It seems to be all about profit. These heartless people are prepared to let 1000's die in order that they may fill their pockets. I myself was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002 and doctors have treated me with nothing but disrespect and humiliation, just because I refused their conventional killer toxic drugs. We have a right to our own decisions about our health.

And why are grown men spending years trying to control an industry that harms nobody, and may well benefit many thousands?

The Medical Industry is psychopathic, has been for 200 years or so at a rough guess.  Allopathy must turn over trillions every year, and nutritional medicine would just about destroy 98% of that, so supplements are the thin edge of the wedge as far as they are concerned.  For example Vitamin C will cure most, probably all infections, prevent cot-death and reverse heart disease, among other benefits.  That would destroy the vaccination and heart disease industry (bypass was $12 Billion USA years ago) at a stroke, and cause a dominoe effect taking down the rest of the pharma hoax

Known with infections for 50 years, would have saved half a million babies roughly, worldwide.  

Secondly at the top of the medical cartel the covert agenda is to harm, that creates more business if you can stop anyone seeing the connection, and serves the depopulation agenda as well, and also keeps Africa for the whites, as most of our industry relies on African minerals.  

"At the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them.  To kill them." Vaccines - Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher (2001) http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html

"My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless  retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an  emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for  other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of  WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily  reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand."      [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport  http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html

My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business [medicine] is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organization and the unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' and ... [other vaccine promoting] organizations is one of murder and genocide. . . . I cannot see any other possible explanation. . . . You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995) http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kalokerinos.html

"I cannot see any other possible explanation"

I can- you're a fool.  Sorry, but you have to expect that sort of criticism if you come out with such grand claims with no evidence.

I'm not interested in your anit-phrma rant.  You have no evidence for it and even if it was or wasn't the case, you will beleive it nomatter what.  Its an ideal that appeals to you, alike a lifestyle choice of a world view that fits with what you see yourself to be.  Evidence doesn't come into it.

Ok, but back in the real worls, lets look at the more tangible claims you make.  Vitamin C will cure possible all infections.  Right then, so all infection can be treated by simply eating oranges fast enough?  Cholera, diptheria, small pox, ebola, MRSA, meningitis, HIV, Hepatitis?  These are all illness that can be cured by eating oranges very quickly?  Is that what you are saying.

Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis.  Now here the had part (don't be afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this?  Any research that supports this?  Or do we just trust you on it?  

Ok, how about the vitamin C reversing heart disease claim.  Ho many oranges do you have to eat to reverse heart diease?  What it is is very advanced?  Do we hav to eat lemons then?  How many?  What have the researfh studies into this told us?

You know what I am going to ask for next- that's right, evidence!  Go on, some peer-reviewed studies would be ideal really, but any evidence at all.  We can all look at it then, judge it for ourselves and take nothing on faith or face value.  

Thanks

H

"Right then, so all infection can be treated by simply eating oranges fast enough?  Cholera, diptheria, small pox, ebola, MRSA, meningitis, HIV, Hepatitis?  These are all illness that can be cured by eating oranges very quickly?  Is that what you are saying."

No.  I guess you haven't even heard of nutritional or orthomolecular medicine.

"Although we were able to cure many cases of polio with massive doses of ascorbic acid, one single instance demonstrates the value of vitamin C. Two brothers were sick with poliomyelitis. These two boys were given 10 and 12 grams of ascorbic acid, according to weight, intravenously with a 50 c.c. syringe, every eight hours for 4 times and then every 12 hours for 4 times. They also were given one gram every two hours by mouth around the clock. They made complete recovery and both were athletic stars in high school and college. A third child, a neighbour, under the care of another physician received no ascorbic acid. This child also lived. The young lady is still wearing braces."---Dr Klenner The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C Fred R. Klenner, M.D. 1949

"Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis.  Now here the hard part (don't be afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this?  Any research that supports this?  Or do we just trust you on it? "

LOL.  Dr Levy has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?) to back it up the infections and poisons use, I suggest you read his book http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html  Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable---Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D.

or read some of Klenners papers http://www.whale.to/m/klenner.html

and given that has been suppressed for 57 years it makes it odds on the other vitamin C research is true also, also Vitamin E eg for Heart Disease http://www.whale.to/w/nutrition.html

and Cayenne is full of vitamin C--that works well also http://www.whale.to/w/herbs.html

Cot-death http://www.whale.to/w/sids.htm

Withthe greatest of respect, more anecdotal evidence. "one single incidence", "these two boys".  Thes are anecdotes.

I'm, sorry  whale but it just screams that you don't know what evidence is.  look, this isn't a criticism, the default position is that when people tell you something works you say, great, it works!  But around 500 years of scientific progress have taught us that is is false, that controlled experiments are the way to do this.  

"has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?) to back it up the infections and poisons use"

Have you read them?  What do you make of them?  Any of them better than others?  Some good some bad?  Of does the fact you have read a book with someone who has 1200 scientific references enough for you to out your full faith behind that?  I don' trust anyone that well.  I would really have to critically analyse each and every one of these publications to decide if I agreed with this author or not.  

Wouldn't you?  Or do you just agree with what he says and 1200 uncriticised (by you) references enough?

Like I say, with all due respect, you're struggle to understand what I mean by evidence.  A good read that makes you think "wow!" is not it!!!

To Harradine...

Do you feel unde personal attack? Is there a need to be so aggressive ? You criticize Whale's 12 000 references... ("Have you read them? What do you make of them?..."). So ok, he doesn't know what evdence is. Do you? It's really ironic to hear you talk about 500 years of scientific progress... what do you mean by that exactly? You don't believe Whale and we should believe you.. you hasn't even lived a 100 years??? Don't you think you are being a bit presumptuous?

Harradine is just a pharma troll, no amount of 'evidence' is going to convince someone who is just playing medical politics.  If they were so sure of allopathy they wouldn't need to keep the likes of him on this sort of forum, now would they?  WDDTY is all about alt med (non-allopathic) and dangers of allopathy, as far as I can see.

Only Allopathy says anecdotes don't count, unless an MD sticks one into a journal and calls it a case study http://www.whale.to/a/anecdotes_h.html

How else could they get us to ignore the 5,000 plus parent observations of vaccine autism?  See how it works?  

Vitamin C just by its lonesome would destroy Allopathy, and he would have to get a real job over marketing poisons that don't cure, kill 120,000 people every year (USA), addict millions every year (way way worse than heroin addiction) and give vaccine disease to 1 in 5 children, autism being one http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

So can you see why no amount of evdience is going to be enough for him?

I think this comment sums it up:

"Nancy Hokkanen came up with one of the greatest analogies ever to describe the autism and vaccine controversy and how it feels to us parents of kids with autism. She compared it to the Catholic Church's cover up of decades of sexual abuse."

57 years they have suppressed vitamin C cure for infections and cot-death, letting at least 500,000 babies die from cot-death, plus millions from infections.  Not exactly a great thing to have on your CV is it? http://www.whale.to/w/sids.htm

"10,000 infants die every year--needlessly--from cot-death".---Linus Pauling

I agree with Whale and Claire De Lune. Harradine has double standards claiming that these 1200 references were simply believed without proper research into them, yet he/she talks about 500 years of scientific research without having looked into all this research.

Harradine, the people here on this blog have made up their minds after having done some research at least and/or experienced the conventional side. Just as maybe you have made up your mind with a little research or whatever it takes to convince you.

The point is that attempts are being made to deny alternative medicines to people who want them. Why is this freedom being taken away? We should all have the choice.

Definitely I beleive that everyone should be free to choose whatever medical care they wish.  No, I don't feel under personal attack.  I find dishonesty frustrating.

Like I say, I have no problem at all with people using homeopathy amd feeling mucb better for it.  I think there is a lot to be learned from how this happens.  But I would like to see it studies honestly and properly.

When I mention 500 years of scientific progress I of course refer to the method as well as the results.  Over those 500 years, experimental methods have been developed that are far and away the best approach to determining cause and effect, to progress knowledge.  That's why all the calls for evidence.  Without that, you are back in pre-enlightenment thinking.

Case reports are evidence.  Just on their own do not rule out other possibile explanations and so cannot demonstrate causal associations.  Just that two thing are associated.

As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide some decent evidence that homepathy works.  How can that possibly be a biased request?  How could anything be more neutral?  That's what scientists ask each other all the time, part of their job- providing evidence.  

"As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide some decent evidence that homepathy works.  How can that possibly be a biased request?  How could anything be more neutral?"

that is the usual modus operandi of trolls (covert allopaths).  I collected a few newsgroup ones http://www.whale.to/a/newsgroups_h.html

Most people who read forums or newsgroups are pretty unaware of medical politics.

Prett silly isn't it, an Allopath asking for proof homeopathy or nutritional medicine works?  And giving the impression he is actually looking for something that would put him out of business.  Daft really, but it fills people with doubt, and stops them asking the real questions, such as the effectiveness of Allopathy.

That 500 years of scientific progress can't be to do with Allopathy, as they have still to cure any disease apart from bacterial infections, and are responsible for 780,000 deaths every year in the USA alone, quite apart from the Allopathic suppression of non-Allopathic med http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html like the Vitamin C I mentioned.  That suppression of cancer med causes the premature death of 500,000 people with chemo, and the use of AZT has killed 400,000 at least.

As well as never curing or being anywhere near curing mental illness, but addicting 10 million or so to benzos, 25,000 prozac suicides, 4 million kids on Kiddy Coke (Ritalin).

Progress?  In Satan's eye, maybe.

Calling for evidence is indeed the modus operandi of anyone interested in critical reasoning or sorting out false claim from true.  All treatments should be tested and never should be allowed near humans if they don't work and risk dangerous side effects.  I do not reserve my criticism for homeopathy, but also for againt the Pharma industry (as I have said many times before) they also must provide evidence or don't beleive a word they say!

The Modus Operandi of you, Whale, is to promite untested and ineffective therapies not based on evidence, but from the back of a system of spreadinf fear of genuine health benefits. Statements like Allopathy has not cured a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is depressing.  Their are millions of people alive today who would not be were it not due to modern medicine.  

No one is saying it is perfect (although no doubt you will think that I am), it has massive areas of ignorance, plenty of reasons to be skeptical of drug companies and they ways they operate, plenty of work to do in providing people with better treatment options.  There is a great deal of work to do.  But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would all be much better off using water is dangerous.

Whale, I will say it again- my call for evidence is a universal appeal- to anyway.  Always ask for the evidence.  Don't trust pharma companies, GPS, homeopaths, politicians, without evidence.  If they cannot provide it, do not beleive what they say.  If they can, look at it for yourself to see if it supports what they are saying.  Not all evidence is good evidence.

Now, how is that a biased view?  I'm not picking on anyone at all, or representing anyone.  Just trying to ensure that evidence is high on the agenda for anyone who makes a medical claim.  Surely you would agree with that?

Well, you can say what you want, politicians do, and no troll ever admitted he was one, for obvious reasons.

"Statements like Allopathy has not cured a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is depressing."

Depressing is the word, but tell me what disease you have cured?  Not cancer, most folk still fear that, not alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis, aids.

"At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people of an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything, stop whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart

"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss

"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.

Life extending is not a cure.  And then they live in fear that it will come back again, and then chemo actually causes cancer

"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy."—John Diamond

And your only decent therapy for cancer is surgery.  Calling it a therapy and medicine is stretching the word, it is draw dropping when you think about it.

I think that covers your success rate with drugs and surgery, and radiation therapy, please.

"But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would all be much better off using water is dangerous."

Dangerous to Allopathy, for sure.  We would sure be better off without drugs (apart from 1% of them), they kill 120,000 every year just in the USA, I am sure they would have gone with plain water.  And so would the 660,000 who died under Allopathy (USA), plus the 400,000 or so done in afore their time by chemotherapy.

Then the 500,000 with ASD here (UK) would have opted for the water over the vaccinations that gave most of them that condition.

So the homeopaths are 780,000 ahead of you guys.  And I'd go to a homeopath if I had cancer, first call, last call would be Allopathy.  

