Anti-vax

[paradigm667]

Yeah then he tested it and found that cowpox infection prevented smallpox infection. It was unethical and dangerous but Jenner proved that his vaccine worked.

In order to do this I think Jenner would have needed a double blind, placebo controlled setup.

 

[Aught3]

In order to do this I think Jenner would have needed a double blind, placebo controlled setup.

Why, would that convince you? Like I said the methods Jenner used where unethical and dangerous including deliberately trying to infect people with smallpox. Thankfully we don't do that kind of testing anymore.

 

[paradigm667]

Why, would that convince you? Like I said the methods Jenner used where unethical and dangerous including deliberately trying to infect people with smallpox. Thankfully we don't do that kind of testing anymore.

A double blind, placebo controlled study would indeed convince me very much. If we took a group of randomly selected people, and then randomly assigned them to two groups, namely, vaccinated and non-vaccinated where neither the participants, nor the researchers knew who was being injected with what, and we followed them around to see if there was any statistical significance between groups, then I think we have ourselves a good viable model.

However we do not do this, under the guise of "unethical treatment." And when you ask someone "why is it unethical?" They say "well, because the non-vaccinated group would be denied potentially life-saving therapies." And then the question is "Well, by what means did you initially establish that these therapies are life saving? I thought that's what we were trying to do here?"
Then there is the beginning of the catch 22. We won't do a double blind controlled study, which is the only real way to prove efficacy of one variable (in this case a vaccine), because it would mean that we would be withholding the vaccine (that we KNOW is helpful) from others.

It's like if I we all assumed snorting sugar was an absolutely necessary way to prevent infection, and someone wanted to do a double blind study comparing it to doing nothing at all...we couldn't say something like "well, it would be unethical to withhold sugar up the nose from those who would be otherwise in the placebo group." The question would quickly arise, how do you know it's unethical? Where's the initial data that conclusively proves sugar up the nose works?
Yes, I KNOW you all started snorting sugar up the nose in the majority of the population, and this was done during the period of time that diseases that are infectious declined historically, but that is not a closed system. That is not a double blind study. That is correlation. It gives us reason to surmise there COULD be a link between snorting sugar up the nose and less infection, or it could be nothing at all to do with it.

It's like the twilight zone. And it is, at its core, a faith.
And I find it odd to believe that people who are so anti-faith, or at least they claim to be, become faith based in other areas of science because they mistake consensus with proof.

First of all there are all kinds of suppositions that must be taken on faith. The first is that once someone is vaccinated they are "protected" even though "protection" is defined as "production and presence of antibodies over the long term." We know now that this never happens to 100% of people, and we know that we RARELY measure everyone's antibody production post-vaccine to assure them that it "worked."
But furthermore, the simple production of antibodies isn't proof of HEALTH in the future, or invulnerability to disease. All it means is that there maybe a faster response to a given entity or set of proteins in the future. Does this translate into immunity? No. There are plenty of cases where outbreaks occur in the fully vaccinated, where literally 100% of all individuals are vaccinated.
Outbreak of Haemophilus influenzae type b disease among fully vaccinated children in a day-care center.

Documentation of outbreaks in fully and highly vaccinated populations

Pertussis
"This report describes a statewide outbreak of pertussis in Vermont (1995 population: 584,771) in 1996 in a highly vaccinated population, affecting primarily school-aged children and adults, and underscores the need to include pertussis in the differential diagnosis of cough illness in persons of all ages."
-- Pertussis outbreak -- Vermont, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997 Sep 5;46(35):822-6

"Coverage studies for pertussis vaccine in Cape Town indicated that between 81 and 93 per cent of children were fully immunized by 13 months of age...However, it was not able to prevent a moderate scale outbreak, even in the presence of high vaccination levels."
-- Strebel P, Hussey G, Metcalf C, Smith D, Hanslo D, Simpson J. An outbreak of whooping cough in a highly vaccinated urban community. J Trop Pediatr 1991 Mar;37(2):71-6

"Outbreaks [of pertussis] in highly vaccinated populations have been reported, raising the issues of vaccine efficacy, of the long-term effect of vaccines on the transmission of the disease, and of genetic selective pressure."
--Simondon F, Guiso N. [Genetic evolution under vaccine pressure: the Bordetella pertussis model (French title)] Bull Soc Pathol Exot 2000 Jul;93(3):202-5

Measles (Rubeola)
"This was the largest outbreak of measles in the United States since 1996."
--Transmission of measles among a highly vaccinated school population, Anchorage, Alaska, 1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999 Jan 8;47(51-52):1109-11

"The study suggested that, within highly vaccinated populations, a proportion of individuals had measles antibody levels which may be insufficient to protect against reinfection or clinical disease."
--Cox MJ, Azevedo RS, Massad E, Fooks AR, Nokes DJ. Measles antibody levels in a vaccinated population in Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1998 Mar-Apr;92(2):227-30

"From the 1970s through early into the recent measles epidemic, the majority of measles cases were in highly vaccinated, school-age children. This was due primarily to a 1 to 5% primary measles-mumps-rubella vaccine failure rate and nonrandom mixing patterns among school-age populations."
-- Wood DL, Brunell PA. Measles control in the United States: problems of the past and challenges for the future. Clin Microbiol Rev 1995 Apr;8(2):260-7

"In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity... As in secondary schools, measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations."
-- Hersh BS, Markowitz LE, Hoffman RE, Hoff DR, Doran MJ, Fleishman JC, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA. A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health 1991 Mar;81(3):360-4

"Despite high vaccination levels, explosive measles outbreaks may occur in secondary schools due to 1) airborne measles transmission, 2) high contact rates, 3) inaccurate school vaccination records, or 4) inadequate immunity from vaccinations at younger ages."
-- Chen RT, Goldbaum GM, Wassilak SG, Markowitz LE, Orenstein WA. An explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Modes of transmission and risk factors for disease. Am J Epidemiol 1989 Jan;129(1):173-82

"An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent."
-- Nkowane BM, Bart SW, Orenstein WA, Baltier M. Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission and the role of vaccine failures. Am J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):434-8

"This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%."
-- Measles outbreak among vaccinated high school students--Illinois. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1984 Jun 22;33(24):349-51

"Eighty-seven laboratory-confirmed or clinically confirmed cases of measles were identified...The measles vaccination rate was 94.2%, and 10% of the students had received two doses of measles vaccine before the outbreak."
-- Sutcliffe PA, Rea E. Outbreak of measles in a highly vaccinated secondary school population. CMAJ 1996 Nov 15;155(10):1407-13.

"However, the extent of measles transmission among highly vaccinated school-age populations suggests that additional strategies, such as selective or mass revaccination, may be necessary to prevent such outbreaks."
-- Markowitz LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, Rovira EZ, Adams NC, Hawkins CE, Hinman AR. Patterns of transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States, 1985-1986. N Engl J Med 1989 Jan 12;320(2):75-81.
Mumps
"The overall attack rate is the highest reported to date (and to our knowledge) for a population demonstrating virtually complete mumps vaccine coverage."
--Cheek JE, Baron R, Atlas H, Wilson DL, Crider RD Jr. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Evidence for large-scale vaccination failure. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Jul;149(7):774-8.

"Vaccine failure accounted for a sustained mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Most mumps cases were attributable to primary vaccine failure. It is possible that waning vaccine-induced immunity also played a role."
-- Briss PA, Fehrs LJ, Parker RA, Wright PF, Sannella EC, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82.

"From October 1988 to April 1989, a large mumps outbreak occurred in Douglas County, Kansas. Of the 269 cases, 208 (77.3%) occurred among primary and secondary school students, of whom 203 (97.6%) had documentation of mumps vaccination. "
-- Hersh BS, Fine PE, Kent WK, Cochi SL, Kahn LH, Zell ER, Hays PL, Wood CL. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. J Pediatr 1991 Aug;119(2):187-93
Chickenpox
"A chickenpox outbreak occurred in a school in which 97% of students without a prior history of chickenpox were vaccinated."
--Barna D. Tugwell, MD*, Lore E. Lee, MPH, Hilary Gillette, RN, MPH, Eileen M. Lorber, MD, Katrina Hedberg, MD, MPH and Paul R. Cieslak, MD. Pediatrics, Vol. 113 No. 3 March 2004, pp. 455-459.

"In conclusion, we found varicella outbreaks in CCCs [child care centers] with both high and low vaccination coverage."
--Buchholz U, Moolenaar R, Peterson C, Mascola L. Varicella outbreaks after vaccine licensure: should they make you chicken? Pediatrics 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):561-3
Influenza
"An outbreak of influenza A (H3N2) occurred aboard a U.S. Navy ship in February 1996, despite 95% of the crew's having been appropriately vaccinated."
--Earhart KC, Beadle C, Miller LK, Pruss MW, Gray GC, Ledbetter EK, Wallace MR. Outbreak of influenza in highly vaccinated crew of U.S. Navy ship. Emerg Infect Dis 2001 May-Jun;7(3):463-5.



http://www.vaccines.me/articles/vvjak-whooping-cough-pertussis-in-the-fully-vaccinated.cfm

Fully vaccinated kids still get chickenpox during outbreak


We tend to not like these stories though, of vaccines apparently not working, because it doesn't fit with our faith in vaccines. It doesn't make sense, and then we feel as though "well, if I refuse to continue believing in vaccines it means I'm 'anti-science'." Imagine that. Anti-science because you decide to ditch FAITH and open your eyes.

