy use: for example,
those with breast cancer were significantly more likely to see alternative
providers or take dietary supplements than were colon cancer patients

"Since most therapies were used to enhance overall health and well-being, it
seems unlikely that patients would substitute these therapies for conventional
medicine," Patterson says.

But, she adds, "doctors should be wary of discounting alternative medicine,
given that the majority of patients overwhelmingly feel it improves their
quality of life.

" The survey was based on telephone interviews with 356 adults who had been
diagnosed with breast, prostate or colon cancer between February 1997 and
December 1998. The group was divided equally among men and women, with equal
representation among the three types of cancer.

One limitation to the study, Patterson notes, is that use of alternative
medicine could be high in western Washington for a variety of reasons.

First, vitamin use is highest in the western United States compared to other
areas of the nation. Also, health insurers in Washington are required by state
law to provide coverage for licensed alternative providers.

"Regardless of incidence of alternative medicine use in Washington, other
studies also indicate that alternative medicine use is common in patients with
cancer," Patterson adds.

More information The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
has more information.

The April 2001 _Psychology Today_ Magazine reports:

"The number of Americans using alternative therapies rose from
60 million in 1990,
to 83 million in 1997

http://shell.amigo.net/~stenulson/althealth/

http://www.acpm.net/mercury1.html

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/5936744.htm

Posted on Sat, May. 24, 2003

Demand surges for complementary medicine

http://www.hallvtox.dircon.co.uk/hallvt.html

http://www.heall.com/body/altmed/future/growthofaltmed.html

Alternative/Complementary Medicine is on the Rise

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/health.htm

Alternative Medicine
Recent years have seen tremendous growth in alternative medicine techniques
like Acupuncture, Ayurvedic Healing, Crystal healing, Reflexology and
Therapeutic Touch. Today there are only 36,200 general practitioners in the UK,
but 39,800 practitioners of complementary medicine. Four out of ten GPs offer
their patients access to alternative practitioners. In 1998, sales of herbal
medicines topped £50 million.
One example of the popular level interest was the five page article on
alternative therapies in the November 1997 issue of "Good Housekeeping"
magazine (UK).

http://www.alternativedr.com/news.html

Press Releases
AlternativeDr.com Gets Highest Rating 10/00
AlternativeDr.com Supports Harvard 3/00
AlternativeDr.com Launches Website 1/00

Those dummies at Harvard!!!

http://www.healthsciences.columbia.edu/dept/rosenthal/cancer/info/views.html

And Columbia UN. <grasp>

http://www.dralexvasquez.com/alternativemedicine.htm

Nothing about the stupidity of people in the studies.

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/lcalder/411/tsld093.htm

Growth in alternative medicine due to

***public’s concern over side effects of pharmaceutical drugs****

***distrust of medicine****

****cost or health access***

http://www.geocities.com/menobeyond/altmedlat.html

Plus :The New-School Way to Heal the Body
Medicine: The University of Minnesota is leading the way in teaching a blend of
traditional and nontraditional health care methods. People are noticing. By
SHARI ROAN, Times Health Writer

http://www.wellnesstoday.com/october/insuranc.htm

NEW HEALTH INSURANCE INCLUDES ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lifestar.com/Pages/MythOfMedicine.html
 
Anth wrote:
> "m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
>>one thing that constantly amazes me.
>>Is it possible that people actually believe:
>>
>>A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
>>B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>
>
>
>>Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
>>money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
>>around with research? You bet.
>
>
> Yes they do!
> And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is top
> priority.
>
>
>>But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
>>customers? Not usually, no.
>
>
> Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when
> the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.
>
>
>>Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe
>>that there is a huge government conspiracy to keep these discoveries
>>down? No. Most governments can't work a balance sheet. How do you
>>expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?
>
>
> Amazing how pharm companies can puppet governments typically the Nazi
> government.
>
>
>>So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all
>>this time. And if you all weren't so busy beating each other over the
>>head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might actually learn
>>something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to
>>research the topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.
>
>
> Yup best bet, in here you get coral calcium and cell salts.
>
>
>>Thanks for the entertainment.
>>
>>M Nesbitt
>
>
> Anth
>
>
All calcium carbonate is the result of deposits from oceans. You could
say that all calcium carbonate is coral calcium.

j.
 