And, we don't need to pass anything by you anyway, we can make up our own minds, but if you want to play Judge and Jury over non-Allopathic medicine then go ahead, if anyone is silly enough to give you jurisdiction.  I know you have gotten away with that game for 200 years+, but your medical monopoly isn't going to live forever.

Nice try though.

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. 1956

What do you mean by a Troll?  I am happy to discuss evidence with you an any topic, evidence based medicine or any other kind.

Of course you have the choice to use homeopathy instead of any medical treatment when you fall ill.  Mostly this is what people do when modern medicine has utterly failed them (as it does, it does not claim to be infallable- that's why medical science exists, to improve it).

That is your choice.  Based on the sots of evidence you rely on, I am not surprised that you would choose Homeopathy.  Good luck to you should you!

My gripe is that you base this decision on poor evidence, yet portry it as fact.  You argue very angrily about the downsides of Pharm (of which there are many) all as a means to avoid actually questioning what homeopathy is all about.  

You certainyl don't have to ask for anyone's permission to reject treatment and accept water.  But you will have to expect people (who have nothing to do with Pharm, do not benefit from this industry, are not affiliated to it) to ask you for evidence.  Nothing will get you over that hurdle except for scientific, experimental evidence of which there is none.

Of course, you are free to use any treatment at all, or even none at all when you get ill.  No problem with that.  Science may be evidence based, but people don't have to be, you can be as irrational as you want to be.

People reject medical treatments for all sorts of reasons.  Relgious, ethical, suicidal.  Its best to avoid pharmaceutical treatment unless it is absolutely necessary (that is a very obvious thing to say, but worth saying- drugs should only be used as a last resort).  But when they are necessary, they can be life savers, life prolongers, and increase the quality of life.

Of course you don't have to run it past me or anyone else before choosing any treatment you like.  Vitamin C, diet, homeopathy, parying, anything.  But people who make claims that their treatments are effective and can be used to treat illness should definitely NOT be allowed to practise without some evidence to support this.  Whether you are selling homeopathy, pharmaceutical drugs, lifestyle changes, anything.  You need evidence.

A troll is, in effect,  a politician pretending to be an unbiased member of the public looking for the truth.

You are an Allopath or Pharmaboy, defending Allopathy pretending to be unbiased. It always looks better if they can hide the fact they are an allopath pharma person. Most folk are sleepwalking and your comments are usually just enough to stop them waking up, and thinking, God forbid.

"ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth."

Pharma trolls inhabit discussion arenas and attack/flame non-allopathic medicine, and defend allopathy.

P.Utz is a classic newsgroup one http://www.whale.to/m/putz.html

I think the classic lie that underpins the game is:  "If it can be show to work it will be integrated into conventional medicine."  

PS:  That evidence based bull http://www.whale.to/a/evidence_based.html

There is overwhelming evidence vaccination is ineffective and dangerous but you still use that 150 years after that fact was well known

Heart bypass, hysterectomy, cholestrol hoax, etc http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html

Still waiting for an aids cure

Psychiatric drugs etc  

Ypur best defence of these unpalatable horrors is to attack

Why is that a classic lie?  Why it is a lie at all?  That's absolutely true.  If treatments are evidence based (and especially if they are cheaper!) they will very quickly find themselves being used in the conventional way.  Thast is not a lie at all, it is just inconsistent with your clearly very extreme and cynical view of what medicine is.

I do not support pharmaceutical companies at all.  I am just as critical of their methods and the claims of other scientists(which I do that professionally).  I apply that criticism to all who make healthy advice claims.  I am not baised againt one group or another.  Well, that's not true.  I judge groups that are unable to produce good evidence as suspicious and even those that do (such as pharma companies) i take their evidence with a massive pinch of salt and analyse it for errors and misleading data (whcih it sometimes has).

This isn't trolling whale, its an invitation to discuss evidence.  The same request I make of scientists, so how can it be biased.

So, this evidence that vitamin C can be used to cure polio.  Would you like to start with that?  

No, not attacking.  Just disagreeing...(that's allowed)

There is overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection and death.  It has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern times!!

Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely).  Any idea why its not around yet?  HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily.  Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains.  Hopefully as we learn more we will get there.  Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS?  For that you would need evidence.

Psychiatric drugs have helped millions!  They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped?  People with major depression?  The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming.  Of course they are not cures!  No one has ever said that they are.  But they have turned people lives around from the days when there wer no treatment options at all.  Again, what are you suggesting, that Vit C or homeopathy are more effective in treatment psychiatric illness?  For that you would need evidence which so far says the opposite.

My defence of these treatments is the evidence that they work.  Publically avaiable, open access, reems and reems or corroborating evidence.  If you disagree with it, or interpret the evidence in a different way, then say so.  Provide example.  Evidence is the only defense.

Yeah, well no Troll ever admitted he was one, going incognito doesn't help your case.

"If treatments are evidence based (and especially if they are cheaper!) they will very quickly find themselves being used in the conventional way.  Thast is not a lie at all, it is just inconsistent with your clearly very extreme and cynical view of what medicine is."

"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Absolute nonsense.  The Cancer conspiracy is probably the best example of that lie http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

Of course, that is why Allopathy is a non-word, as it becomes glaringly obvious when you look at 40 or so non-allopathic cancer therapies, along with chemo, and then realise only Allopathic ones get used, even though they are the worst by a long street, as well as being the only ones highly toxic (surgery isn't too toxic, but there are/were exceptions like the Wipple http://www.whale.to/cancer/wipple.html)

"There is overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection and death.  It has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern times!!"

That just shows your troll behaviour as vaccination is easy to shred purely on statistics, smallpox vaccine the easiest http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html

In 1880, for example, it was killing 25,000 infants (directly and indirectly)  at the height of compulsory vaccination.  As the Leicester statistics show easily--they lost 2,000 LESS babies in their non-vaccinating years. http://www.whale.to/a/deathssmallpox.html

Measles is the other simple vaccine shredder http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html  Deaths declined by 99.4% before vaccination.  Now MMR kills way more than measles would be doing, and they still say it is safe and doesn't kill.

"Psychiatric drugs have helped millions!  They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped?  People with major depression?  The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming.  Of course they are not cures!  No one has ever said that they are."

You sound more and more like an Allopath songster.  Still waiting for your cure list.  

tell that to the benzo addicts, benzo addiction is way worse than heroin, you can get effects 10 years afetr withdrawl. Over 12 million benzo addicts worldwide http://www.whale.to/a/benzodiazepines_h.html, 3.6 million children on ADHD drugs in the United States, 1.6 million  of those are taking more than one psychiatric drug in 2005.  http://www.whale.to/a/adhd_drugs_h.html

You need to read Robert Whitaker http://www.whale.to/a/whitaker_h.html to get the REAL facts.  

I think the level or criminality here exceptional.

Bearing in mind nutritional medicine actually helps and cures people with addicting them http://www.whale.to/w/nutritional.html

For example heroin withdrawal, criminal they still use methadone http://www.whale.to/v/heroin_add.html

"I tell patients that tranquilizers alone never cure anyone. They merely reduce the intensity of the symptoms and make life slightly more endurable. They create a better behaved, chronic dependent person. Only with orthomolecular treatment can the majority of schizophrenic patients hope to become well and normally independent."---Abram Hoffer, M.D.

and the AP knowledge that would also blow it clean out of the water http://www.whale.to/b/ap.html

"Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely).  Any idea why its not around yet?  HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily.  Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains.  Hopefully as we learn more we will get there.  Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS?  For that you would need evidence."

I worked out that racket http://www.whale.to/aids.html  but Rappoport hits the nail http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html

You sound like you know what you are talking about, pity I spent 13 years investigating vaccination, so I know you are actually talking right out of your ear.

“We have not been able to discover any good reason why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is ...caused by..HIV. There us simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true (or) why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT...we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.”---Kary B. Mullis (Inventing the AIDS virus by Peter Duesberg)

"He was one of my most dramatic recoveries with AIDS, and the reason I say that is that he was the most far gone. He was in the absolute, end stage -- they have that wing in the hospital where they have given up on you. You can smoke pot and do anything you want. They had given up on him."—Dr Shulze, who cured 16 from last stage full-blown AIDS.  

Whale, you are just plastering qutoes or links to quotes.  That's not evidence.  If that's what you have been doing for 13 years.

I see you don't beleive that AIDS is caused by HIV.  Ok, that's a view.  But you weill need some research evidence to support that.  Do you have any, or maybe just some more quotes?  This is a scientific problem, so will need some knowledge of virology and the research that they do specifically into HIV.  Shall we discuss the research evidence that your 13 years of investigating has come up with?

That's really all I am trying to do here.  Apllying the same criticism to alternative health claims as real ones.  Ask for evidence.  I'm not interesting in reading your quotes, they are not evidence of any sort.  Case reports are, but on tiehr own not enough to provide causal evidence.  If quotes and cae reports are the total of your evidence, then obviously your research (ofr 13 years) was a waste of time.  

Lets look at the proper data.  Do that and we don't need to get into personal attacks at all.  The data will speak for itself.  Can we see some?  Then we can look at it impartially.

Anyway, as I say, I am happy for alternative treatments to be used by anyome thjat wants them, provided they do not make claims that they have no evidence to support.  I don't beleive anyone should get away with that, pharma company, anyone.  

Thanks.

Cures list.  Whale, medicines are not cures.  They are treatments.  Some highly efficacious, others less so.  Some with mild side effects, some with very serious and dangerous side effects.

Asking for a cures list shows a great deal of ignorance of basic biology and disease.  Medicine does not "cure" a heart attack or a stroke.  It can help prevent them and it can reduce damage, prlonge life and releive suffering.  Are you saying the world would be a better place without these treatments?  Without analgesics?  Anti-clotting drugs?  Drugs for hypertension?  Insulin?  

Vaccines.  So, just to be absolutely clear, you believe vaccination is a bad thing on the whole?  After 13 years of investigation, your studies have lead you to conclude that, with respect to human and animal health, vaccination has not been of medical benefit?

No cures is the biggest pointer.  The links I put up give the evidence, and the suprising thing is how easy it is to shred HIV for example, or AZT for pities sake.

Yes, vaccination is a complete hoax, and plenty of evidence as I pointed out

eg Measles http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html

Quotes are great, to the point in one sentence.

"Whether we examine the long-continued records of London mortality, or those of modern registration for England, Scotland, and Ireland; whether we consider the "control experiment" or crucial test afforded by unvaccinated Leicester, or the still more rigid test in the other direction, of the absolutely revaccinated Army and Navy, the conclusion is in every case the same: that vaccination is a gigantic delusion; that it has never saved a single life; but that it has been the cause of so much disease, so many deaths, such a vast amount of utterly needless and altogether undeserved suffering, that it will be classed by the coming generation among the greatest errors of an ignorant and prejudiced age, and its penal enforcement the foulest blot on the generally beneficent course of legislation during our century."-----ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE [Book 1898] VACCINATION A DELUSION

you can read the whole book http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/1.html but I save anyone the trouble, and get the conclusion in one sentence.

See?  

Your job is to obfuscate, not bad at it, but it is a pretty impossible job, defending Allopathy.

"Whale, medicines are not cures.  They are treatments.  Some highly efficacious, others less so.  Some with mild side effects, some with very serious and dangerous side effects."

You said it.  Highly efficacious --antibiotics only.  Leading cause of death and disease in the western world today.

"The pharmaceutical "business with disease" is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product "health" promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the "products" most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death.  While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry. The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world's largest investment industry." --Dr Rath MD http://www.whale.to/a/allopathic_med_q.html

What do you mean, shred HIV?  You mean disprove a link between HIV and AIDS?

What disproves this link?

No, a lack of "cures" as you call them come from a misunderstand of what disease and medicine are.  The goal of all medical science is to find a cure or an effective treatment.  Obviously the easier way to do this is to remove the agent causing the disease, but this cannot always be done, in the case of genetic disorders or ones with unknwon cause, such as Alzheimers Disease.  It provides treatments that can either so so effective that they remove the problem, or are no ideal and not as effective and simply are the best (or only) treatment available at the time.  That's why medical science exists- to improve treatments and find new ones.

Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat someone opinion, and we don't know what sources of evidence they are relying on, or whether these are any good.

Thats why I prefer to stick to the actual research data.  It means one can study a claim impartially.  Get the ball rolling by providing references to some studies and we can remove personal attack and look at the fact and apprais them.  So much more wothwhile that jibing at one another.

Whale- Since you like reading books and quoting from them, try some of these.

"How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the Earth- A Short History of Modern Delusions"- Francis Wheen.

"Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations" - Jon Diamond

"How We Know What Isn't So: Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life " Thomas Gilovich.

Add these to your research.

H

Thanks for the book heads up, but I have seen about 700 books on medicine,

and I know what the REAL snake oil is

http://www.whale.to/a/books_medcon.html.  

My on line collection of 30 smallpox books http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox14.html is probably

the best document of the biggest snake oil killer of all time:

smallpox vax which killed millions.  Leprosy into Hawaii for example.

Poor old Diamond, not exactly a poster boy for allopathy was he, the surgery butchers tried to stop him talking bull**** but they still failed.

A classic case of making the wrong decision, big time, and then denial kicked in,

big time, which led him to attack the very people who could have cured him

classic psychology, and of course, if you sing from the Pharma song sheet

you get massive publicity, which is good for the ego.

Incidently, snake oil was echinacea.  A guy used to sell it by getting a snake to bite

him on stage, and then he took it to deal with the poison.  Not bad for real snake

oil!

"Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat someone opinion"

See if you can get this from the second telling, at least

The quote offered was one from Wallace who looked at the stats and found that

to be snake oil . Now you can read his book to get the stats http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/book.html

or look at my other extracted stats http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_stats_h.htm

eg Phillipines http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html

or you can carry on saying there is no evidence, like a dead canary

You do have some cheek to even mention snake oil

But that is the best defence of real snake oil peddlars

the King of Snake Oil was smallpox vaccine http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html

25,000 babies in 1880, 6,000 in 1921

Herod would have been proud of that one

Introduced Leprosy into Hawaii http://www.whale.to/v/leprosy.html

just for starters

AZT is a classic, failed chemo drug used to kill a harmless virus http://www.whale.to/a/azt_h.html  400,000 killed with that years ago

Then the following poisons http://www.whale.to/a/arv_genocide.html

Spanish Flu was one of the first vaccine bioweapons http://www.whale.to/v/spanish_flu.html

Swine Flu vax was a classic poison http://www.whale.to/vaccine/swine.html

Then DPT --main cause of Cot death running at 10,000 (1984)  http://www.whale.to/vaccines/dpt.html

Along with main cause of autism

helped a lot by MMR http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

hep B vax is another killer http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hepatitis.html

One of those quotes you love so much:

"The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.........The hep B adverse event cover-up is way bigger then the AHP diet-drug cover up."--Michael Belkin  

to help with the URL fatigue

The early TB vaccines (Koch no less)  were a nice line in snake oil http://www.whale.to/c/tuberculin_h.html

"Shortly after it was announced, test experiments were carried out in Berlin, but, unfortunately for both the discovery and the discoverer, from November,   1890,   to  February,   1891,   the  deaths of no fewer than 123 selected cases were reported in the "Zoophilist," of 1st May, 1891 (page 18). After this, both Koch and his tuberculin fell under a cloud."

and the later BCG  http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bcg4.html

Early Diptheria vaccines, great snake oil!  http://www.whale.to/a/diptheria.html

good old Chemo, given to 50%, slight use to 7%, go figure http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.html

OPV Africa, 600 dead kids in one swoop http://www.whale.to/a/genocide_opv.html

"At the main hospital in Mbarara during that month of 1977 more than 600 children had died following polio vaccination. 600 children!"

And not one single life saved by any vaccine, amazing, but true.

Then the 10 million addicted to Benzos, you should try that, million benzo babies, and million brain damaged by things like Thorazine http://www.whale.to/a/thorazine_h.html http://www.whale.to/a/psychiatry_h.html

Nice of you to give 4 million kids Kiddy Coke (Ritalin), keeps them off the street

Vioxx, http://www.whale.to/a/vioxx_h.html not sure of the death rate there, 40,000?

Wouldn't want to forget your little line in 'preventive' snake oil, eg Mammography http://www.whale.to/a/mammography_h.html  

Or some surgery 'highlights' like hysterectomy http://www.whale.to/a/hysterectomy1.html

"Today, three quarters of a million hysterectomies are performed annually in North America. Yet a huge majority are unnecessary. .....After the surgery, almost half of the women suffer from digestive problems, incontinence, loss of maternal feelings, depression, memory loss and absence of sexual drive or pleasure."

Well over 98% are unecessary.

Heart bypass hoax http://www.whale.to/w/heart_disease.html

and so on and on.  

Don't even mention snake oil again or I'll expand the list to its true length ;0)

But whale, much as this is interesting, you just keep posting links to wesbites with opinions that are very far from mainstream and represent the opinions of a small number of individuals.

Some of the claims made are also just wrong and unreferenced, they present only very poor cross references to other books and authors and don't even mention all of the data and studied that provide contrary evidence.

In your world this is probably enough to be convinced, and for many other people too.  But your views can hardly be said to be balanced.  You repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I don't trust pharmaceutical data at face value either.  But your bias is extreme!  Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly biased and unreliable sources!  

Why not lets pick one thing at a time, one claim you would like to support and we can explore that impartially.  If they data supports you, I promise (my professional intergirty stands on it) I will agree with you.  But if it doesn't I wont.

rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at any of them impartially.

Pick one, choose your supporting evidence and I will take a look at it and tell you what I make of it.  I keep an open mind at all times as I hope you do to (otherwise let me know right now so I can stop wasting my time).  Open minded, or mind made up?

"opinions that are very far from mainstream and represent the opinions of a small number of individuals."

That isn't an argument, just an appeal to majority or authority.  A logical fallacy.

"You repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I don't trust pharmaceutical data at face value either.  But your bias is extreme!  Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly biased and unreliable sources!"  

You are obviously biased as you are an Allopath (end of story), whereas I aint, as I don't belong to any medical outfit, I am only interested in the truth, and the truth shuns groups.

As to bias, any medical thought not allopathic would be  biased in your view, naturopathy, natural hygiene, homeopathy, nutritional med, herbalism, chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy, diet therapy, macrobiotic, ayurvedic etc.  That is quite a large area of medical knowledge outside your blinnkers, isn't it?  You represent at a rough guess 10% of medical thinking, even though it is 90% in numbers.  Whereas I have investigated most medical thinking, so bias doesn't come into it in its generally accepted definition---as something that sways you away from truth.

"you just keep posting links to wesbites"

Only one website, a database essentially.  And we all know you haven't looked at it.

Here is a bit of 'lousy' evidence you missed, re measles and measles vaccination:

Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968. http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html  Ref: Gov' very own stat CD

Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline?  Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.

As Clifford G Miller - trained scientist (physicist) & commercial attorney (not vaccine damage litigation) points out, measles deaths would have declined to one or two a year with or without the vaccine http://www.whale.to/v/offitt.html

If you follow the death graph line to today deaths would be 1-3 with or without the vaccine, see graphs http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html

FOIA shows in 1990 in the UK there were approximately 70 deaths associated with triple vaccines (DTP and MMR) Ref: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller333.html

media report 26 deaths http://www.whale.to/v/mmr101.html and the UK gov has paid out for deaths, as has the USA gov.

It is admitted even by gov only 10% of vaccine reactions are reported (more like 1-3%), so if you cut the 70 deaths in half, but say 20 as DPT is more toxic, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 20 are killed by MMR.  Whatever, it is certainly way more than would be killed by measles.  

2.  Q.  What is the point of using a vaccine that kills more kids than the disease?  Even assuming it eliminated deaths, which it didn't as the stats show.

And that is before the autism.

I am still waiting for what sort of evidence you want if 1,200 citations, 40 years clinical evidence, and the top 2 nutritional scientists opinion, isn't enough?  Re Vit C and infections.

"rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at any of them impartially."

I have a huge amount of evidence, and I am not trying to convince you am I?  I am just exposing the game of medical politics you are playing, for my own amusement and education.  And anyone who can think for themselves can see the links are to well documented resources.

Hello again.

What do you mean I am an allopath?

By that do you mean that I beleive pharmaceutical treatments have thier place?  Yes, I do.  But also I beleive they are often overpresrcibed, they often do damge and they often shouldn't even be on the market.

Youre wrong in certain assumptions.  I do beleive that natural hygiene and diet therapy definitely have a front line place in all medical treatment.  And herbalism.  They all have evidence behind them and I fully accept them or parts of them, to be valid, acceptable treatment that I endorese here and advise others to use.  

As for "naturopathy, homeopathy, chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy, macrobiotic, ayurvedic etc"- I just don't know, they may be of benefit and they may not be.  I don't think there is sufficent evidence yet to say one way or the other.  So I don't.  But you do.  Based on what?

Ok, my mistake, you link to one website.  Not your own by any chance.  That wouldn't be biased, would it?

1200 reference may very well be excellent, conclusive and downright perfect evidence.  But I haven't seen these references yet.  All I am doing is asking you for the actual references.  If they support what you say then I will support what you say.  But how can I know unless I read them for myself.  

Lets pick one claim, look at some of the papers that support it and we are there.  I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what the data says.  Not what you or I say.  Lets try (not that website again though, I mean the original studies.)

H

You are a whale also.  

I don't know what you are but you walk, talk and sing like an Allopath.

An Allopath is an MD who only uses pharma drugs essentially

You could be a pharma boy, one who works in Allopathy Inc

Not much difference.

being a mild critic of pharma drugs doesn't mean much, Brain Deer, who is on Wakefields back took apart Septrin.  

I was just pointing out you don't know anything much about non-Allopathic medicine, so are biased.  I doubt you know anything about Natural Hygiene. If you knew anything about Tilden or Trall you wouldn't be using drugs.

"Ok, my mistake, you link to one website.  Not your own by any chance.  That wouldn't be biased, would it?"

Just shows you never follow the links, and if you did you would know Whale is a resource of information, not a political party.  For example if I link to the measles statistics that I extracted from the Governments CD, then that isn't bias is it?

Everything on whale will be biased to you as you are by definition biased, so anything that doesn't sign the song of allopathy will be bised to you.

and it doesn't take long afore an allopath will try any excuse to avoid whale, must be an allergy to the truth.  

Another example, Klenner's original papers http://www.whale.to/m/klenner.html 5 of them, go to it.

Notice how the Allopaths deleted his page from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R._Klenner

Full time job keeping the truth at bay with you Allopaths.  I list just the ones of mine they deleted or attempted to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whaleto

"I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what the data says.  Not what you or I say."

LOL

Ok, I will have a look at those papers.  

Ok, well by your own definition, I am not an allopath.  I do beleive pharmaceutical treatment have their place, often this they are the best treatment.  But often they are not and I do not agree with anyone who says that medical treatment should be reduced to simply prescribing drugs.  

I don't beleive in childish name calling to make a point.  There is a certain profile that you would like me to fit so you can reduce these issues to black and white, polarised name calling.  I just don't like inaccurate, misleading or incorrect information.  

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by natural hygiene.  Is that different from hygiene?

You really don't know much about basic biology or scientific methods, so of course (by your own definition again) you are biased.  

Ok, I'll have a look for those papers.  Have you read them?  

"Lets pick one claim"

I did but you ignored it.  See measles deaths above.

"natural hygiene"

http://www.whale.to/w/nat.html

natural hygiene knowledge is enough to destroy drug medicine, as Trall said 100 years ago +

"The Drug Medical System cannot bear examination. To explain it would be to destroy it, and to defend it even is to damage it."---R.T. Trall M.D.