I may disagree with vaccines, and I do have a different notion of how disease manifests itself and I do not reject germ theory completely, I do see inadequacies to it, and more importantly, better explanations.

Science is a process of being able to analyze the world around you and extract significance. If done properly, it should translate into an increased Power of Prediction. If I can predict the world around me better than you can, I am in possession of a more useful theory or model for the world. This is science.
And you are absolutely right, it is NOT dependent on common sense. It is dependent on being able to understand the world, in other words to make predictions about it. That's the bottom line.

And when it comes to me, I can for instance predict things about certain aspects of the world better than most doctors. One of those things is who will get disease and why. For instance modern medicine will say that if I am healthy and I am near a sick person with the flu, I probably will catch their cold, or if I have sex with someone who has an STD, I will contract this STD.
I say, no. This isn't so. So I for instance have no problem having someone cough or sneeze on me, or even as I have done once (and hopefully many times in the future) spit into my mouth while sick. Nothing happened to me. I didn't miss work. I didn't get sick. I didn't even manifest a slight hint of a fever or anything, whatsoever. Modern medicine says "well, you just have a healthy immune system and you're young."
Not so. At least, not in the past. I used to get colds all the time in the past. All through 2004/2005. All the time. If it wasn't 4 a year it was 5. I was never overweight, I was never sedentary, and yet I was sick ALL the time. I would catch a cold it seemed even when there was nobody to catch it from! lol.

So, what did I do? I LEARNED what a cold and a flu IS. And I realized it has NOTHING to do with a microorganism. That's what I was struggling to understand for years. Only since around 2005 had I really understood this concept, and only in the last 2 years have I actually developed this understanding into the ability to predict the world better than the modern medical establishment.

I know exactly what it's like to believe that for instance flus are contagious. I wish it was true.
Unfortunately since 2006 I have not received a single jab, prick, pill, supplement, herb, acupuncture, crystal ball therapy, vitamin tablet, etc...they are ALL alternative medicine in my book.
Vaccines are just as woo-woo as crystal ball therapy.
And they are all FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ways of looking at disease for one reason or another.

But when you folks speak out against alternative medicine, so do I. Oddly enough.
Alternative medicine, just like conventional medicine, are both REACTIONARY in nature.
You go to your doctor and ask him "Hey doc, how can I give myself the best chance to not have breast cancer?"
He will tell you "Ohh, well, the best thing you can do is early detection, mammograms, and stay away from known carcinogens."
The alternative practitioner may say something very similar and just recommend an herb or some nonsense as well to give it that "natural" touch.

These methods are not useful. The only way to deal with cancer is to prevent it. Not to detect it early enough.
Another faux pas is assuming that the TUMOR is the CANCER. It isn't.
The tumor is just a manefestation of a process we call cancer. You can have all the underlying causes of cancer (low pH, low O2 levels in the blood and tissues, low B vitamins, low vitamin D, and so on) and not have a tumor, but you have the fundamentally necessary precursors to it.
People that get these and other biomarkers inline with their bodies' needs, will more likely prevent tumor formation, but eliminating the underlying cancering process.
To reverse this is possible too. People do it all the time. Most of them, by dietary and lifestyle changes. Very dramatic ones. Such as raw fruits and veggies, elimination of all processed and junk foods, etc.

We see this as industry funded researchers and we are told to call it "spontaneous remission" because it doesn't always happen in every case, every time these non-toxic treatments are used. It's pure excuses. Nobody wants to study it because NOBODY IS FUNDING IT. Because there's NO MONEY in non-toxic, natural therapies, like eating raw fruits and veggies that we evolved on since time immemorial.

People think our initial diet was hunter gatherer style, meat based eating. This is not so. All our ancestors including our species up until around 13,000 years ago were vegetarian frugivores.
We are all off this diet we evolved on, eating franken foods and living lifestyles that are not conducive to health and we wonder why we get sick. And then we come back with invasive and damaging therapies that do even more harm than good, which make a few small groups of people very rich because they convince the rest of the idiot population that they control the secrets to how the idiots can be healthy and well.

It's quite a funny game that is played. And as far as doctors that are unhealthy, who smoke, etc...
That's a shame. And indeed, doctors do not outlive their patients.

I will be a doctor soon enough. But I will not be some idiot with a pot belly and high blood pressure. I don't have many beliefs but I do have one: I believe it is the doctor's role to be not only a provider of health but an example of it.
I want my patients, when they are asked "who is the healthiest person you know" to say .... "my doctor, actually."
Imagine that concept. A doctor who is actually healthy. A doctor who sets an example. One who not only preaches things, but does them and lives by those principles. Not like doctors these days where 60% of them do not even get their flu shots yet they recommend it to 100% of their patients. Not like oncologists who suggest chemo to all their patients, and yet many of them admit they would never use chemo.

What a backwards world.

In friendship

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I will be a doctor soon enough.

In make-believe land, maybe. Seriously, what you're studying doesn't qualify you to call yourself a doctor. The fact that you think it will is probably part of the perception problem that corrupts your entire worldview.

 

[paradigm667]

In make-believe land, maybe. Seriously, what you're studying doesn't qualify you to call yourself a doctor. The fact that you think it will is probably part of the perception problem that corrupts your entire worldview.

There is no need to offend me personally. I will be taking all the courses that an MD would, the only difference is there will be no stress placed on prescribing pills for everything.

What I'm studying, is the following:

Organic Chemistry
Biochemistry
Human Anatomy and Physiology
Molecular Cell Biology
Nutrition
Virology
Microbiology
Toxicology
Permaculture
Aquaponics
and so on.

The only difference is I do not see eye to eye on certain concepts that, by my deduction, unfounded and unreasonable practices that have no intrinsic merit or that require me to believe in them.
I am not a faith-based person whatsoever. I extend that to any faiths we may have in current science. Most people spend their whole lives buried in books and repeating everything and assuming it is all correct just because it's in a textbook.
The history student, above all, is most vulnerable here. The mathematics student, is most at ease. The student of medicine is somewhere in the middle, as many aspects of medical science are so solidly and accurately founded, that they are essentially impossible to disprove, such as understanding action potentials, or the anatomy and function of the occipital lobe, or identifying blood groups. But there are many things about medicine, and about the body for that matter, that we yet do not know.

A good example is Vitamin B12 production. We still are not certain if this is a vitamin that necessarily needs to be consumed externally or if the body can in fact produce it on its own (we know there are bacterial colonies in our intestines that can in fact produce this vitamin, but it appears they produce it in the large intestine, and only in the small intestine is it possible to absorb b12). We still don't understand viruses almost AT ALL. Virologists admit this. They are still asking themselves questions about fundamental aspects of viruses' existence. Such as "are they alive or are they inanimate?" Why do viruses cause disease? Or do they!?
There are many questions we thought we had answered about our genes and chromosomes which we don't know anymore. For instance, what is a "gene"? We used to think a gene was a specific sequence of base pairs that were located physically on a certain part of a larger complex called a chromosome. We now know that is not quite so simple.

A gene seems to be more of an active coming together of many substances, not just the sequence on the chromosome. Often times the sequence is dependent on non-coding regions, other enzymes to be present, even "genes" on other chromosomes. Extremely complicated and amazing. Point is, science is itself a process of answering questions, it changes as better, more sound theories get put forth.
The fact is, medical science today is POLLUTED. Perhaps you haven't read the books I have, perhaps you haven't had the reason to question the integrity...
But it's damn muddy. Damn muddy these days.
By the way, a funny video on gene regulation:



In friendship

 

[Talono]

[
There is no need to offend me personally. I will be taking all the courses that an MD would, the only difference is there will be no stress placed on prescribing pills for everything.

What I'm studying, is the following:

Organic Chemistry
Biochemistry
Human Anatomy and Physiology
Molecular Cell Biology
Nutrition
Virology
Microbiology
Toxicology
Permaculture
Aquaponics
and so on.

No, you are NOT taking all the courses that an MD would have taken.

Courses that medical students take during the first year:
* Anatomy
* Physiology
* Histology
* Biochemistry
* Embryology
* Neuroanatomy

Courses that medical students take during the second year:
* Pathology
* Pharmacology
* Microbiology
* Immunology

Source:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/becoming-a-doctor9.htm
http://gradschool.about.com/od/medicalschool/f/MSCurriculum.htm

 

[paradigm667]

LOL...

What a joke. I said that I WILL be taking the same courses as an MD. And then I said what I AM studying, as in, at the moment, are the classes I listed. Those are the courses (some of them) that I have been and am taking. I have not yet applied or been accepted to any institution yet.
My god do we have a quick trigger finger. I should have been a bit more clear about that and emphasized that those are areas that I AM studying, and that the classes that I WILL BE studying are the same as an MD.

And actually I did forget to mention neuroanatomy, I am reading a very interesting book called Mapping the Mind (sort of like a semi-textbook) on the subject and I have a 40 hour lecture series on the subject I had a friend share with me on DVD.