In article
<4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
..au>,
"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when
> > the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.
>
> The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try in
> desperate circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not
> significantly different to that of conventional care. Yet we constantly
> hear such whining at conventional medicine trying to prolong life and
> alleviate suffering with methods that actually do often work.

Precisely. It's the same way we hear alties routinely castigating
conventional medicine for merely "treating the symptoms," when that is
EXACTLY what a great deal of "alternative medicine" does. Indeed, you
probably remember hearing some alties say right on this very newsgroup
that it doesn't really matter what the cause of a disease is, that the
treatment is based on the symptoms.


>There are
> few areas where it can known definitely in advance, for example, that
> chemotherapy is not worth a try for two or three months, and both surgery
> and radiotherapy have their place as well-tested options for particular
> circumstances.

Indeed. And even when we know that chemotherapy or radiation therapy
won't cure the patient or even significantly prolong his or her life,
there are circumstances where chemotherapy and especially radiotherapy
(and even occasionally surgery) can provide excellent palliation.


> I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
> aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.

Possibly true, but I don't have adequate experience with non-American
oncologists to judge.


> But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with free
> public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
> doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
> there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.
>
> The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
> require doctors to be either fools or villains.

But that is exactly what some of these alties clearly believe: That we
are either fools or villains and that we can do no right.


>We have our share of
> those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.

Unfortunately true. Quacks like Dr. Day, for example, did, alas, spring
from the "conventional" medical profession.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
> >Date: 1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
> ><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
>
> >I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
> >aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.
> >But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with free
> >public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
> >doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
> >there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.
> >
> >The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
> >require doctors to be either fools or villains. We have our share of
> >those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.
> >
> >Peter Moran
> >
> All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and properly
> brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.
>
> B I G D E A L
>
> A dog, properly trained, will salvate at the sound of a bell.
> A doctor, properly trained, will prescribe at sound of a bell....Ka ching.

And an altie like yourself, when properly trained, will froth at the
mouth whenever he hears anyone either criticize any aspect of
alternative medicine or defend any aspect of conventional medicine.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article
<4005f1eb$0$899$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
..au>,
"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
> > >Date: 1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > >Message-id:
> >
> ><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au
> >
> >
> > >I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more
> > >aggressive in their use of chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.
> > >But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with
> free
> > >public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
> > >doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though
> > >there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.
> > >
> > >The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that
> > >require doctors to be either fools or villains. We have our share of
> > >those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.
> > >
> > >Peter Moran
> > >
> > All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and
> properly
> > brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.
>
> All you are telling us is that if you believe in a conspiracy, everything
> can be explained by reference to the conspiracy.

But that's the mark of a true conspiracy theorist. Moreover, the
conspiracies they refer to are always conveniently designed so that it
is impossible to disprove their existence.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

> The debunkers refuse to accept the FACTS that many are turning to
> alternative/complementary for cancer and with success.

Logical fallacy used: appeal to popularity.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Just because something is popular does not mean it is correct.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: [email protected] (m nesbitt)
> >Date: 1/14/04 2:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> >So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
> >one thing that constantly amazes me.
> >Is it possible that people actually believe:
> >
> >A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
> >B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
>
> All drugs are not bad. Properly used they can save your life. However, to
> become a "prescription drug junkie" is usually what happens.
>
> The pharmaceutical companies are inheirently evil due to the fact that they
> profit at the expense of the public's health and offer only "cures" while
> fighting and not offering "healing."

********. Some are not trustworthy; some are. Most are somewhere in
between. Just like any human endeavor.


> Doctors are a mixed bag. "Newbies", those recently graduated are out to
> poison
> the world into being healthy so they can repay their medical loans and secure
> that condo in the Caribbean.

Oh, please.


> Those over 55 are relatively safe. It is among this group that you will find
> those willing to speak out about medical atrocities and even write books to
> warn the public.

It is also among this group that you will sometimes find doctors so
stuck in their ways that they do not use the latest therapies.


> Generally, never trust a MD under 55. His brain is still washed and he may
> not be debt free yet.