"I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given."----Dr Trall, 1862. http://www.whale.to/v/trall2.html

I can see why you don't like quotes ;0)

Dear Whale and Harradine,

Why are you both so worked up about whether or not certain medicines and/or homeopathy work? Let people believe what they want to believe and experience methods themselves. People will make the right decision for themselves as it's basic human instinct. They listen to both parties and make up their own minds. This discussion will never end......like in history whether the Evolution or the Creationism Theory is correct...let people believe what they want to believe.

Be nice to each other...

Lets look at measles then.  

Here is a graph similar to the one your posted, but as well as showing measles deaths, it also shows the number of measles infections.  This provides important information since after all, in a developed country like the UK, deaths from measles are thankfully rare, but measles can have other serious effects in children other than death.  Looking at the graph one can clearly see the value of vaccination.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/measles_deaths2007.htm

Ok, that's in the UK. What about the rest of the world.  Vaccination has been even more effective there since measles is one of the developing world's greatest causes of vaccine preventable infant mortality.  Its is a more serious disease in children for many reasons,  But just look at the data to see how many lives vaccination has saved.

Here is a story from the Guardian outlining the success globally of measles immunisation programmes.

Between 1999 and 2005, there was a 60% reduction in annual measles deaths worldwide, from 873,000 to 345,000, according to United Nations figures reported in the medical journal the Lancet. Africa, where children are most prone to die when they catch measles because of poor nutrition and other infections including HIV, has led the way, with a 75% drop in deaths. In 1999, 506,000 African children died - 90% aged under five. By 2005, the figure had fallen to 126,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1994033,00.html

"What clearer proof could there be of the value of investing in immunisation?" Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of Unicef

Some more on the story here:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10987.html

An international vaccination programme to combat measles has exceeded targets, reducing child deaths from the disease by 60% between 1999 and 2005.

The international Measles Initiative launched in 2000 by the World Health Organization and UNICEF had aimed for a 50% reduction in 45 target countries.

“Deaths have fallen from 873,000 during 1999 to 345,000 by the end of 2005,” said WHO director-general Margaret Chan, on Thursday. “This is a 60% reduction.” And the news is even better in Africa, Chan said. “Deaths there declined by 75%, so Africa is leading the way.”

Measles deaths in children under five fell from 791,000 to 311,000 over the same period, globally.

The new figures estimate that, altogether, measles vaccinations have prevented 7.5 million deaths between 1999 and 2005, and 2.3 million of these were attributable to the intensified programme. “This is tremendous news for the world’s children,” said Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF.

So, ignoring my UK measles death stat I see :0)

For some UNICEF propaganda in the third world

No surprise there.  Called a distraction.

That link doesn't work.

No, I'm not ignoring your stats.  I posted a link to the HPA website which shows the same graph of measles deaths in the UK as you have posted, but with the number of measles infections also.

You intepret the success of the global vaccination programme as "UNICEF progaganda", a distraction.  And you claim not to be biased.  

I worked with a Cancer Specialist in the 60's. He was having a reasonable success treating volunteer terminal cancer patients with intraveinous Vitamin C. He was prolonging their lives, and in several cases the tumours were actually shrinking. He asked permission to extend his research to other volunteer cancer patients who weren't tolerating Chemo well. He was refused permission because the Drug Companies did bogus tests using oral vitamin C, which isn't the same thing at all. Then he was refused permission to treat the terminal cases as his "experiments" were useless according the the Drug Companies, who didn't want to lose their vast profits. IV Vitamin C also does give heart patients a great deal of good. He moved abroad somewhere as he lost all faith in medicine in the UK.

Re:- MMR, which the Government assures me does not cause Autism. My grandson had his MMR ayear late because he had been premature and the Doctor wanted him to grow a bit before having the jab. Then he had a run of colds and virus problems. All through this he was a happy, cuddly baby, and knew several words and was dry day and night. He screamed like a trapped animal for 3 days after the jab and had high fevers, sleeping fitfully from exhaustion. I was told to give him Calpol. To get his fever down we had to wrap him in damp sheets and have a fan on him. A week later we noticed he made no eye contact. We feared he was losing his sight. He forgot how to speak and went back into nappies. Then we were told he was autistic "and always had been"! No he hadn't. Now, at 20, he has never worked and maybe never will, because he can't travel on a bus or train on his own.

To Whale - re the pharma troll : thank you for confirming something I had already summised following a recent and very ugly discussion on The Guardian Comment is Free site.  Here Supposed Intelligent scientists seemed to spend 24 hours a day logged on in order to throw what I will call mud (but probably smelt a lot worse ) at any homeopath whomanaged to find 5 minutes intheir work/life balance to defend homeopathy.

It seems to me obvious that the ammount of time spent on this site by such people is unrealistic if they have proper jobs.  You seem to have chosen to do the same but speaking for the other side and I applaud you in this as I am sure it is not funded by any major pharma companies etc.

I would also like to thank you for the many useful weblinks which I shall look at instead of wasting too much more time on these sorts of discussions.  

@ Harradine - do you call the Guardian newspaper scientific?  Surely you must have stronger arguements than that?  

You also said that it was up to whale ot choose homeopathy over allopathy and you wished him luck, but from where I am standing it seems that you would rather homeopathy was not available until it can be proved scientifically -according to allopathic criteria.  SO much for CHOICE.  

One thing - maybe for harradine since you are probably permanently online watching I thought we were supposed to be talking about vitamins?  Harradine maybe you could let me know why is Codex trying to reduce the levels so that they are so low they will be pretty much ineffectual - what is the arguement in that when there is really no danger in taking too much when we can pee it out if we do?

Dear BPrussel01 - I am really sorry to hear about your grandson and sorry that you do not even receive the slightest kind words following such a dramatic downturn.

"No, I'm not ignoring your stats.  I posted a link to the HPA website which shows the same graph of measles deaths in the UK as you have posted, but with the number of measles infections also."

Infections is just a red herring.  Here is the question again:

Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968. http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html  Ref: Gov' very own stat CD

Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline?  Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.

Your UNICEF stats were just a distraction from my UK death stats.  A completely different time and continent, for one.  And secondly, we know the UK death stats are correct as they have to be kept by law, whereas African stats are dubious as I can easy show.  

"the Drug Companies did bogus tests using oral vitamin C"

Yes, most folk don't have the slightest idea about how evil these people are.

Look at 2 fraudulent Mayo studies on Vit C and Laetrile

http://www.whale.to/a/mayo_clinic.html

No doubt MMR causes autism, and they know it alright.

"I was told to give him Calpol."

Sorry to hear about your grandson. You can see how they usually treat vaccine victims http://www.whale.to/a/vaxvictims.html tip of iceberg

"Could the increase in all forms of meningitis and other infectious disease complications and deaths be because for the last 40+ years, the first thing parents do at the slightest sign of temperature is push paracetamol?  I believe so."--Hilary Butler http://www.whale.to/a/west8.html

"Guardian newspaper scientific?"

Thanks for your comments.  Guardian is home of most Pharma advertising masquerading as Editorial, like the Allopath know as Goldacre given free rein (his article also in mail today, and the opposing view was put by a, get this, a NOVELIST!) http://www.whale.to/b/goldacre_h.html

Homeopaths don't have the time or resources of Allopathy whose funding is unlimited, and who aren't going to give up their monopoly through not playing politics, witness Harriden.

Monopolists tend also to be psychopaths (1 in 100 people walking the street are one), and they go straight for the throat.

And homeopaths have to avoid upsetting the top dog as it also is the Gov, and Gov' Health Dept, all of which are staffed and run by Allopaths like Salisbury.  And Allopathy has control of the media, see Goldacre.

"Codex trying to reduce the levels so that they are so low they will be pretty much ineffectual"

Codex is just the name for the drug monopolists plan to kil the competition, known as Nutritional medicine, which they have known for 50 years is the replacement for Allopathy http://www.whale.to/w/ortho.html

Eg Alzheimer's:

“Not a single one of the scores of middle-aged-to-elderly people who have consulted me since 1981 for memory-loss or early Alzheimer's dementia - and who stayed on my program - has ever gone on to develop the full-blown Alzheimer's Disease.”

"Viral hepatitis of all types is one of the easiest diseases for ascorbic acid to cure."---Dr Cathcart, M.D.

http://www.whale.to/a/banner_q_nutrition.html

In a nutshell:

"For every drug that benefits a patient, there is a natural substance that can achieve the same effect." — Pfeiffer's Law

The magnitude of evil done under the banner of Allopathy over 200 years, and now (Eg MMR/vaccine- autism suppression)  is hard to imagine for most people, which is it's greatest defence.

“It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the evil to suspect good.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero,  Statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)

PHEW!!!!

Whale, you keep at it with Harradine, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the badinage between the two of you!

Whale...Is there anything to do about this whole Codex regulations thing??? I've looked for petitions to no avail. I've written to my local and EU MP's, councillors,also with no response on this scary agenda...What can we do? Start stocking up the pantry before Dec '08??? It's making my blood boil. Any advise would be great. All the best.

Harradine, you seem to be pouring out a lot of aggression towards Homeopathy.  If the medical profession is so amazing, why is it that there are so many people who are questioning it?  I read about so many drugs that have been introduced into the market via "freebees" from physicians who's medical equipment, dinners, vacations, etc. are being paid for just have their patients try out the new drug that they have brought out and are not tested properly.  The main problem is the propaganda which is put out by drug companies, agreed with by physicians, the brainwashing of the public by various mediums to doubt their own ability to make their own decisions and treatment.

I agree with Whale about you being a "Pharma Troll".  I wouldn't be surprised if you were sent here by a pharmaceutical company to find ways to beat down homeopathy, naturapathy, and alternate practioners.

Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?

Pharmaceutical companies can be bad.  Very bad.  They have been guilty or withholding data that puts their product safety profiles in a negative light.  And yes, they are also guilty of many highly dubious practises such as their very close interest in GPs, etc.  All this is absolutely correct.

A 2003 article in the BMJ showed that “systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research.”  One way round this is to be very sceptical and critical of the research methods and trial results.  Another is to demand a clinical trials register, so that negative results cannot be buried.

I think this level of scrutiny should apply to everyone.  I have nothing against homeopathy (or any other treatment) per se. If they work, then they should definitely be available.  My gripe is when anyone (big pharma, GPs, homeopath etc) giving medical advice without evidence.  In the case of a drug company, this can be very dangerous, since people can end up taking medicine that are not as safe as they believe, or simply don’t do anything.  Likewise any other treatment.  

In the case of homeopathy. Although no one can deny that the treatments are all perfectly safe, they can be dangerous if taken for a serious illness which they might not help and where another form of treatment can.

My background is not industrial, but academic (pharmacology).  If I am biased, it is strongly towards a universal requirement for evidence.   Pharma companies are guilty of distorting evidence and we have to be wise to that.  But equally, we should not allow anyone to make health claims and say that their treatments don’t require evidence, as is often the case in alternative medicine.

Regarding the Codex regulation of vitamins.  I really don’t know.  Unless there is any actual evidence that these supplements do harm, it seems unnecessary to impose regulation when the same level of vitamin can be derived from food.  Perhaps it’s a mean to standardisation, but from what I gather, it doesn’t make obvious sense to reduce levels.  Surely people can then take as many tablets as they want to anyway.

And no, apologise, the Guardian is far from scientific!  Here is the reference to the original Lancet article : Wolfon et al, Lancet 2007:369:191-200

When a person goes to the doctor, they trust that he is an expert and do so unquestioningly.  Unfortunately, the days are over where your doctor is not always the one who knows best.  They are pulled by the carrot (pharmaceuticals)  who pay for their overhead, etc.  They do not take the time to find out what is wrong properly, and diagnose properly.  When something goes wrong, they are also the ones who get blamed.  People are looking for quick fixes to problems that have come up and hoping it does not boil down to living healthy.  The onus is now placed upon the patient and when the patient wants to seek out alternative means their answers should not be manipulated by the conglomerates.  Our alternatives are being attacked and our own good judgement is being questioned and undermined.