Incidentally, there are some great resources for college level lectures on many topics you can find all over the net. One such resource is:
The indian government-sponsored lecture channel on youtube. I am almost done with the Biochem lectures. Always nice to review material to get a different perspective. I always find something new to pick up on the second or third time around.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nptelhrd&view=playlists

In friendship

 

[Talono]

What a joke. I said that I WILL be taking the same courses as an MD. And then I said what I AM studying, as in, at the moment, are the classes I listed. Those are the courses (some of them) that I have been and am taking. I have not yet applied or been accepted to any institution yet.
My god do we have a quick trigger finger. I should have been a bit more clear about that and emphasized that those are areas that I AM studying, and that the classes that I WILL BE studying are the same as an MD.

This is the post that you replied to:

"In make-believe land, maybe. Seriously, what you're studying doesn't qualify you to call yourself a doctor. The fact that you think it will is probably part of the perception problem that corrupts your entire worldview."

And then you posted that list.

It would not be unreasonable for me to infer that you were presenting that course list as evidence that you were in the process of obtaining knowledge equivalent to a doctor.

 

[paradigm667]

It would not be unreasonable for me to infer that you were presenting that course list as evidence that you were in the process of obtaining knowledge equivalent to a doctor./quote]
You're right. I can see why you concluded that. That was an error on my part. I should have been clearer that those are subjects that I am currently studying.
I guess I figured nutrition, permaculture and aquaponics would have given it away that I was not comparing those courses to MD's courses. But I was suggesting that much of my studies and experience in school has been with courses directly studied in MD schools.

The only real difference is that pharmacology is greatly emphasized in MD school, and is maybe one small course in ND school, and nutrition is greatly emphasized in ND school and almost nonexistent in MD schooling.

That, in essence is the basic bottom line. ND's heal without side effects and with natural medicines. MDs treat with serious side effects, with patented medicines that come in little colorful pills. Trivial difference, one would think, but I believe it was Frost who said:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference.



In friendship

 

[Giliell]

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference.

Probably between arriving safely in time and being stuck in a swamp (the fire-swamp, most likely)
Sorry, but your rant about how all modern medicine totally got it wrong, that bateria cause no harm, cancer can be healed by taking enough vitamins (heck, there are children who died because their parents believed that rubbish and denied them a therapy that might have saved their lives) totally disqualified you in my eyes.
I know, to you I'll be one of those blinded people who cannot see the truth and be saved through it (wait, sonds familiar, doesn't it?), but I'd have to believe either in a huge conspiracy (hey, familiar again) or that some of the brightest people on this earth during the last 200 years were actually fantasts.

But wait, if germs, bacteria and viruses cause no harm, why then do you insist on better sanitation? Doesn't make sense to me why a doctor should wear gloves or wash his hands or wash at all...

 

[paradigm667]

Sorry, but your rant about how all modern medicine totally got it wrong,

I never said that ALL modern medicine TOTALLY got it wrong. Modern surgical methods, anesthesiology, diagnostic procedures, acute condition treatment, and medical forensics are invaluable and necessary. In some cases where natural, nutritional, and non-toxic remedies absolutely cannot be applied (people born deaf, blind or lose motor control of their body, or similar such conditions) modern approaches are by far once again invaluable and, dare I say, AMAZING. The problem is by the nature of the monetary system which modern medicine is embedded, the ventures of the people who have created, maintained and have investments in such disciplines, necessarily are led to the attempt to expand the applications of such modalities such that essentially there is no aspect of human disease that it will not touch.
This is not done because there are some evil group of men (or women) at the top who demand to poison their neighbors, which most conspiracy theorists assume. Indeed it is a system that is self governing and self-assembling. Any given individual can be put in the position of CEO of these institutions and no matter how moral or apparently "just" these people are, their position as CEO for instance demands that they either destroy themselves and their company, or continue to grow. There is no option for simply trying to shoot for "sustaining" a "healthy" income. People invest in corporations not to remain on par year after year. People who invest in these companies demand that they get increasing return. To do this over a long period of time requires constantly increasing customer base, constantly charging more money for the same services or products, and so on. Inherently this is not bad, when we are discussing matters, services or products that are auxiliary to human necessities. I would consider the right to be healthy one such necessity.

Every daemon, or pathological endeavor that exists, does so not because it is in and of itself "bad" or desires to harm the world from the beginning, but rather it grows into such an endeavor. There is nothing inherent about a cereal killer that makes them that way. They often times are people that want nothing but good in the world but are, over a long period of time not allowed to attain such good, and so there is desperation and eventual pathology. Same with many aspects of modern medicine. Initially it appears to be of benefit. The headache that is annoying you can be numbed away by taking a substance that blocks the pain. Not being able to fall asleep can be aided by a pill. Heartburn can likewise be stopped, so can many allergies. But these are not acute conditions that never come back. They are underlying signals (symptoms) that your body is sending out, which are not to be ignored, but rather taken note of, and done something about.
You don't get a "check engine" light in your car and then decide to simply snip the wire that make the "check engine" light come on, assuming you have fixed the problem. Rather, you check the damn engine.
This is only the philosophical problem however, it goes much deeper. In a very real sense the need for constant expansion of the corporations involved in medicine and pharmaceuticals, dictates that not only do they venture out to treat diseases which are not acute in nature with drugs that are designed only for acute conditions (which, I think we will all agree most diseases we treat are NOT acute) and yet we treat them as though they were, which is a fundamental flaw. For instance heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, arthritis, allergies, and so on. These are conditions that are known to not develop overnight, and most experts in the relevant fields even admit that diet and lifestyle are the cause. For instance with diabetes. And yet they do not make the same connection for the reversal of these conditions.
But beyond even this problem of overstreching its tentacles, trying to treat conditions that it shouldn't, the modern medical system begins a new phenomenon which is again brought about by this need for constantly increasing its customer base: Namely, it invents the ideas that perfectly normal function in the human individual are now considered disease states that qualify (in some cases are even mandated) to be treated, with their remedies, of course. This is where one cannot help but analyze the psychiatric industry, which is one of the most guilty in this respect. To define mental illness, first one has to define mental "normalcy." This is still something that no psychiatric manual, including the granddaddy of them all the DSM, can do. Therefore because they are at liberty to arbitrarily define what it is to be "normal" it can just as easily define what it is to be "diseased." In fact it does just this.

I hope this doesn't just sound like a bunch of psycho-babble, because these are significant issues that, will not go away just by dismissing them as coming from some idiot on an internet forum.
But again, do I reject ALL of modern medicine? No. There are still some things which are very in need of modern medicine. The world is never black and white like that. But I hope you can see that the problem with modern medicine is not its philosophy, but rather the economic system which it is founded in, which demands that it over-reaches and extends itself into far more aspects of our lives, and of disease states that we may have, than it can give any benefit to us with.

that bateria cause no harm,

It's not so much that bacteria cause no harm, as much as it is that their relationship to us in terms of homeostasis, health and disease, is fundamentally misunderstood.
Bacteria can cause disease under certain conditions. Namely when we are in nutritionally deficient states to begin with (as I described Diphtheria can be activated or inactivated simply by us having proper or improper levels of iron in the body). This is mainstream science, it is well established although perhaps not well understood, nevertheless the phenomenon is known.
Also bacteria, if they are allowed to grow due to these favorable conditions (a weak or deficient body) can make subsequent toxic components of their metabolism that CAN harm us. And indeed each case in my opinion needs to be analyzed properly to address the proper plan of action. If I was in charge it would be something like this: We keep the antibiotic at the hip, ready to pull the trigger if the disease shows signs of progressing to the extent that the body is not able to overcome the overgrowth and subsequently will lead to permanent disease or death. But before we pull the trigger and use the magic bullet, we want to attempt to let the body heal itself by aiding it as best we can without any side effect-producing medicine. The reasons for this are many but here's some:

-No use of antibiotics means no risk of having antibiotic resistant bacteria in the body which, can be an asset in the future, should there be an even more serious need for an antibiotic. Last resort. Not first line of defense.
-No use of antibiotics means no need to worry about the side effects on the liver and on the various other affected areas of the body that are harmed in the process of trying to do good, such as the intestinal dysbiosis that occurs as well as the immune suppression that occurs as a result of these substances.
-The patient is presented with the possibility of witnessing his/her own body to heal itself which has potentially profound effects on their state of mind and general understanding of the power the body has to heal itself when simply given the chance to by essentially taking away all the things that impede it (such as the rich western diet, toxic substances in the body, too much stress, not enough rest, or nutritional levels).

So again, I'm not willing to make blanket statements like "bacteria cause no harm" because that's not true, and I will touch on this in a moment...but in general, yes, their relationship to us is vastly misunderstood. We spend too much time fighting with them, fascinated by their abilities to adapt to our weapons, yet never asking if in fact these adaptations are not indicators that these microbes are hell-bent on destroying us at any cost, but rather that they are possibly present in times of disease because they facilitate a beneficial effect on us in times of disease and the fact that they adapt to our weapons is instead a great aid to us potentially.

cancer can be healed by taking enough vitamins (heck, there are children who died because their parents believed that rubbish and denied them a therapy that might have saved their lives) totally disqualified you in my eyes.

Denied them therapies like what? Chemo? The same chemo that 75% - 90% of oncologists and doctors would refuse to have if they or their family members got cancer?
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-physicians-refuse-chemo.html
http://www.holisticcancersolutions.com/about_us.htm

"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. (This information is confirmed by a congressional testimony [ http://www.medpac.gov/publications/congressional_testimony/071306_Testimony_Part%20B_oncology.pdf ]. This document provides a rare and fascinating insight into the financial aspect of the oncology business.) Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists."