New doctors are also more aware of the newest therapies and techniques.
Doctors over 55 may not be as up on the latest medical research and
therapies, particularly if they are practicing in a rural area.


> You are considered to be on the pharma payroll if the only thing you offer
> this
> group is harassment, insults, and the advice "go see your doctor, he/she/it
> knows best." and only they have "scientific" answers.

I note that your definition conveniently appears to include anyone you
deem to be offering "harassment" or "insults." And, based on your
previous posts, your definition of "harassment" appears to be, in
essence, daring to express an opinion that is contrary to your "altie"
beliefs.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/04 9:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>

>Logical fallacy used: appeal to popularity.
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
>
>Just because something is popular does not mean it is correct.
>
>--
>Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |

I believe that this also applies to modern medicine and its beliefs, nicht
wahr?

That is to say, modern medicine may be as false as witch craft...but not too
far removed from it.

DrC PhD.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/04 10:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>

>********. Some are not trustworthy; some are. Most are somewhere in
>between. Just like any human endeavor.

Well, cowshit to you. Humans, sick humans, are the raw material of the medical
industry. Healthy humans remain as far removed from the medical industry as
possible and for very good reasons.

>Oh, please.

I guess that one hurt?

>It is also among this group that you will sometimes find doctors so
>stuck in their ways that they do not use the latest therapies.

And for good reasons. The "new" therapies are no better than "old" therapies.
They just cost a lot more..

>New doctors are also more aware of the newest therapies and techniques.
>Doctors over 55 may not be as up on the latest medical research and
>therapies, particularly if they are practicing in a rural area.

As I understand it, by the time you graduate from medical school, whatever you
were taught is now "out of date". Such is the rate of increase in medical
wisdom, at least by their standards.

>I note that your definition conveniently appears to include anyone you
>deem to be offering "harassment" or "insults." And, based on your
>previous posts, your definition of "harassment" appears to be, in
>essence, daring to express an opinion that is contrary to your "altie"
>beliefs.

My altie beliefs are based upon an American theory of medicine begun in 1822,
called "orthopathic medicine".

These docs were MDs just as you call yourself and had similar training.
However, they did not believe the germ theory of disease. The did not believe
in drugging their patients. They were drugless MDs and as a result were termed
"the do nothing theory of disease doctors."

I am not an MD and do not pretend to be one. However, a am a student of
medicine and have been well trained in two theories of medicine...allopathy and
orthopathy. Knowledgeable enough to now be able to tell the difference between
******** and cowshit, if you wish to spit the difference.

DrC PhD.
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
> >Date: 1/14/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
><4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au
>
> >
> >
> >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "m nesbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's
> >> > one thing that constantly amazes me.
> >> > Is it possible that people actually believe:
> >> >
> >> > A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad?
> >> > B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-payroll?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make
> >> > money. And do they cut corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw
> >> > around with research? You bet.
> >>
> >> Yes they do!
> >> And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is
> >top
> >> priority.
> >>
> >> > But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their
> >> > customers? Not usually, no.
> >>
> >> Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life
when
> >> the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.
> >
> >The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try
in
> >desperate circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not
> >significantly different to that of conventional care.
>
> That's mainly the purpose of some here, all of them brainwashed by
organized
> medicine who keep repeating the same thing over and over, even though they
have
> been shown otherwise.
>
> Look in the archives and you will find the same things being said time and
time
> again.

No one has previously pointed out that the motives behind the desperate and
often fruitless use of conventional treatments in advanced cancer are
precisely the same as those driving the desperate and even more fruitless
use of "alternatives". Even doctors don't like to have to give up, and
will tend to offer anything that has a small chance of helping to prolong
life and relieve suffering.

Of course, to understand this you have to regard the medical profession as
being dominated by normal human emotions and concerns, which I realise is a
quite foreign notion for you and your fellow crazies at the deep end of
"alternative" medicine... Don't pretend you are " not like that at all".
The material you post here, and the people you support, categorize you
quite well. .

As Orac points out, popularity does not equate to efficacy. The two most
popular alternative methods involve vitamin usage and spiritual practices,
neither of have been shown to work to cure cancer.

Peter Moran
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back