Harradine if you are here just to emphasize the fact that people should question everything, you are extremely antagonistic and are going about it wrong.  Whale has put forth numerous links to articles for you to check out and you just keep on plowing through.  Instead, check out Whale's links and then come back and preach your pro-medical/pharmaceutical jargon so a new arguement can be raised.

dgehring.

I think that's right.  When patients seek answers, to a large extent they have to trust what experts are telling them.  This should not be manipulated by congomerates, I completely agree.  Nor should health advice be based on methods that are untested.  

I am here becuase I beleive that medicine should be evidence based, yes.  i have no inherent support for pharmacetical methods, although I do beleive they have their place when needed.  I have just as much support for lifestyle interventions (obviously), herbal treament when they have evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g St John's Wort) or anything else.  

Modern medicine has failed many people and obviously it is understandible for them to look for help wherever they can get it.  Often homeopaths etc are particularly good at delivery care and making people feel better.  I think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual remedies they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the patient, which is obviously their key strength.  This is something I think should be properly studied.

What I object to are dug companies OR anyone else making health claims they cannot support.  Its dangerous.  

I do not beleive I have been antagonistic.  Bloodyminded and absolutely unshakeable in my requirment for evidence but not, I hope, antagonistic (although I am towards anyone who says evidence doesn't matter!).

I have read Whales links.  That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never be changed.  Its up to people to use their common sense and look at whatever information they can to make their own minds up.

Shannon Sophia Wishon

get a zapper http://www.whale.to/a/zapper_q.html

Look into Herbal medicine by Shulze http://www.whale.to/c/shulze.html

They can't make herbs illegal and they are better than nutrients!

I am not a great believer in supplements, most are made by them and contain nasty chemicals as well, maybe Vit C, but if you juice often you wont need them anyway.

I doubt if they can make Nutritional medicine illegal under an MD.

There is a great book called the Myth of Medicine by a Natural Hygienist, Shelton.

Great title which gives a clue, but haven't got around to reading it yet.

Natural Hygiene& healing http://www.whale.to/a/nat4.html is the thing to look into also and cleansing by Shulze.  Also disease theory http://www.whale.to/v/disease2.html

They can make all supplements illegal for all I care.  I did try Reams http://www.whale.to/a/reams_h.html supplements for a bit.

Green food is another.

"Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?"

Because Pharma med/Allopathy is 98% a hoax http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html, and homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism are the REAL medicine.  They know that--so there is the fear.

Harradine was sent here by Pharma Central

"herbal treament when they have evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g St John's Wort) or anything else. "

That isn't herbal medicine by the way, just something mostly MD got into and pushed.  Using a herb like a drug to mask symptoms.

"I have read Whales links.  That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never be changed."

Some are OK, antibiotics seem to keep farmers going, and anaesthetics obviously.

But when you know nutrients can do a better job without side effects, and you know the real side effects reality of vaccines, AIDS drugs, chemo etc, then the truth is going to sound nasty to a Pharma shill, obviously.

In more cases the experts have been driven by the bottom line, which is money, not the patients well being.  Health advise that is not tested.  When the testing is done on patients, so the physician can get their MRI paid for, or new birthing facility, etc with drugs that are in the testing stages should not be accepted or condoned, but in reality is done and there has been evidence of this practice being done.  

The one physician who is finding an alternate way to handle a disease and being shut out of funding, name discredition is wrong also, but done.  Being forced to see "X" number of patients and encouraging the "pop a pill" mentality is wrong also, but done.  There are many ways to cure ailments.  Unfortunately, things that cause these ailments are not explored thoroughly enough (the extent of causes is large and is another topic not being dealt with here right now)  and the end result is "pop a pill".  

Modern medicine failing many people, yes it has.  By being unattainable with high costs.  The fact that "all drugs are evil no matter what anyone or anything says to me belief" is a conclusion jumped to by yourself.  You jumped in and started attacking whale for providing why they believe what they believe with evidence for which you choose not to recognize.  Bud, it's there, whether you recognize it or not.  And yes, people are believing it also, just like people are blindly following other advice that has been proven wrong.  This is a forum for collecting experiences, information, statistics - exactly what alternative health care is about.  One that the medical profession refuses to accept.  It's their way or the highway!

People always want a quick fix to everything.

"I think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual remedies they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the patient, which is obviously their key strength.  This is something I think should be properly studied."

More with their ability to interact with the patient.  Yes, it is that combined with the remedy that works.  Caesarean sections have proven to be widely misused.  Why, because they can help a doctor set up their day more effectively, the hospital can make money on the procedure and aftercare.  They say it is more beneficial because of no complications.  Using a midwife does not employ, in some cases, even a hospital.  There are no ultrasounds ($), no epidural ($), hardly any hospital care, definitely no need for extra people (nurses, operating staff, etc), no opportunity to discourage breastfeeding and advise on formula ($), and the list is more.  My point is that why are c-sections highly promoted?  ($)  Midwives were and are now making a comeback.  But not as exclusive means for birthing, but as a complement to and acceptance into hospitals.  

This is just one example of where alternate care can be beneficial.  Drugs can be offered, but not as the only way, but as an alternative and along with.

"But when you know nutrients can do a better job without side effects, and you know the real side effects reality of vaccines, AIDS drugs, chemo etc, then the truth is going to sound nasty to a Pharma shill, obviously."

Totally agree with you, Whale.  There are some who believe in doctors and pharmaceuticals as Gods, and guess what, there are things that need to be challenged in religions, too, but again this is a different topic not to be dealt with here!  

The bottom line is people like to live the life and not have to deal with their health issues and if they have to they will grab anything that fixes (?) quickly or are willing to believe that the "doctor will make it better with pills", when it has proven wrong.  I guess we should have degrees in order to make these statements and that will give us credit.  LOL!  

People are also lazy and do not want to do the footwork, this is why they will believe or accept anything.  But more and more are waking up and taking their heads out of the sand.  They get hired in large companies and find that they have to be against what is right and it doesn't matter cause they get the big bucks!  LOL!

I googled codex and found this website which is obviously relating to USA but gives an interesting introductory video on the background of CODEX how it works and its mission.  All very worrying but not that surprising I suppose.

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

I googled codex and found this website which is obviously relating to USA but gives an interesting introductory video on the background of CODEX how it works and its mission.  All very worrying but not that surprising I suppose.

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

I too am worried about the tampering with of the vitamins and minerals industry which has done me so much good.  yes, people can take what they want - but I take high doses of vitamin C A and E - if they reduce strengths to about 10mg - when I take around 5000-6000 mg a day there is no way I can take 50-60 tablets a day - or afford that many!

This is the whole crux of the matter.  Why are the strengths being tampered with - is it as I suspect because they actually work in high strength doses?  Also as fresh food is so lacking in nutrients these days the average person who wants to stay in good health would need to take extra supplements just to get what they need. - that is without fighting cancer or any other disease.  

High doses are what gives the cures, with Vitamin C anyway, that is how they do fraudulent trials, using low doses.

they can't suppress carrot farming, and that is the better medicine, with juicing--the core of Gerson and Kelly cancer cures.  http://www.whale.to/cancer/kelley.html

"80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."--Richard Shulze, ND., MH http://www.whale.to/m/cleanse1.html

Dr Shulzew wont work with anyone if they don't buy a juicer.  

I'm not sure what to make of being accused of being sent here by pharmaceutical companies.  Its interesting that anyone would think that, when all I have done is assert the need for evidence as a universal principle (which they sometimes break too!).  Its very telling that anyone who pushes for evidence is met with suspicion and personal insult.  

I have looked at Whale's evidence.  Its not that I discount is, I just simply disagree with it.  It ignores a much larger body of evidence.  Specifically regarding vaccines, when I presented evidence of the efficacy and value of measles vaccination, this was dismissed as "Unicef propogana". I disagree with that and you have to admit, it does beging to sound a little like a vendetta on Whale's part.

(I've had a look at the rest of Whales website and I don't beleive that the evidence supports organon energy or astrology either.)

St John's Wort is not a herb?  I didn't realise that.  

I've said probably 5 or 6 times now that I definitely do not believe that drugs are the only tool that medicine should use.  Heaven forbid, its would be a pretty poor GP who would practise like that.  Although no doubt it happens, that definitely doesn't get my support at all (since it is not evidence based).  Often drugs are not the best option at all.  They are an option, often vital and life-saving, often misused and overprescribed.  But they have their place and for some coditions there place is as first line therapy.  So let's be clear, I for one do not beleive pharmaceutical companies or the medical orfoession in general should be seen as Gods and their advise taken at face value.  The very idea is absurd!  But nor would I put blind faith in alternative medicine, many people do.  

That's the difference, the evidence suggests homeopaths can make people feel better, but also that the remedies they use are not part of that.  More accurately, they are a part of the overal treatment, but if swapped with tap water the effect would be no different.  That's not bias, pharma propoganda.  It's what the evidence (not mine) says.

Evidence also suggests that physicians can make people feel better.  The only difference is that the physicians are backed by major pharmaceuticals who advertise their pills, etc with catch phrased advertising, freebees given out by the physicians and blatant lies.  Remedies have been proven and there are also drugs that when switched with tap water have done the same healing.  Mind also comes into play, another avenue which is not explored to thoroughly by medicine, and it's healing properties.

The fact that the codex is trying very hard to almost obliterate vitamins and minerals is in itself questionable.  The most obvious reaction to this is to question why and investigate it further.  Not whether or not vitamins/minerals work.  We have all agreed on that, except Harradine.  Homeopaths treat with herbs and vitamins and explore what could be causing the problem through non-invasive procedures which is the whole idea behind homeopathy.

I agree (again) that placebo effects are poweful and come into play in all branches of medicine.  But placebo is not the only way to heal people.  Medicines which have been tested and demonstrated to have effects above and beyond plecebo for one.  Homeopathic remedies are unable to do this.  That's fine, if people choose to use them and derive benefit from them.  But not acceptible when they advise not using treatments that could be potential life saving (e.g. antimalaria drugs) for homeopathy.

"Wether vitamins/minerals work".  I am not disagreeing with that, but it depends on what one claims they are effective in treating.  Vitamins and minerals are essential for good health, but some claims about the benefits of vitamins and minerals are not supported by any evidence.  

Harradine "That's the difference, the evidence suggests homeopaths can make people feel better, but also that the remedies they use are not part of that.  More accurately, they are a part of the overal treatment, but if swapped with tap water the effect would be no different.  That's not bias, pharma propoganda.  It's what the evidence (not mine) says."

Yes homeopaths do spend a lot of time talking to their patients, but this is not just an empathetic conversation it has a purpose - we are trying to establish various factors such as what has caused the person's problem in the first place whether it be an emotional factor, or a physical factor such as a trauma or toxicity, or possibly an inherited factor.  We also look at other areas of the problem such as how it is expressed - for example eczema presents in different ways and we look at that individuals symptoms  ( unlike medics who often just prescribe steroid cream) We are then able to look at this information and give an individualised remedy from one of the 3000 + remedies available to us.  This is why homeopathy works and this is how the homeopathic conversation/ consultation helps the treatment.

Whale - someone told me this afternoon that the "success rate" for medical drugs is 33% is this true?  if this is true then that means that they are happy with a 67% failure rate - I can hardly believe this since if that were so in the world of homeopathy and other alternative therapies which are supposedly lacking in evidence we would a) go out of business because most of our patients come through word of mouth and a poor success rate would not enable this and b) we would go out of business through sheer disillusionment with the therapy.  

Dgehring - just a small point - whilst homeopaths do advocate a healthy diet and lifestyle and this is included in Hahnemann's Organon homeopaths do not treat with herbs and vitamins and this is the problem that a lot of allopathic doctors have with homeopathy.  We make mother tinctures using  sources from accross the animal, mineral and vegetable kingdom and then dilute them and succuss (shake them vigorously)  them to release the energy.  Remedies above 12c potency have no physical molecules left in them and are based purely on the energy released by the original source.  This is why it is such a safe and non-toxic therapy.