Those children who died may not have lived any longer on chemo that "might have saved their lives." Actually that statement is not that far off base all one has to do is add one letter to the entire sentence, namely an "h" right after the "s", but before the "a" in the word saved and it makes it more applicable:

"and denied them a therapy that might have shaved their lives"

Indeed, there is much reason to suspect that any such case of "much needed therapy" would have only resulted in a potentially SHORTER lifespan. Again, if one realizes that cancer is a process, not a tumor, then they will very quickly also realize this means that any modality that attacks the tumor is utterly USELESS, which most chemotherapy is. And I believe most oncologists, apparently, agree with me as well! :lol:

Cancer is caused by many things. But I think we can agree that one KNOWN cause is toxic chemical exposure. I think the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that this much is absolutely true. The next thing we can be suspect of is conditions which appear to make cancer MUCH more likely, namely, acidity of the blood, lack of vitamin D, and lack of nutritents, specifically the water soluble vitamins and those compounds normally found in fruits and vegetables we call phytonutrients. It would be in our best interest to:
-Eliminate any toxic residues that are associated with cancer from our body and our environment, and
-Restore proper levels of nutrients we know correlate with a significantly less likely chance of developing cancer, as well as restoring proper blood and cellular pH.

It's not a cure, and it's not 100% infallible system. But I can promise you, those oncologists that treat people with their chemo, who also say they would never use it themselves...will be coming to my office looking for guidance. Even though I'm the "weird natural foods doctor" who must not know anything about disease and health. In fact, increasingly, we are finding MDs are themselves going to NDs for their own health, and yet treating patients with the same medicine that they refuse to use on their own selves.

"Do as we say, not as we do."

And then there are people like you, who look at people like me and say that you "disqualify me in your eyes."
Perhaps it is not me, but your eyes that therefore need adjusting?

I know, to you I'll be one of those blinded people who cannot see the truth and be saved through it (wait, sonds familiar, doesn't it?), but I'd have to believe either in a huge conspiracy (hey, familiar again) or that some of the brightest people on this earth during the last 200 years were actually fantasts.

No. None of the above. I think you are blinded, but the answer is not to take anything I have to offer on faith, as none of my conclusions or precepts were derived or founded upon any kind of faith whatsoever.
I also think using the word "conspiracy" is utterly useless and serves only to dismiss the analysis of the status quo, effectively maintaining it regardless if it demands scrutiny or not.
And as far as the brightest people in the last 200 years, I don't think I quite see what you are getting at by assuming I would say something like that...I judge people not on their level of fanaticism, but on their level of veracity and useful discovery.

But wait, if germs, bacteria and viruses cause no harm, why then do you insist on better sanitation? Doesn't make sense to me why a doctor should wear gloves or wash his hands or wash at all...

Well for instance with tainted water. The problem, mostly is not that bacteria in the water kill you. Rather, it's a very sadly simple issue often times. Such as diarrhea. Drinking tainted water with bacteria stimulates diarrhea. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. The bacteria do not cause disease, but they flush the body, and thus do not allow for the nutrient uptake to proceed. If this happens once no big deal. Over a span of months and years...it can be devastating. It's not the bacteria per se, it's the effect of diarrhea on the body. Any toxic water can make this happen regardless if it is tainted with microorganisms or non-living filth/toxins. As for wearing gloves and washing hands, this is during times of surgery or birth, and it is when we have the insides of the body exposed, being oxidized by the air, killing tissue, promoting death of it and thus providing nesting ground for bacteria to grow, to do their work. When allowed to grow too much, bacteria can become toxic via their secondary and tertiary effects (metabolism and excreta). But with childbirth, the problems with infection are historically not present in populations that were near the equator, that had no rich diets, and generally were naturally healthy. They give birth in relatively "open" conditions with others touching them etc, and no disease like we saw during Semmelweis' time.
There is more to the story that I think you may not be aware of, and thus not considering. How can one be so certain of germ theory, when they don't even know who Bechamp, Bernard, Nessans, and all the individuals who promoted the cellular theory of disease rather than germ theory? It is because we are not taught these things in school. I have taken courses on the history of medicine. Do you know how many times we hear Antione Bechamp's name? ZERO. Not even a passing mention. Like 2 seconds worth like "Louis Pasteur's contemporary who had a different idea than Pasteur was named Antione Bechamp." Not even something like that...nothing.
Sad.
And yet, everyone seems to know all the ways in which germ theory is by far the most sensible approach, etc.
You have to sit and laugh. I KNOW people do not know about Bernard and Bechamp, because they are never even TOLD who these people were.
Or that Pasteur recanted his own germ theory on his deathbed.
"Bernard was right" he said "the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything."
But it was too late at that point.

An entire industry was already in place based on his theories. It continues to this day. No conspiracy. No magical reason. It's just because germ theory makes money, and cellular theory doesn't. I would be naive to call it conspiracy. It's just business common sense.


In friendship

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Probably between arriving safely in time and being stuck in a swamp (the fire-swamp, most likely)
Sorry, but your rant about how all modern medicine totally got it wrong, that bateria cause no harm, cancer can be healed by taking enough vitamins (heck, there are children who died because their parents believed that rubbish and denied them a therapy that might have saved their lives) totally disqualified you in my eyes.
I know, to you I'll be one of those blinded people who cannot see the truth and be saved through it (wait, sonds familiar, doesn't it?), but I'd have to believe either in a huge conspiracy (hey, familiar again) or that some of the brightest people on this earth during the last 200 years were actually fantasts.

But wait, if germs, bacteria and viruses cause no harm, why then do you insist on better sanitation? Doesn't make sense to me why a doctor should wear gloves or wash his hands or wash at all...

It is funny how people who know next to nothing feel like they know more than every doctor of the past 200 years. If it isn't that, then they are accusing every doctor of the past 200 years of being in on a giant conspiracy to give people medicines that don't work, and that actually make them more ill.

I call bullshit... and as soon as I send my $250 to an online diploma mill, I can be an ND too!

 

[paradigm667]

It is funny how people who know next to nothing feel like they know more than every doctor of the past 200 years. If it isn't that, then they are accusing every doctor of the past 200 years of being in on a giant conspiracy to give people medicines that don't work, and that actually make them more ill.

Well, it's not that. My position is that the medicines we have developed do work, they just work to treat acute conditions and they all come with at least one major side effect which is liver toxicity. This means that over the long term, they are not viable options because they lead to more sickness. Most of the pills we are prescribed, in fact have multiple side effects, not only liver toxicity, by the way.

If you want to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist constantly perhaps I should remind you that you probably are too.
Allow me to elaborate.
Global warming denialists, as they are called, are often accused by very clear-thinking individuals of being paid off by the oil companies. In fact there are websites which track the involvement and monetary connections/funding many of these folks receive from oil companies, or from oil company fronts. Indeed many people are of the opinion that ANY scientist that claims global warming isn't caused by human activity, must be somehow taking money on the side. In other words, there is a conspiracy that all these individuals are a part of.

If you believe that 18 muslim hijackers plotted to run planes into American targets in the year 2001, you believe there was a conspiracy to do this.

We already know, mainstream news, that there were medical ghostwriters who were responsible for fraudulent papers that misrepresented the efficacy of HRT drugs.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/2144214/Medical-Papers-By-Ghostwriters-Pushed-Hormone-Therapy?from=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13wyeth.html?_r=1

Marcia Angell, who was the chief editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a book entitled "The Truth About the Drug Companies" in which she absolutely blasted the various practices that are employed, all the way from lobbying for excessive patent rights to the implementation of "me too drugs." Her book is filled with what you could easily call "conspiracy theory."

My point is, to dismiss something as conspiracy is to discredit it in the eyes of others, yourself, and to demean the person who suggested it. To simply say I am suggesting conspiracy is completely irrelevant. I either have a properly articulated point, a sound argument, or not. Respond to the argument, don't just categorize it. For instance if I said I believed in aliens you might answer a bit differently such as "there is no proof that any alien contact has ever been achieved on this planet. No credible footage has ever been documented, and although there are certain apparent anomalies in the world, it is not direct proof of aliens existing or having been engaging in interactions with this planet."
Respond to the claim, don't respond to the person. You can call me any name you want, or say that my argument is a conspiracy theory all you want. It doesn't further the conversation though.

What if everything I said in response to you was simply "That's an absurd suggestion. You are being ridiculous" but I never actually refuted what you had argued. That would be a poor way of having a discussion. At some point, too, you would have to wonder if perhaps I was being so dismissive because I simply either didn't want to address the claims and respond to them intelligently, or the claims didn't fit with my world view, and therefore I assumed they had to be incorrect and thus due to this belief I would have been able to (with some justification in my mind) ignore the arguments and not feel guilty about not responding to them in a fair manner.

I call bullshit... and as soon as I send my $250 to an online diploma mill, I can be an ND too!

Right, actually you can't. To be an ND, you have to go to an accredited institution. The cost of schooling is the same, if not a little more than a standard med school at around 125,000 for 16 quarters.
Many individuals who go to ND school, already have their MDs, and are interested in gaining better tools to be able to truly help their patients, because they are realizing that its very hard to cure people with pills.
I understand you think it's just a bunch of crazy hippies with Birkenstocks on burning incense or something chanting incantations to cure the ill...actually I'll be honest I kinda like Birkenstocks...anyways, lol, the teachers at these institutions are very well trained and credentialed. Here is an example from the school that I want to attend:


Boyd Campbell, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Boyd Campbell is a Professor of Anatomy. He came to SCNM in 1996. He received his B.S. in Zoology in 1955, M.S. in Bacteriology in 1957, M.D. in Medicine in 1963, and Ph.D. in Anatomy in 1965, all from the University of Illinois...

Richard Laherty, Ph.D
Dr. Laherty began his studies at the University of San Francisco, where he obtained a B.S. and M.S. in Biology...

Arben Lasku, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Lasku graduated from the University of Tirana, Albania with his M.S. in clinical chemistry and an M.D. and Ph.D focusing on cancer studies...

Robert Waters, Ph.D
Dr. Robert Waters earned his Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics from Montana State University (1975) with an emphasis in Biochemistry...

Deborah Wollner, Ph. D
Dr. Debra Wollner obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Washington (1987) from the Department of Pharmacology. Dr. Wollner performed postdoctoral work at the New York University Medical School Department of Cell Biology, ...

Jeffrey Langland, Ph.D, Research Vice-Chair (virology, immunology, vaccinology, microbiology)

Yvan Rochon, Ph.D. (adjunct research faculty-biochemistry, herbal medicine)

Katherine Raymer, M.D., NMD (clinical research, psychiatry)

Debra Wollner, Ph.D.(IRB, pharmacology, physiology)

Pamela Martin, M.D. (pediatrics)

Steve Woffinden, EE. (Retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel, Adjunct Research Scientist, artificial intelligence mathematics, General Dynamics-Tempe, AZ.)

David Payne, D.O

Sylvia Hinton, R.N.


So it's not some woo-woo institution. And the fact that you proclaim to know so much about it, and yet you clearly don't, is simply an indication of your presuppositions about the discipline, and probably this is brought upon by a certain degree of stereotyping and biased information you have received about it.
There is no doubt that the average citizen is ill-informed about what naturopathic medicine is, and how important nutrition is. It has to be this way. If the average person was aware of how bad all the food and personal care products are for them, they would not consume them at the record rates they are.

I don't blame you. But I do think it's OK for you to poke around and just simply stand back for a moment and say "wait a minute, what do I REALLY actually know about naturopaths?" I think you might find the naturopathic philosophy interesting and you may even change your mind about the discipline.


In friendship

 

[Puttanesca]

What if a natural substance contains both a useful element and a toxic element, would an ND want to use a pill derived from a natural substance if it had proven efficacy?

 

[paradigm667]

What if a natural substance contains both a useful element and a toxic element, would an ND want to use a pill derived from a natural substance if it had proven efficacy?

I can't answer for all NDs because I think any randomly selected ND would have their own opinion on this. However I can say what I would do...

I can name very few isolated and purified derivatives of natural products that do not harm the body. Once you purify something and crystallize something you have created a drug. You have created something that will have liver toxicity. Name me one drug that isn't at the very least liver toxic and I'll make an exception for that substance.

This phrase "derived from a natural substance" too, is very vague. It can mean anything. An ND would probably see less of a problem with lets say a tincture of an herb that has known vasodillation effects, versus a pharmaceutical drug that has the same effects even though both could be said to be "derived from a natural product."

You know how many people in the "alternative health movement" recommend things like agave nectar or stevia? Well, they are useless sweeteners. I'm not into alternative medicine, or alternative health. I'm into functional medicine and proper health.
Agave nectar is a refined product. So is stevia. They are actually not healthy in the body. Agave nectar because it spikes insulin, stevia because it tastes very sweet and stimulates secretion of various substances including insulin and gastric secretions, but it is accompanied by no actual sugars. So what happens with it, is you trick your body into thinking carbohydrates are coming, so it prepares for it, but then none come, and so you get hypoglycemic and then binge shortly after.

People are living in such ways that disease is inevitable, and Ivan Illich wrote about this decades ago, he knew this trend was only going to get worse back in the 60's and 70's with his book Medical Nemesis where the opening sentence in the book is "The medical establishment has become a major threat to health."

Here is something he wrote in his chapter "SOCIAL IATROGENESIS"

"Medicine undermines health not only through direct aggression against individuals but also through the impact of its social organization on the total milieu. When medical damage to individual health is produced by a sociopolitical mode of transmission, I will speak of "social iatrogenesis," a term designating all impairments to health that are due precisely to those socio-economic transformations which have been made attractive, possible, or necessary by the institutional shape health care has taken.

Social iatrogenesis designates a category of etiology that encompasses many forms. It obtains when medical bureaucracy creates ill-health by increasing stress, by multiplying disabling dependence, by generating new painful needs, by lowering the levels of tolerance for discomfort or pain, by reducing the leeway that people are wont to concede to an individual when he suffers, and by abolishing even the right to self-care. Social iatrogenesis is at work when health care is turned into a standardized item, a staple; when all suffering is "hospitalized" and homes become inhospitable to birth, sickness, and death; when the language in which people could experience their bodies is turned into bureaucratic gobbledegook; or when suffering, mourning, and healing outside the patient role are labeled a form of deviance."


Anyway, back to the larger point, what people need isn't some compound that is "derived from a natural substance." You don't put in dirty gasoline into your car, never change its oil, underinflate the tires, favor a heavy foot on the accelerator, use hard brakes, and always put the AC on full blast and fix it by simply adding slick50 to your gas tank every other few weeks. There IS no magic substance.

That's the joke. In the history of modern medicine, name me one compound that you can ingest to cure diabetes. Name me one drug that cures heart disease. Or one that can reverse osteoporosis. Or cancer. Or...any condition. Modern medicine cannot cure. It looks at the pieces, rather than the whole. Here's another thing Illich wrote about this actually:

"The fact that modern medicine has become very effective in the treatment of specific symptoms does not mean that it has become more beneficial for the health of the patient."

You ever see those commercials on TV where a drug is being peddled and it says "[this drug] was shown to be more effective than changes in diet and lifestyle alone."

You ever see those? Well, you know what they consider a "beneficial" diet and lifestyle? Standard American Diet and average 40 hour a week work schedule with maybe 30 minutes of exercise every other third day. This is sure to make you sick. This is the point. The very way people are living promotes disease. And it better! How else would the medical establishment be able to make money? You have to ensure you have a constant flow of diseased people in a capitalist system like this. Imagine what would happen if everyone was enlightened and informed enough to start living hygienically, to monitor their vitamin D levels and get enough sun, to drink no other beverage but water, to eat almost nothing but raw fruits and vegetables each day, and so on...
Well they wouldn't be found anywhere near a doctors office. No more business.

In a SANE society, if we were TRULY interested in making people well, we wouldn't invest in medical device patents, and new drug therapies, and so on. We would hire some very smart people to find out WHAT THE TRUE CAUSE of disease is. This is the fundamental issue with our system (and indeed with medicine in other areas of the world as well): Namely, it begins with the cause. Almost all medical establishments, to preserve their own existence, define sickness and health in ways which ensure their legitimacy and our dependence on them.

For instance, if you randomly search through a disease database you will find a trend. Diseases are caused by a handful of things. They include:

-Bacteria
-Virus
-Genetics
-Unknown causes

There you have it. In a modern medical paradigm those are the causes of disease. What do they have in common? Lets think about it for a second.
They are OUT OF YOUR REALM OF CONTROL.
To protect against bacteria you must use antibiotics provided by the medical establishment. If you don't you are immediately labeled a "crazed, unscientific menace."
To protect against viruses you must be vaccinated provided by the medical establishment. If you don't you are immediately labeled a "crazed, unscientific germ theory denialist."
To protect against your genes, you must subject yourself to a whole host of therapies, naturally, only provided to you by the medical establishment. If you don't you are immediately labeled a "crazed, unscientific and probably dangerous, imbecile denialist."
To protect against unknown causes, you are still subjected to medication of all kinds, of course, provided to you by the medical establishment. If you refuse, you are ridiculed, and immediately labeled a "crazed, irresponsible citizen." If you have children and you refuse them to be treated by toxic pills, you are labeled not only crazed, but a bad parent, and you can have your child taken away from you. And be fined. And be jailed!

What if...

I know this sounds "crazed" but, what if...

Diseases were also caused by:
-Toxic exposures to synthetic chemicals
-Too many antibiotics and toxic drugs and their side effects which were intended to treat mild initial conditions
-Poor nutrition
-Lack of simple things like sunlight, or exercise.
-Poor lymph circulation
-Addiction to damaging substances be it unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, drugs (legal and illegal)
-Stress brought about by everyday life (the so called everyday struggle)
-Stress brought about by figuring out that to survive in the world one has to lie to get ahead
-Emotional traumas triggering a psycho-somatic response
-Adrenal fatigue syndrome
-Lack of sleep
-Lack of hydration (for instance most headaches can be simply traced back to a simple lack of hydration)
-etc, etc, etc


What if THOSE were the real causes of disease and indeed bacteria never "caused" disease when someone didn't have one of these underlying problems?
What if viruses are not harmful substances but rather bodily responses to disease, not a cause of disease?
What if genes aren't really there to make you sick, rather, "good" or "bad" genes can be turned on or off based on those underlying conditions?
What if "unknown causes" are really one or more of the causes that I listed off just now, and the medical establishment does not want to name them because it would compel the patient to make lifestyle changes rather than buy pills or have surgery, pay the grocer a few bucks for some healthy food, get some sun rather than a bottle of supplements, get some sleep rather than a bottle of stimulants, and so on...