Indeed Dr Samuel Hahnemann devised this method at the end of the 18th century in reaction to the extreme, dangerous and highly toxic medical practices he witnessed at the time (remind you of something?).  He tested all his remedies out on himself (not rats or guinea pigs) before introducing them and was not satisfied until he had erradicated the side effects, aiming for a "gentle and long lasting cure".  

I hope this information helps people to understand the methods of homeopathy and resort a little less to the myths.

Harradine "That's the difference, the evidence suggests homeopaths can make people feel better, but also that the remedies they use are not part of that.  More accurately, they are a part of the overal treatment, but if swapped with tap water the effect would be no different.  That's not bias, pharma propoganda.  It's what the evidence (not mine) says."

Yes homeopaths do spend a lot of time talking to their patients, but this is not just an empathetic conversation it has a purpose - we are trying to establish various factors such as what has caused the person's problem in the first place whether it be an emotional factor, or a physical factor such as a trauma or toxicity, or possibly an inherited factor.  We also look at other areas of the problem such as how it is expressed - for example eczema presents in different ways and we look at that individuals symptoms  ( unlike medics who often just prescribe steroid cream) We are then able to look at this information and give an individualised remedy from one of the 3000 + remedies available to us.  This is why homeopathy works and this is how the homeopathic conversation/ consultation helps the treatment.

Whale - someone told me this afternoon that the "success rate" for medical drugs is 33% is this true?  if this is true then that means that they are happy with a 67% failure rate - I can hardly believe this since if that were so in the world of homeopathy and other alternative therapies which are supposedly lacking in evidence we would a) go out of business because most of our patients come through word of mouth and a poor success rate would not enable this and b) we would go out of business through sheer disillusionment with the therapy.  

Dgehring - just a small point - whilst homeopaths do advocate a healthy diet and lifestyle and this is included in Hahnemann's Organon homeopaths do not treat with herbs and vitamins and this is the problem that a lot of allopathic doctors have with homeopathy.  We make mother tinctures using  sources from accross the animal, mineral and vegetable kingdom and then dilute them and succuss (shake them vigorously)  them to release the energy.  Remedies above 12c potency have no physical molecules left in them and are based purely on the energy released by the original source.  This is why it is such a safe and non-toxic therapy.

Indeed Dr Samuel Hahnemann devised this method at the end of the 18th century in reaction to the extreme, dangerous and highly toxic medical practices he witnessed at the time (remind you of something?).  He tested all his remedies out on himself (not rats or guinea pigs) before introducing them and was not satisfied until he had erradicated the side effects, aiming for a "gentle and long lasting cure".  

I hope this information helps people to understand the methods of homeopathy and resort a little less to the myths.

Just to give you some insight to where I am coming from, most of the beauty and cosmetics industry claims are not evidence based either.  That's one idustry that really does rake it in based on peoples' gullability and deperation.

Harmless enough though, so not so bad.  But very frustrating to hear so much nonsense around when we are supposed to live in a post-enlightenment era.

Bascially, scientists get rattled at anyone making claims based on nonsense.  Met some, ask them.  People making claims without evidence (doctors, advertisers, politicians, homeopaths, pharma folks, etc) are enemies of reason if they make a claim without evidence.  Therefore, scientists take them to ask (i.e. ask them for evidence).

That is where I am coming from, but have no wish to offend anyone.

Homeopaths should not advise against the use of "potential life saving (eg antimalaria drugs)" you are right and this lesson has been learned by homeopaths in the light of the newsnight documentary, however homeopaths should be able to offer support to those who have made the CHOICE not to use them.  

Rachael,

Thanks for that info.  I do see what you mean about the homeopathy.  I think the example you give of eczema is a very good one.  Many people suffer from allergies which are hard, if not impossible to treat.  Steroid creams can help, but they are not a solution.

I know many people who suffer from eczema and there is obviously an emotional compnent to that.  It is well know that emotion (particualy anxiety and stress) interact with the immune system.

I see what you mean, but do you understand my point about the actual remedied?  They are water and the evidence (from trials that have been conducted) that the remedies are not what underlies the therpeutic benefit.  I don't have any problem with that at all.  But can I ask, are there any illnesses or serious symptoms where you would say to a patient "look I am just not qualified to treat this and I recommend you see a doctor?"

Many thanks

H

here's a little evidence for you which may help:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-27-2007/0004712571&EDATE=

Apologies, you have alrwady answered that.

Then I agree with you.  You have my support.  We may disagree on the point about how the remedies themselves work.  But you accept that drug therapy has its place so your methods are nor harmful and I am sure do real good.

My gripe is against those who take it to the point that they would never recommend seeing a GP, the conspiracy theories and the like.  I just find that irrational.

There are many which I  would prefer to treat alongside a medical practitioner in order to obtain the relevant blood tests, MRI scans etc so that I may ascertain exactly what progress is or isn't being made.

If a patient was on medication I would never advise them to stop it straight away and would rather work with the Doctor to try and reduce this alongside the hoomeopathic treatment.

All this is exactly why it would work so much better if homeopathy was a proper part of the NHS.

There are many which I  would prefer to treat alongside a medical practitioner in order to obtain the relevant blood tests, MRI scans etc so that I may ascertain exactly what progress is or isn't being made.

If a patient was on medication I would never advise them to stop it straight away and would rather work with the Doctor to try and reduce this alongside the hoomeopathic treatment.

All this is exactly why it would work so much better if homeopathy was a proper part of the NHS.

Alot of people who come to see alternative therapists have already been to see a GP - they don't have to pay for that!!  They are either still on medication which we deal with as I explained above or they have found none that works.

I can only speak for homeopaths in the SOH but I think you will find that most homeopaths work as I do.  Homeopathy has a very strict code of ethics and we are continually striving to present a professional approach.  We carry out regular research and many are in fact Doctors and scientists.

I agree that there is a great deal about patient interaction that GPs have lost and homeopaths have retained.  I would support that being incorprated into the NHS.

I would draw the line with Hannemans pinciples and the memory of water/vital force part though.  Honestly, I don't think that has a place in modern medicine.  It comes from a time when modern medicine was a lot worse that actually doing nothing at all.  The evidence just doesn't support this idea about water.  The science just isn't there.

The Science isn't there yet - but I think it might be very soon!

You can see water retains information by Emoto's work http://www.whale.to/a/water_h.html

http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/entop.html

Rachael, when it is, you will have my full support.  Good luck and best wishes for you and your patients.  

Whale, it makes sense now.  I really didn't mean to offend or upset you.  I understand now that you are an astrology/orgonite/Baal type belief individual.

I'm not.  I am a scientist and follow a prerequistise for evidence from anyone.  I did not realise I was offending your faith in the power of astrology, organite etc.  You are free to follow any beleif you choose.  

But really, you should be passing on health advise based on that type if thinking.  Or any other sort of advice.  Its you personal beleif, just leave it at that.

Bless.

"Whale, it makes sense now.  I really didn't mean to offend or upset you.  I understand now that you are an astrology/orgonite/Baal type belief individual."

You can't offend me, but bless you for thinking you have the ability.

That was a nice try at ad hominem, but BAAL was one of your God's actually (an Allopathic one), do try and keep up. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/deaths.html

http://www.whale.to/b/baal_h.html

Faith, belief and knowledge.  I know (knowledge) God exists, orgonite works and astrolgy has merit, from direct experience.  Whereas you have to believe it is a load of cobblers purely due to your belief in the False god of Allopathy/Mammon/BAAL, which decrees they are all nonsense, along with Homeopathy.

Faith doesn't come into it.

As John Lilly discovered, spiritual psychology 101, you see what you believe, and then believe what you see.  

Anyway, Emoto has completely shredded your belief that water doesn't retain information, which was one of your main beliefs against Homeopathy.

Whale, this is silly.  

You are telling me all about baal, organite and astrology and telling me I beleive in cobblers.  Baal, organite.  Fairies, santa and the boogy man.  All very well, no wish to change you mind.  But your health advice is like saying "don't receive medical treatment because Santa says not to.  Have a word..

[If there are any seruous homeopaths reading this, is this the sort of thinking you want on your side?  Whale, do you think you are doing them any favours?]

At least now we are at the nub of the issue.  Now people can read what I say about heath advice, and then what you say about health advice, baal and organon.  

Now I understand your hackles up appraoch to evidence.

I've met people who think the earth if flat (please tell me you don't) and that ghosts are real.  Thankfully not in charge of making decisions about anyone's health (exceopt their own).

Whale I do hope you are ok in there.  

Because I have a certain respect for the the well meaning of some (well meaning) homeopaths, llets me counteract the damage of the downright silliness if Whales BAAL (ooo!!) nonsense.

Not everything is evidence based.  When we confide in a friend about a life-changing problem, is that open to double blind scrutiny?  Could we lpnk a stranger in the chair and ask them to make us feel better?  Maybe, but it wouldn't be the same.  We are human after all.

When we feel down and perhaps go to a faimilia place, when we hear kind words or see good intentions, are these things that make us feel better?  Of course they do, but are they open to clincal trial.  Maybe, but not the way drugs are.

Don't get me wrong.  I would not recommend this approach to any illness that would resond much better to drug (I would not recommend kind words over medical treatment), but as I said from my very first posts, they are vital.  Even with all the best medical treatment in the world somone surrounded by a loveing family with best thoughts and wishes is more lielly to get better in the main than someone with non one, in isolation who is treated only by hospital doctors.

This I have said from my first posts here.  It is not to deny modern medicine, and not to accept the memory of water.  And certainyl doesn't go near Whales beleifs in Baal, and other weirdness.

Nor does it acceot many of the premises of this website, which are irresponsible in advising people away from very real treatments that work towards those that might, just to suport those who want thm to or make a living using them.

If this is the view of a Pharma Troll, then I wonder what sort of Pharma it is I troll for.  Anyone can use peronal attack and labelling as a means to discredit.  I only ask you judge me on what I actually say.  

H

This has been an interesting discussion and at times entertaining and yes, even informative.  Harradine, you have certainly changed your tone in writing since so many others have spoken about the benefits of homeopath.  This website is about alternate methods to drugs which have been touted as the "be all to end all".  It is also an informative tool to make people aware of side effects, which are not always talked about between a physician and a patient.  Alternate practitioners and their methods are of value in our society where short cuts are often taken to save a penny and/or make the rich, richer.   They are also here to answer questions which physicians cannot or will not answer, for whatever reason.  LOL.  The information age has brought forth the access to many alternate therapies, whether they sound weird or not.  All too often,  they are not even considered because the medical profession cannot either make a profit, or prove it is consistent.  The other night I found out about dogs being used to diagnose some kinds of cancer, but because it is not able to be consistently done in lab tests, it does not get the recognition.  What is important here is the fact that it can be used as an indicator for further investigation.  

As for advising people away from very real treatments that work towards those that might, you are very mistaken.  Cancer has been beaten by hard work, consistent effort from the patient and yes, emotional support from family members.  All too often, though, the medical professional is way to quick to put doubt into the patients minds as well as the people around them.  Instead of being supportive of the choice that has been made and for what?  The inability to make any money from alternative methods.  

Check out this "You Can Heal Your Life" by Louise L. Hay

On this website Susan Insole is allowing readers to read about, support, offer advice and show people it is possible, and I am sure many are appreciative of this, I know I am.  She is also making it known how frowned upon by the medical profession what she is doing.  As though she needs more battles to fight.  Often the medical profession does more harm than good.

I am a Hypnotherapist and work with the mind in healing.  Something people are slow to believe is that the mind is quite capable of making us do things as well as not do things.   Again, something for another forum.

You keep asking for proof and yet, Whale has provided ample proof and many of the other readers have seen or read about proof and that is why they are on this website.  I am sure some of the people are gullible, but more so than not they have done the investigation and the questioning and seeking of proof and are quite well informed, infact a lot are alternate practioners or very close to them because they are fed up with getting the same answer from their physician of "pop a pill" and not enough investigation.

Like you, I used to veer towards science and at times still do, but I also realize science, et al are narrow minded and not willing to be proven wrong.  They are also hired by the conglomerates.  Thank goodness for the information age.  It is up to us to investigate until we find what we, the public, are looking for.  And to question the "experts" until we find an answer we are ok with.