You tell me. Do you know how healthy the average citizen should be these days? We have so much amassed knowledge of the amazing things diet and lifestyle changes can do for ones health. They are all over the peer reviewed literature. All over. We have the knowledge of how important vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals are. The effects of cooking our food. As of 2002, we finally figured out that acrylamides are formed in high temp cooking of carbohydrates. We know processing foods is bad and leads to ill health. We know what to do...goodness the answers are staring us in the face.

And yet people who advocate simple common sense are now being laughed at and scolded?

The single magic pill idea is DEAD.
It was never alive to begin with! We can look back at the antibiotic age and say "see, after antibiotics we saw huge decline in death from infectious diseases." And that might be true. You kill the bacteria, but the conditions in the body that SPAWNED the growth and the existence of this bacteria is not dealt with. In order to believe that antibiotics did anything of benefit, we must assume bacteria are the CAUSE of disease. THEY AREN'T! I have pneumonia, strep, candida, H.Pylori, and so on in my body as we speak. Why then, am I not sick? Why then, does this bacteria not randomly select a day to start to harm me? Because they are not a cause of disease, but the result.
And again, you look at the actual lifespans since the antibiotic age, not much improvement. And even the small improvement, was it accompanied by better quality of life? Are people living longer or dying longer?

Think about it.

 

[Giliell]

For instance, if you randomly search through a disease database you will find a trend. Diseases are caused by a handful of things. They include:

-Bacteria
-Virus
-Genetics
-Unknown causes

There you have it. In a modern medical paradigm those are the causes of disease. What do they have in common? Lets think about it for a second.

What if...

I know this sounds "crazed" but, what if...

Diseases were also caused by:
-Toxic exposures to synthetic chemicals
-Too many antibiotics and toxic drugs and their side effects which were intended to treat mild initial conditions
-Poor nutrition
-Lack of simple things like sunlight, or exercise.
-Poor lymph circulation
-Addiction to damaging substances be it unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, drugs (legal and illegal)
-Stress brought about by everyday life (the so called everyday struggle)
-Stress brought about by figuring out that to survive in the world one has to lie to get ahead
-Emotional traumas triggering a psycho-somatic response
-Adrenal fatigue syndrome
-Lack of sleep
-Lack of hydration (for instance most headaches can be simply traced back to a simple lack of hydration)
-etc, etc, etc

Totally false dychotomy.
Most of the things you state are well known and established within modern medicine.

-Toxic exposures to synthetic chemicals

Not only synthetic, btw. Smoking highly increases your risk for cancer. A lot of substances are now forbidden because we discovered how harmful they are. Pregnant women are told to be twice as careful and abstain from a hell lot of stuff. No sane MD will deny that.

-Too many antibiotics and toxic drugs and their side effects which were intended to treat mild initial conditions

That's why you get a list of side-effects with every drug. I agree that we're often "shooting sparrows with cannons" as we say in Germany (breaking butterflies on a wheel). But that doesn't mean that the drug shouldn't be used at all.

-Poor nutrition
-Lack of simple things like sunlight, or exercise.

Again, who's denying that? Established medical science?

-Poor lymph circulation

That's why variokarsis is a long established diagnosis.

-Addiction to damaging substances be it unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, drugs (legal and illegal)

Again, who's arguing?

-Stress brought about by everyday life (the so called everyday struggle)
-Stress brought about by figuring out that to survive in the world one has to lie to get ahead
-Emotional traumas triggering a psycho-somatic response

Which is why psychosomatics are an established field in medicine. Why there are psychotherapists who help people dealing with stress, trauma and such.

-Adrenal fatigue syndrome

Can't comment on that

-Lack of sleep
-Lack of hydration (for instance most headaches can be simply traced back to a simple lack of hydration)

I have yet to meet the MD who encourages the frequent use of aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen on a regular basis instead of encouraging getting enough rest and drinking enough. I have yet to meet the GP who recommends the intake of food supplements instead of fresh fruit and vegs. On the contrary, you can hardly help leaving a consultory nowadays without having been told a lot of unpleasant things about what you're doing to your body and an armful of leaflets about propper nutrition.

You tell me. Do you know how healthy the average citizen should be these days? We have so much amassed knowledge of the amazing things diet and lifestyle changes can do for ones health. They are all over the peer reviewed literature. All over. We have the knowledge of how important vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals are. The effects of cooking our food. As of 2002, we finally figured out that acrylamides are formed in high temp cooking of carbohydrates. We know processing foods is bad and leads to ill health. We know what to do...goodness the answers are staring us in the face.

And yet people who advocate simple common sense are now being laughed at and scolded?

Nope, that only happens if they, at the same time deny well established scientific facts.

We can look back at the antibiotic age and say "see, after antibiotics we saw huge decline in death from infectious diseases." And that might be true. You kill the bacteria, but the conditions in the body that SPAWNED the growth and the existence of this bacteria is not dealt with. In order to believe that antibiotics did anything of benefit, we must assume bacteria are the CAUSE of disease. THEY AREN'T! I have pneumonia, strep, candida, H.Pylori, and so on in my body as we speak. Why then, am I not sick? Why then, does this bacteria not randomly select a day to start to harm me? Because they are not a cause of disease, but the result.

Again, you're mixing facts and fiction.
Yes, totally true, we know that a lot of bacteria live within us and within certain parts of us. In the healthy human, they have a kind of balance, not causing harm. If something happens that upsets the balance, we're more prone to become sick. In the female vagina, you usually have a whole bunch of bacteria and also fughi living in harmony. If everything is all right, simple milk-acid bacteria will dominate while the others, more dangerous are kept at bay. If the PH-level is upset, those "good" milk-acid bacteria will not have the ideal habiotat anymore and others, more dangerous bacteria may grow and cause an infection. Yet, the upset PH is not the cause of the infection, it simply makes it more likely. If it happens, only those bacteria can flourish and I can only become ill with those disseases I've been previously infected with.
Ever heard of new-borns contracting Strep B from their mothers during birth and dying within a few days?

And again, you look at the actual lifespans since the antibiotic age, not much improvement. And even the small improvement, was it accompanied by better quality of life? Are people living longer or dying longer?

Well, if you asked that question someone (to make it simple, my gran) who's 83 now and who's been on heart medication for years, has been to the ER several times and who has, yes, no denying that, to take half a dozen pills more to reduce the bad side-effects of the first heart-medication, what youd they answer?
Why doesn't she simply stop taking that medication?
Why hasn't she stated in her patient's will (a binding declaration of what medical treatment she'd like to have and what not) that she doesn't want to be treated next time she has a heart attack?
But be aware that she owns several fryingpans and has been brought up before it was thought bad to hit children.


Think about it.[/quote]

 

[paradigm667]

Totally false dychotomy.
Most of the things you state are well known and established within modern medicine.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Not only synthetic, btw. Smoking highly increases your risk for cancer. A lot of substances are now forbidden because we discovered how harmful they are. Pregnant women are told to be twice as careful and abstain from a hell lot of stuff. No sane MD will deny that.

But they WILL deny mercury in vaccines is an issue (even though we know it's toxic), they will deny mercury amalgams in teeth are harmful, even though we know its toxic. They will deny that DRINKING fluoride in water is bad, even though they do admit its a toxin (which is why you are told DO NOT SWALLOW TOOTHPASTE), they will deny plenty of other connections with various substances. And since when is smoking illegal? It isn't. They don't outlaw the bad stuff. They just make you pay more for it, in fact. lol.

That's why you get a list of side-effects with every drug. I agree that we're often "shooting sparrows with cannons" as we say in Germany (breaking butterflies on a wheel). But that doesn't mean that the drug shouldn't be used at all.

Sure it does. Especially if ANY positive effect the drug can have, you can achieve with non-toxic means. A good example...All blood pressure drugs, should be committed to the flames, because simple eliminating salt from the diet, increasing banana and potassium rich fruits in place of the pills, will have DRASTICALLY better effects on blood pressure with NO side effects. What do you need those drugs for now? Nothing but profit. Commit them to the flames!
I can name off dozens of drugs which are unneeded and can be done away with entirely. In fact the problem I have is not naming drugs that are useless, but naming ones that have any use at all that cannot be attained some other way. The drugs I think are useful:
-Anesthetics for surgery
-Drugs that inhibit too much bleeding for emergencies
-Many of the drugs used in acute medicine
-Some substances that are used only temporarily often times to help diagnose disease or problems
-Some anti-seizure meds

but for the most part well over 95% of all drugs are UTTERLY useless.

Commit them to the flames I say.

Again, who's denying that? Established medical science?

Yes. Which is why you don't hear people going to their doctors and coming back telling you how they were prescribed 40 minutes of sunlight each day, earlier sleep cycles, no more animal foods and no salt replaced by the majority of their calories from fruits and veggies. You don't hear that. So yes, medical science does deny it, because they don't APPLY it. Shame. Shame shame.

I have yet to meet the MD who encourages the frequent use of aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen on a regular basis instead of encouraging getting enough rest and drinking enough. I have yet to meet the GP who recommends the intake of food supplements instead of fresh fruit and vegs. On the contrary, you can hardly help leaving a consultory nowadays without having been told a lot of unpleasant things about what you're doing to your body and an armful of leaflets about propper nutrition.

Well come to America and you might feel differently! Because here...its the exact opposite. No joke. I live here.

Nope, that only happens if they, at the same time deny well established scientific facts.

"well established facts" are often bogus, and contrived inventions that promote the industry of disease management and thus denying these "facts" is integral to certain holistic principles which are not interested in the pharma industry and thus they are labeled "quacks".
This is a big travesty.

Again, you're mixing facts and fiction.

No, I'm really not.

Ever heard of new-borns contracting Strep B from their mothers during birth and dying within a few days?

Ever seen their mothers? I have yet to see a truly healthy mother, give birth to a truly healthy baby and transmit hep b to their child. It happens in cases where there is malnourishment, unhealthy mother, etc...it's not a mystery what's happening there. Antibiotics don't make either the mother or the child healthier.

Well, if you asked that question someone (to make it simple, my gran) who's 83 now and who's been on heart medication for years, has been to the ER several times and who has, yes, no denying that, to take half a dozen pills more to reduce the bad side-effects of the first heart-medication, what youd they answer?

They would answer that the pills are the reason they are alive.

I would answer: First of all how do you know? Second of all...how do you know that's the BEST POSSIBLE treatment and therapy you could have had?

If I am in a state of poor health and I get drugged and some of my symptoms go away and I am put on massive amounts of drugs, but I get a little better...that seems like a pretty good deal. But what if I could have had no drugging, no side effects and actually reversed my condition completely. That seems like a much better deal, no?
But because people have no comparisons to match their treatment up against, they assume "hey, this is not so bad. In fact, this treatment, despite all the side effects SAVED MY LIFE!"
That's great, but that is second rate...no...third rate treatment. In the future we will laugh at the inhumanity and idiocy of this medical paradigm. It's only been in existence for 100 years. It's in its last throws. It doesn't work. And people are starting to realize it. Slowly, slowly...there will be a silent rebellion. It is already started. I will be on the front lines educating people myself and leading the way.

It's not fair to have people be treated like idiots and fucking animals, dependent on a bunch of bottles of pills which have no purpose in the human body. Make no mistake, many of the individual doctors within the medical establishment ARE good people. I know they are. But they are only given certain tools to use. And the tools they are given DON'T WORK.

When you have over 120K people a year in this country alone, dying from REGULARLY prescribed medicine, it's time to ease up a bit. It's time to reconsider how well the health care system is working.

120 THOUSAND people a year...not from poisonings, or bad surgery, or overdoses on meds...but for standard textbook treatment.
That's a fucking scandal. All is not right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, no?


In friendship

 

[Giliell]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I'm totally lost here. What do you want to say?

But they WILL deny mercury in vaccines is an issue (even though we know it's toxic), they will deny mercury amalgams in teeth are harmful, even though we know its toxic. They will deny that DRINKING fluoride in water is bad, even though they do admit its a toxin (which is why you are told DO NOT SWALLOW TOOTHPASTE), they will deny plenty of other connections with various substances. And since when is smoking illegal? It isn't. They don't outlaw the bad stuff. They just make you pay more for it, in fact. lol.

That's because YOUR world is black and white. If you know that much about nutrition and intake of stuff, then you should know that the form in which something is taken really, really matters.
If I have problems with my HB, swallowing all the nails in my broomcupboard won't help it a bit.
And there's no fluoride in our water, but it doesn't seem to make us much healthier...

A good example...All blood pressure drugs, should be committed to the flames, because simple eliminating salt from the diet, increasing banana and potassium rich fruits in place of the pills, will have DRASTICALLY better effects on blood pressure with NO side effects. What do you need those drugs for now? Nothing but profit. Commit them to the flames!

Funny thing, again that's the first thing your MD will tell you here. And funny enough, it doesn't work with everybody. Because not everybody's blood-pressure problem starts with nutrition. Like studies doen on people living in areas with night-flights...

Yes. Which is why you don't hear people going to their doctors and coming back telling you how they were prescribed 40 minutes of sunlight each day, earlier sleep cycles, no more animal foods and no salt replaced by the majority of their calories from fruits and veggies. You don't hear that. So yes, medical science does deny it, because they don't APPLY it. Shame. Shame shame.

I do. Apart from "no more animal foods". Are you propagating veganism now, too? shouldn't have surprised me...

Well come to America and you might feel differently! Because here...its the exact opposite. No joke. I live here.

Hmmm, how to put that gently to you?
Well, let's try it this way:
The USA are not the world
Just because MDs do something or other in the country with the worst healthcare in the entire western world doesn't mean that it's "the truth about medicine and meds"

Ever seen their mothers? I have yet to see a truly healthy mother, give birth to a truly healthy baby and transmit hep b to their child. It happens in cases where there is malnourishment, unhealthy mother, etc...it's not a mystery what's happening there. Antibiotics don't make either the mother or the child healthier.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. Yes, I've seen their mothers, I know women who lost their babies due to Strep B infections. I'll tell them that you said they killed your babies because they didn't eat enough bananas. If it wasn't due to the Strep B the babies died, then we should see similar deaths occuring among women who don't have Strep B, but who are malnourished. Again, I'm talking about comparable groups in the western world. Oh, and we shouldn't see a drastic drop in infections if antibiotics are administered.

They would answer that the pills are the reason they are alive.

I would answer: First of all how do you know? Second of all...how do you know that's the BEST POSSIBLE treatment and therapy you could have had?

Hmm, how do we know? How about having to take her to the ER every single time she forgets to take her meds? May there be a better therapy? Probably. Probably in the future they'll just grow her a new heart...

If I am in a state of poor health and I get drugged and some of my symptoms go away and I am put on massive amounts of drugs, but I get a little better...that seems like a pretty good deal. But what if I could have had no drugging, no side effects and actually reversed my condition completely. That seems like a much better deal, no?

Yes, looks muuuuch better. Just like it would be wonderful if G.W. Bush and O. bin Laden were buddies.

But because people have no comparisons to match their treatment up against, they assume "hey, this is not so bad. In fact, this treatment, despite all the side effects SAVED MY LIFE!"
That's great, but that is second rate...no...third rate treatment. In the future we will laugh at the inhumanity and idiocy of this medical paradigm. It's only been in existence for 100 years. It's in its last throws. It doesn't work. And people are starting to realize it. Slowly, slowly...there will be a silent rebellion. It is already started. I will be on the front lines educating people myself and leading the way.

Oh, I'm sre that in 100 years people will smile at the things we're doing today. I'm pretty sure we got a lot of things wrong and surely caused harm trying to do the best we could at our time.
I'm pretty sure they'll not smile at you and your "followers". They'll shake their heads sadly.

It's not fair to have people be treated like idiots and fucking animals, dependent on a bunch of bottles of pills which have no purpose in the human body. Make no mistake, many of the individual doctors within the medical establishment ARE good people. I know they are. But they are only given certain tools to use. And the tools they are given DON'T WORK.

Here's free advice: Take the pill, not the bottle.

When you have over 120K people a year in this country alone, dying from REGULARLY prescribed medicine, it's time to ease up a bit. It's time to reconsider how well the health care system is working.

120 THOUSAND people a year...not from poisonings, or bad surgery, or overdoses on meds...but for standard textbook treatment.
That's a fucking scandal. All is not right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, no?


In friendship

Hmmm, wait, if I have the choice between dying now without meds and dying in 5 years because of the meds, I'll know what to choose.
But your assumption that, if they'd just taken your advice, they'd be all healthy, out and about, is simply ridiculous.

 

[Talono]

But they WILL deny mercury in vaccines is an issue (even though we know it's toxic), they will deny mercury amalgams in teeth are harmful, even though we know its toxic. They will deny that DRINKING fluoride in water is bad, even though they do admit its a toxin (which is why you are told DO NOT SWALLOW TOOTHPASTE), they will deny plenty of other connections with various substances. And since when is smoking illegal? It isn't. They don't outlaw the bad stuff. They just make you pay more for it, in fact. lol.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the thermiosal content of flu vaccines is toxic.

"well established facts" are often bogus, and contrived inventions that promote the industry of disease management and thus denying these "facts" is integral to certain holistic principles which are not interested in the pharma industry and thus they are labeled "quacks".

Yes, because the Big Pharma controls every freaking research institution and anti-quack organization out there. No.

Ever seen their mothers? I have yet to see a truly healthy mother, give birth to a truly healthy baby and transmit hep b to their child. It happens in cases where there is malnourishment, unhealthy mother, etc...it's not a mystery what's happening there. Antibiotics don't make either the mother or the child healthier.

Argument from ignorance. Your lack of knowledge of "healthy" mothers giving Hep B to their children does not automatically mean malnourishment was the cause.

Also, you have no authority to determine who is healthy and who is not healthy.