Though I haven't tried homeopathy myself, I did read recently (and I wish I could remember where) that there was a Harvard MRI trial testing 20+ homeopathic remedies to see if there was anything of the original substance left with which to treat the patient. They found that there WAS, but at the sub molecular level.

dgehring.

When I came on this forum, it was my belief that the medical profession obviously has flaws.  As I have said many times, non-evidence based practised such as over prescription of some drugs does take place.  Equally, in medical science, some beliefs held by practitioners are not supported by the data being produced by scientists.  It can take some time before scientists convince doctors to adapt their practices accordingly.  

My views have not changed.  My opening posts providing advise for a family member of a patient with BPD pointed out that the value of family and support.  I believed then and still do that the practise of homeopathy has retained an element of patient care that many GPs have lost.

The information age is wondering provided you know how to tell the difference between good evidence and bad 9and on this site there is a great deal of bad).  I have not at all discounted Whales evidence, it is just bad evidence.  A graph with half the data missing, endless lists of quotes and references to books where the evidence is to be found, name calling then telling me I serve some strange fictional God called Baal?  Contrast this with the evidence in favour of homeopathy that Rachael provided above.  Peer reviewed studies!  Not personal attacks and labels of trolling when asked to provided evidence, just providing it.  

I appreciate that you find this website useful, but much of the information on it is simply wrong and therefore misleading.   Statements from the main authors on this site such as

“Until recently, doctors operated under the assumption that a fetus, a baby, even a young child, wasn’t yet human—not in the fully formed sense of the word”

“Astonishingly, doctors often don’t consider the basic fact of scale. Because a child may not, in their view, react to a drug in the same way an adult would, they often administer a drug dosage appropriate for a full-sized adult to a person one-third that size.”

..are simply wrong.  This is a deliberate distortion of how any doctor thinks or practises.  This sort of view cannot go unchallenged.  Much of this site seems to be not only about providing impartial alternative health advice, but also creating a sense of distrust and fear about the medical profession generally by distorting much of what is does.  This no doubt sells books and provides a living for those involved, but also can cause people to refuse treatment and advice that might save their lives!  All the while attacking such approaches as purely profit driven.    

One of the first posts I read was by a man about to go on a holiday looking for advice to alternatives to tropical disease vaccination, and being given homeopathic advice!  That is my point, this is dangerous advice.  This is not a useful resource, but a misleading one.  Rachael, again, thank you for some reasonable sense on that matter.

It is saddening to hear someone say that scientists are narrow minded and not willing to be proved wrong.  With the greatest of respect, that just betrays a real ignorance of what science is.  It is a process of generating hypothesis then testing through repeated experiment and observation, then peer scrutiny of methods and result.  Sciences ability to update its knowledge in the face of new evidence is its core strength.  That is why it has moved on from the 1800s, unlike homeopathy.

That’s not to say that all scientific claims are correct.  That’s why evidence is important, so it can be scrutinises and its claims tested.  Once more, my underlying principle and objective is to encourage everyone to ask for evidence, good evidence.  Study the evidence, not the claims.

Very well stated, Harradine.  While I do find science extremely informative and will always be involved with as much information that I can find, I still find scientists very set and not open for challenge.  I agree with some of the information posted, but as an inquiring mind, it is there for me to absorb and do with what I want.  Yes, this is one perspective and it is important to see other perspectives.  You have extremes everywhere you go and there is reasons for that also.  All too often there have been many experiences where people have followed blindly and paid the very dear price for not being informed.  

Although you provide quotes of misrepresentation, I beg to differ.  I have experienced first hand with doctors and have found much of what this site says to be true.  Perhaps until you experience some of what they are talking about, it will still be a disbelief for you.  

The bottom line still exists for many and until healthcare is put infront of the dollar, proper honest trials, neglecting truths, stamping out other means, using minorities as guinea pigs, etc.  I find this site opens up for questions, where there weren't before and for that it is good.

I find it interesting that you are still going on about evidence when I posted some for you - and that post is also proof that Ben Goldacre is deliberately misinterpreting results in a national newspaper to further cloud public opinion and continue the myth that there is no evidence just as you are doing by continually asking for it when it has been provided.

The fact that you keep repeating your request for evidence when I have posted it makes me wonder whether this is the only arguement that you want people to read or hear.  

As for homeopathy not changing since the 1800s well I would like to just point a few things out there.  While the methodology has not changed, because the safety and efficacy of that has proved itself, the profession has changed.

1. We were left 250 remedies proved by Hahnemann - we have built on this and now have now over 3000

2.  Homeopaths have united and come together into organisations such as the Society of Homeopaths which are regulated and insist on Continuing professional development and training.

3.  We are now focussing a lot of our efforts into the areas of research and have learned that in order to be recognised by the public and scientific community (LOL) we must present our results in concrete form hence the establishment of large research bodies.

4.  Homeopathy is practised world wide and in India where resources are lower and the population is less accepting of western medicine most Indian Doctors are practising homoepathy alongside with no terrible outcries by their patients or President Bush for crimes against humanity!!!!

Here is your evidence - the top article shows that homeopathy is more than just placebo.  The rest may interest other readers.

The reason Scientists continually bay " where is the evidence " is precisely because they know that homeopathy does not work in the same biomedical model as their "tested" medicines.  We have numerous different remedies for one single problem - as with the example of eczema - we prescribe on multiple factors both emotional and physical symptoms so we cannot produce successful results under the one drug treats all trial.  

However although homeopathy doesn't work in this function ie to provide evidence to scientists, it does work in the function of providing evidence to patients who as I reiterated before would not come back time and again if there were no improvement.

AS for Whales website I find it very interesting and it provides an useful source of information from the other camp.

So once again here is the evidence and a little more:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071127/netu125.html?.v=19

http://www.hpathy.com/research/chatfield-research-overview.asp

So let's move on from this arguement

I find it interesting that you are still going on about evidence when I posted some for you - and that post is also proof that Ben Goldacre is deliberately misinterpreting results in a national newspaper to further cloud public opinion and continue the myth that there is no evidence just as you are doing by continually asking for it when it has been provided.

The fact that you keep repeating your request for evidence when I have posted it makes me wonder whether this is the only arguement that you want people to read or hear.  

As for homeopathy not changing since the 1800s well I would like to just point a few things out there.  While the methodology has not changed, because the safety and efficacy of that has proved itself, the profession has changed.

1. We were left 250 remedies proved by Hahnemann - we have built on this and now have now over 3000

2.  Homeopaths have united and come together into organisations such as the Society of Homeopaths which are regulated and insist on Continuing professional development and training.

3.  We are now focussing a lot of our efforts into the areas of research and have learned that in order to be recognised by the public and scientific community (LOL) we must present our results in concrete form hence the establishment of large research bodies.

4.  Homeopathy is practised world wide and in India where resources are lower and the population is less accepting of western medicine most Indian Doctors are practising homoepathy alongside with no terrible outcries by their patients or President Bush for crimes against humanity!!!!

Here is your evidence - the top article shows that homeopathy is more than just placebo.  The rest may interest other readers.

The reason Scientists continually bay " where is the evidence " is precisely because they know that homeopathy does not work in the same biomedical model as their "tested" medicines.  We have numerous different remedies for one single problem - as with the example of eczema - we prescribe on multiple factors both emotional and physical symptoms so we cannot produce successful results under the one drug treats all trial.  

However although homeopathy doesn't work in this function ie to provide evidence to scientists, it does work in the function of providing evidence to patients who as I reiterated before would not come back time and again if there were no improvement.

AS for Whales website I find it very interesting and it provides an useful source of information from the other camp.

So once again here is the evidence and a little more:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071127/netu125.html?.v=19

http://www.hpathy.com/research/chatfield-research-overview.asp

So let's move on from this arguement

Rachael, if you read my last post, I used your ability to post peer reviewed studies as an example of THE very thing I am asking for, and thanks you for doing so.

You did not resort of ad hominem attack or criticise the evidence for other methods.  You posted references to orignial studies.

The perfect response.

The 1st person on the Codex band of worriers who has any connection with a drug company ought to remove their selves from the Codex panel.  Reason being, they (drug co's) have no right to say anything about the 'Natural Health' business.  This is through their own bias, as they are such killers of innocent people it doesn't bear consideration of whatever point they may wish to say.  Look at the annual deaths in the USA alone, from prescribed drugs!  What point are they trying to make?  I do understand that there are a lot of supplements on the market that are totally pointless (harmless in there lack of composition) in consuming, as there isn't a std approved minimum level to which they are manufactured - that's poor practice.  What I am interested in - and Codex doesn't seem to be thinking on these lines at all, is the straight forward answer to the average persons NEED for a vitamin/mineral/herb assessed at a correct level.  This is where mother nature has the last word and NOT Codex, we are all individuals an do require - each and every one of us - a PERSONAL requirement that is entirely OURS and not the same as the man/woman next door. Codex will not allow this to be achieved, as they are 'Tarring Us with the same Brush' and that doesn't work!  As individuals, we need to understand that BIG PHARMA is on the end of this HUGE CON that is Codex and we all need to have our say in this issue, or, we are to start becoming more ill than you would care to imagine! Basically, it comes down to staying healthy IF we're all to consume ORGANIC natural produce and absolutely nothing that comes with plastic wrappers or sold to us in a box! Come on people, where are your voices of disgust here!  British people are probably the easiest to walk all over and in this issue of Codex I for one will not let it go by without one heck of a shout of defiance! We are only here on earth for a shoe time but, what about our children?  Do something that will get people to make a difference. Do you wish to be unable to heal your personal health issues correctly?  Cos that's what Codex is about, keeping us Dependant od drugs and they are not the way forward. Thank you for reading this page.

Harradine,

You are using a technique called Delphi to manipulate the perception of whale. Whale is your enemy because he has documented beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt how flawed allopathy is. In order to alienate your enemy from the other forum participants, you side with somebody else and depict yourself as a person who can compromise.

The delphi technique is designed to isolate individuals who pose a threat to a lie.

Just think about this: Evil puts itself at the mercy of good because evil can only be redeemed when good decides to forgive one day. Therefore, choose wisely which side you are on because if evil does not find forgiveness, it will destroy itself rather than be transformed.

Hi Ben,

Whale is not an enemy at all.  He or she is a person with views conflicted with my own.  Whale has presented evidence to the flaw of medical treatment (rather that allopathy, since he doesn't seem to understand that word since many of the treatments he supports are examples of allopathy.)

Whale has presented incredibly flawed evidence and ignored any evidence contrary to his own view.  He also beleives in magic, strange demons and other bizarre things.  Not that this in itself would make anything he is saying about medicine untrue.  It just so happens that it is also untrue.

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your opinion about good and evil in a discussion about medical treatment and advice.  

But hey, if people really fear modern medicine so much, then steer well clear of it.  Don't go anywhere near a doctor if you get ill, just stay clear of them and that's the problem solved.  In the UK at least, no one will force medical treatment on anyone.  People can choose to live their lives any way they like.  But when people make claims that are flase (either that a treatment works without any evidence to support it, or that it doesn't work with evidence to the contrary) they should expect to be challenged.  Pharma, alternative practicioner, anyone.

Harradine,

Let me be a bit more systematic here.

Science is about: "What can I observe". Once I observe the same outcome in repeat attempts under the same conditions, I develop a theory. As a real scientist, I have no bias towards the outcome of testing my theory. I only want to know whether it is true or not. Now, I challenge you to present me with a peer reviewed and published medical study which has not been sponsored my the pharmaceutical industry or people close to it which results in the prescription of chemical drugs or "shows" that alternative health care like homeopathy does not work. You show me any such study and I prove to you that it was sponsored by people close to the pharmaceutical industry.

When the AMA was founded and tried to seize control over the very varied medical therapies, the AMA representatives were laughed out of the US Senat because it did not see any need to regulate because people would choose the healthcare they thought would work best. It is a matter of free will because we ought to be free human beings. If a government collaborates with corporations, we have fascism and this is what we have in most so called civilised countries today. Whale has references to piles of documents showing exactly this and more.