That's great, but that is second rate...no...third rate treatment. In the future we will laugh at the inhumanity and idiocy of this medical paradigm. It's only been in existence for 100 years. It's in its last throws. It doesn't work. And people are starting to realize it. Slowly, slowly...there will be a silent rebellion. It is already started. I will be on the front lines educating people myself and leading the way.

Elaborate statements of your dreams of grandeur just make you look weird. And you wonder why people are skeptical of conspiracy theorists?

It's not fair to have people be treated like idiots and fucking animals, dependent on a bunch of bottles of pills which have no purpose in the human body. Make no mistake, many of the individual doctors within the medical establishment ARE good people. I know they are. But they are only given certain tools to use. And the tools they are given DON'T WORK.

You know what's not fair? People being duped into using things that have absolutely no evidence or basis in reason for their use, in place of things that do work and have been supported by studies.

When you have over 120K people a year in this country alone, dying from REGULARLY prescribed medicine, it's time to ease up a bit. It's time to reconsider how well the health care system is working.

120 THOUSAND people a year...not from poisonings, or bad surgery, or overdoses on meds...but for standard textbook treatment.
That's a fucking scandal. All is not right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, no?

Our health care system sucks. I agree.

 

[paradigm667]

Giliell,

I watched your video on abortion, I completely agree with you. 5 stars. Although, it appeared sideways on my screen so I do have you to thank for the crick in my neck, but I suppose that's my own problem. I could have just as easily temporarily turned my monitor on its side. But you know me...I always like a good challenge.

That's because YOUR world is black and white. If you know that much about nutrition and intake of stuff, then you should know that the form in which something is taken really, really matters.
If I have problems with my HB, swallowing all the nails in my broomcupboard won't help it a bit.
And there's no fluoride in our water, but it doesn't seem to make us much healthier...

Well, you're right. But taking in nail filings won't work because they are still in the elemental multi-atomic form. How would you expect our body to ingest that, I have no clue. But mercury, or fluoride in the water, DO get absorbed in the body. And thus the only argument is that "the body can eliminate it with no problem." However, there IS a problem and we KNOW it. There is much evidence of bio accumulation with both. And other substances including aluminum hydroxide and the list goes on.

Funny thing, again that's the first thing your MD will tell you here. And funny enough, it doesn't work with everybody. Because not everybody's blood-pressure problem starts with nutrition. Like studies doen on people living in areas with night-flights...

In which case it is not the job of the pills to reverse the problem that was caused by their employment or business endeavors. The solution is to find ways that the employer can structure their work environment such that it does not breed sick people. That, in my book, would be considered increasing human suffering. Find ways around it...natural herbs that are non-toxic (non-toxic would be especially important for jobs, where it would be assumed the conditions would be long term). Even then, an herb is just reversing a symptom. The underlying disease is still going to continue to fester and develop into something even more serious). My solution is not to blame the individual's body for manifesting symptoms, rather to find intelligent ways around the problem such that the way that person's work environment does not breed sickness in them and disease. Isn't that a better, more common sense approach?

I do. Apart from "no more animal foods". Are you propagating veganism now, too? shouldn't have surprised me...

I am proposing proper nutrition for each species. Dogs are best fed on raw animal meat, blood, bones and organs. Cows on grasses. Humans on fruits and veggies, nuts and seeds with an optional but not necessary amount of meat. In fact even nuts and seeds are not fully necessary.
If someone can name me one disease that can be cured with meat, that cannot be cured with fruit and veggies then we can talk. In dogs for instance, it is just the opposite.
The only thing meat can cure in humans, is hunger. But so can veggies and fruits. Meat fails in all other respects. So do grains. So do legumes. These are only "acceptable" foods. The true human diet, and the one that reverses disease continuously and conclusively is the raw vegan, fruit based diet. As we evolved on. The same diet we continued to revert back to over the years as the colder climactic periods oscillated through time. We ate meat and grains only as survival foods. Second rate meals that promoted disease and shorter lifespans, as they do today. One of the first cultures to eat grains as a staple were the Summerians and Babylonians, also the Egyptians...those were the first cases of clear evidence of decline in health of our species. I'm not anti meat in fact, as much as I am anti grains.
I have helped people reverse all kinds of diseases by this approach. My uncle had a widowmaker heart attack recently at age 60. He got on my diet, didn't take even one of his medicines, got plenty of sun each day, no more refined carbs, oils, and animal foods or grains...all his vital signs are back to where they were 40 years ago for him. His heart after the attack was at 20% output. They told him, maybe, after years, if could possibly get back to like 50%...within 5 weeks it was at 70%. His cholesterol dropped by 40%. He's no longer at risk of a follow up heart attack.
My grandpa, age 97, recently came down with vaccine-induced pneumonia. With raw foods and raw veggie juices he overcame it, without taking one pill, and in the meantime got off his blood pressure meds, and all his other drugs he was told he "needed."

He was in tears of joy when he left to go back to Romania because his grandson helped him get back his health and feel like he did 30 years ago.

Hmmm, how to put that gently to you?

No need to be gentle. It's not like anyone else is. Why should you. After all I'm just a narrow minded idiot conspiracy theorist. Not an ACTUAL human being behind here.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. Yes, I've seen their mothers, I know women who lost their babies due to Strep B infections. I'll tell them that you said they killed your babies because they didn't eat enough bananas. If it wasn't due to the Strep B the babies died, then we should see similar deaths occuring among women who don't have Strep B, but who are malnourished. Again, I'm talking about comparable groups in the western world. Oh, and we shouldn't see a drastic drop in infections if antibiotics are administered.

I don't see the point in being offensive. And bananas are an incredibly good food to eat. I really don't think you should be so dismissive of them. I can list off just a few things they are of benefit with:
-High potassium, low in sodium - good for heart and vessel health, as well as reverses edema in many cases
-FructoOligoSaccharides, or, "prebiotics" in the bananas normalize digestion and replenish beneficial bacterial colonies in the gut
-Good source of calorie dense, fiber rich, food
-Complete protein (that's right. all the essential amino acids we need, you better believe it. I gained 10 lbs in the last 2 months of weight training which I just started up again now that I'm out of school and I did so mostly on bananas and mangoes.)

Bananas, especially the large-sized ones are abundant in Vitamin A. This vitamin helps in the proper development of eye tissues. Vitamin A is also essential for the growth of skin and soft skeletal tissue. Some of the B vitamins, namely, Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, and Folic acid are also present in banana. These B vitamins help in the proper development of the nervous system. Bananas also house Vitamin C in smaller quantities.
Rich in magnesium (helps protect circulatory system), potassium and slowly-absorbed sugars. Good source of pectin (a soluble fiber). Prevents radical swings in blood sugar.

Hmm, how do we know? How about having to take her to the ER every single time she forgets to take her meds? May there be a better therapy? Probably. Probably in the future they'll just grow her a new heart...

So because there is a dependency on meds we assume they are keeping someone alive? If you give psychiatric drugs to a person, and they get dependent on them, when you take them off the drugs abruptly, they can go insane and even suffer from sudden death, that's the powerful effect these things can have on our body. Granted, heart meds may be a bit different, but perhaps not all that different.
It's never too late to reverse disease. I would try and get your family members to just try out a raw food, no oils, no grains, vegan approach to reverse disease. You would be shocked. But most people have two problems:
-Addicted to animal foods, cooked foods
-Do not "believe" in raw foods

Yes, looks muuuuch better. Just like it would be wonderful if G.W. Bush and O. bin Laden were buddies.

Huh? I don't get the comment. I didn't say anything about George W or Bin Laden. I have to admit I am a bit confused. Are you trying to bait me into getting into politics or something? Or suggesting that I am a conspiracy theorist? Why would you do that? Lets just stick on topic Giliell, is that fair?

Oh, I'm sre that in 100 years people will smile at the things we're doing today. I'm pretty sure we got a lot of things wrong and surely caused harm trying to do the best we could at our time.
I'm pretty sure they'll not smile at you and your "followers". They'll shake their heads sadly.

How do you know? If you're sure, how sure are you? What if I really am right, and what I say is indeed true. I would say it's a pity you hadn't learned of it sooner!

Here's free advice: Take the pill, not the bottle.

Why are you so mean to me? You seem like such a nice lady in your video.

Hmmm, wait, if I have the choice between dying now without meds and dying in 5 years because of the meds, I'll know what to choose.
But your assumption that, if they'd just taken your advice, they'd be all healthy, out and about, is simply ridiculous.

Or maybe not though. Everyone that I know who has taken my advice or who I have directly worked with and coached, has had nothing but good results, reversal of disease, and praise for my time I spent with them.
I never tell anyone what to do, nor do I make them feel like ingrates for questioning the status quo. I encourage discussion and dialog, without personal attacks. In fact I generally try and say either positive things about people, or nothing at all. And if I do have a problem with something they are saying, I am frank, and I don't bring the ego or ad hominem attacks into the picture, as I have learned over the years these tactics were used by myself only when I was either in a general state of foggy-headedness, stress, or generally when I was unhappy with my own circumstances in life.

In reality there is no need to make things personal or try and attack the person. I'll try and not take any hostility personally though, I understand it's just a generalized response to anyone who appears to be "anti-science" and it doesn't have anything to do with me personally. Nevertheless, it does take its toll, but hopefully we will eventually come to respect one another and become as civil as we are capable of being that it is 2009 C.E. now.

In friendship