You work very hard to discredit what critical people say as "anectodal" and then claim that there is no evidence. You show me the evidence that chemical drugs cure disease. Then you show me the "evidence" that alternative therapies cannot cure diseases. It is impossible.

Now, let me tell you something about the human being. There are millions of people having encountered entities which are not of a physical nature. Just because you have not, does not mean that they are wrong. I have absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity or sanity. Why? Because it would be unscientific. To prove that something does not exist is utterly impossible especially when it comes to non material entities. Just because you cannot perceive them does not mean that they do not exist. Just because you cannot see the red chair I am sitting on, does not mean that it does not exist. It only means that it is outside your realm of perception.

Doing so really is insulting people's intelligence and integrity and this is exactly what is happening today: If you cannot counter the facts, attack the messanger and repeat the lie.

I have seen many of your other posts. You always side with the pharmaceutical industry and when challenged, you claim that science provides plenty of evidence. Where is this science? For example, show me the evidence that vaccinations are safe and effective. Post links to those studies here publicly and I will post links that showing that those studies are fraudulent and/or biased.

Now something about yourself. You do not really care. You even don't know much at all about the vast majority of subjects you are talking here about. You are paid to convince those still in doubt that conventional drugs based on science and alternative therapies unproven nonsense. Let me tell you what is going to happen. The majority of people will die in the near future because they belived in:

1. Chemical drugs are safe and effective

2. Vaccinations are safe and effective

3. Mobile phone and wireless communication are safe

4. Chlorine and Fluorine in water are safe

5. Living under high voltage power lines is safe.

6. Our government is trying to protect us

7. Our doctors know what they are talking about

8. Our governments would never expose us to large scale biological and chemical experiments.

and the list goes on and on.

These will be the people who were fooled by their own governments, the media and large corporations, and, people like you. The ones surviving will be those who are aware of what is happening these days and who really rules behind closed doors. They will be left on earth with those who are well informed and who they cannot continue to oppress. What a coincidence that these rulers as well as the survivers know that the human being is a spiritual being with limited awareness of its spirituality whilst living in a physical body. People like you and your victims will be largely gone. What happens to those souls who have served the evil agenda? They will suffer an unspeakable regret for what they have done that I can only say that their suffering pains my heart with pity.

For heaven's sake, think about what you are doing.

Hi Ben

Observation is a cornerstone of science.  As is continually testing theories with experiment.  No scientist should ever have a bias towards any outcome of a theory, correct.  That's why experiments should be conducted using a blinded method, to prevent bias.  Also why it is invalid to set out to "prove" a theory.  One tests theories, by attempting to disprove them.

You've just admitted that there is no evidence that could convince you that vaccines are safe and effective. Your mind is made up, will not accept evidence agains what you believe.  You have adopted an irrational position.  Would you care to expland on why?  Personally I don't beleive a drug works or is safe until I see the evidence and even then new evidence comes along all the time that can informs us and change our minds (that the bit about observation and testing again). No medical treament is 100% safe or effective.

Its is definitely not on to say that someone should provide evidence that alternatives don't work.  That's like asking for evidence that eating sand doesn't work.  The burden of evidence is on those making the claim (which they have so far failed) rather that the other way around.  That's quite a simple, but very important concept.

I think you should read my posts again if you think I always back pharma.  Far from it.  Whatever evidence they provide must be scrutinised with a highly critical eye, just like everyone else.  I find it very interesting that because I do not accept claims without evidence that you assume I must be paid to promote pharma.  Its a fundamental principle and it applies to everyone.  I am from an academic background, that's where I had the need for evidence drummed into me because anything else is faith.  Faith is great, but its rubbish at developing medicines.

I have nothing at all against faith, but I beleive it to be a personal idea.  its not something that should be used to decide for example, the best way to treat an illness.  Diseases don't care one bit what you believe in.

Of course, no one can know that things do not exists out side their realm of experience.  There could be a row of singing elephants on Mars right now, or a recreation of the battle of hasting by jellfish at the bottom of the sea.  Literally anything my or anyone elses imagination can dream up out of thin air could be happening somewhere and there is no way anyone can prove otherwise.  These are untestable claims and that is all the will ever be.  I guess some people like to exist in the world of fantasy and imagination.  But back in the real world, life goes on.  Scientists spend most of heir time conceiving of ever more ingenious ways to observe the universe in a way that is normally outside our perception.  From the telescope to the particle accelerator, its has had jawdropping results.

Again, read my posts.  Anecdotal (or case study) evidence is perfectly valid.  I've said this many times.  But on its own, with no further testing, it is inconclusive.  That applies across the board, in the science of medicine and in science unrelated to health or disease.  Anecdotes generate hypoetheses to be tested more rigourously by experiment.  But if you consider anecdotal evidence to be that convincing on its own, then here is some: I have been vaccinated against TB, diptheria, tetanus, measles (that I know of) and I am perfeclty fit and healthy.  All my friends have been vaccinated against a host of diseases and they are all in good health too.  Convinced that all vaccination is perfectly safe?  I wouldn't be. Now do you understand the problems with anecdotal evidence if it is not followed up with testing?

This forum is indeed a strange one.  I am accustomed to discussing the merits of evidence and finding fault with it.  Not trying to convince people that the earth is in fact round as oposed to flat!  I definitely do not support the pharmaceutical industry at all, other than to suggest that if people really are ill and need treatment they should use it and not be terrifed into refusing it by people who also have something to sell.  Apart from clean water and sanitation, vaccination is the single greatest health intervention we can do.  The fact that some people have become so frightened by it (largely thanks to those who make a tidy living from generating such fear, eg. Lynn McTaggart) is a sad fact indeed.  Do you know much about diptheria, polio or small pox?  I suppose we should be thankful that we live in a time when these diseases have been so successfully tackled by vaccination that some people have the luxury of denying they are a problem in the first place and are now turing on the vaccines themselves.

Vaccination is used in animals  as well as to people great effect.  Why would governments do this if it was all part of conspiracy (as Whales evidence shows us "beyond a shadow of a doubt") to exterminate us, implant us with strange devices etc?  Do you really think they evidence suggests this, as you say?    

Ben.

Quite a rosy picture of the future you paint there.  Most of the worlds population dying/being wiped out and only homeopaths left.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that people who accept claims that a treatment works without proper testing are "good" and that those who require a standard of evidence are "evil"?  

I find this fascinating.  Come on a forum and question people's assumptions, criticse their evidence and before they will brand you the antichrist!  That's two now, you and Whale (although he calls me Baal).  Both people who, when confronted by someone who sees things differently than they do, think they must be arguing with the devil himself.  I can't reason with that. Nothing can.

Harradine,

There is a big difference between being Baal or "the devil" and being under the influence of evil. I am not accusing you of being the devil. However, we all are under the influence of evil to a greater or lesser extend. What can be done about this? Provide clarity instead of confusion, speak the truth instead of a lie, try to bring order into one's consciousness and identify the makings and methods of people who commit treason against mankind by only thinking of themselves and their insatiable lust for money and ultimately power. Nothing can beat a clear and concise thought, so, let's keep it simple and clear.

Perhaps you are not quite understanding what I have been saying to you.

So, let's start again and look at the topic you most firmly defend: Vaccination.

Show me the proof that vaccination is safe and effective. Show it to me. Post some links. Humour me. You talk about proof and testing and constantly imply that big pharma is science based and provides the required testing and proof whereas alternative medicine does not. Yes, you also caim that you would expect all this from any kind of medicine but this is just lip service and more commonly called: "covering the tracks" or "diverting suspicion". The proof is that you attacked Lynn McTaggart in a derogative way without explaining in all clarity what she has done or said that would justify this slander. But of course, this rethorical tactic is called "negative association". By throwing in a name of a person or a concept in a derogative way, you subliminally program the readers subconscious to develop emotions of rejection and antipathy towards the person or concept. The exact term for this technic is "neurolinguistic programming" which is in essence a technic to subvert the free will of the people by planting concepts and ideas into the subconscious of the audience or reader in such a way that a predetermined reaction occurs in the audience or reader. In other words, you are a manipulator of people's perceptions and opinions.

This just to explain what sort of technics Harradine is using to avoid debate and shift the blame.

What people are expecting is a debate on the facts. By facts, I mean those published results which are consistent in the public domain to a reasonable extend and can survive scrutiny in such a way that the original objective is still in tact in the end. The conclusion from my previous sentence therefore has to be that we will stop accepting as fact what some authority or government or big pharma sells to us as fact in form of statements and scientific studies and we shall take a look ourselves at such statements and studies and lead a debate during our investigation into the science and motives with the objective to reach a conclusion which represents as closely as possible the truth. This is the mission statement and its objective shall be that people can begin to take an interest into investigating the issues for themselves rather than being told what to think.

I will not accept any diversion from the topic, allegations or interpretations of what I said. I asked you to provide some links and unless you debate me on the facts or science, you remain a character assassin. If you continue to avoid this debate, you will also continue to expose yourself as somebody who shuns public debate. I am asking you to speak the truth and stop deceiving people by twisting, distorting and manipulating the perceptions of people.

Ben,

I ackowledge your request for evidece.  That is the correct approach with dealing with health claims- pin the personm down to the evidence.  I hope you will extend this to all people making health claims from now on.

Good.  Now we can ackowledge the an a prior requirment for evidence.  You asked for some on vaccination.  I would start with the following studies:

Kanai K. Japan's Experience in Pertussis Epidemiology and Vaccination in the Past Thirty Years Japan J Med Sci Biol 1980; 33: 107-43.

MMWR. Summary of Notifiable Diseases MMWR 1991 Vol 41 No 55. (where one can find the figures of measles incidence and death in the USA pre and post vaccination.  It shows a clear drop in both in the years immediately after immunization)

Garpenholt O. The Impact of Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccination in Sweden Scand J Infect Dis 1996; 28: 165-9.

Peltola H et al. The Elimination of Indigenous Measles, Mumps, and Rubella from Finland by a 12 Year, Two-Dose Vaccination Program. New Eng Med J 1994; 331: 1397-402

H Peltola et al. Mumps and rubella eliminated from Finland. JAMA 2000 284: 2643-2647.

Alho OP et al. Acute Epiglottitis and Infant Conjugate Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccination in Northern Finland. Arch Otolarng Head Neck Surgery 1995; 121: 898-902.

Patja et al. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow up. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 2000 19: 1127-1134.

Taylor et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999 353: 2026-2029.

Have a loook at those and we can discuss them.  No vaccine is 100% safe or effective, however.  When a vaccination programme is successful and widepsread, then of course problems associated with the vaccine become more of an issue than the diseases themselves, since the diseases become so rare.  However, avoiding vaccine problems by stopping vaccination leads to the return of the diseases (as we have seen recently and before) with far greater health problems resulting.  This is why vaccination is done.

I have no wish to slander anyone at all.  If I disagree with an oppinion I will voice that and explain why.  That is not some sort of strange mind control Ben, is called having an opinion.  You have yours, I have mine.  I don't think either of us are trying to bend control each others mind beyond discussion!  My criticism of Lynn Mactaggarts posts is that they portray the medical system in an oversimplified way and are often factually incorrect.  Either altenrative therapies work or they don't.  Some beleive they do, others are not convinced.  But pointing out the flaws in medical practise wont change whether they work or not.  It might however convince more people to try them, for example, the man who posted here asking for homepathic alternatives for tropical diseases for him and his family!

So I will ask you.  Why didn't a homepath speak out and say "we have no homeopathic alternatives for tropical disease vaccination"?  For malaria?  Can you provide references to studies which show this?

Have a look at those studies, tell me what you make of the evidence.  I endorse your call for evidence.  Its what I have been doing since i first posted here, asking for evidence.  One person has supplied some (Rachel).  Go on the discussion boards, look at some of the claims beind made and press them for evidence.  

Like I said before, I am not supporting pharma.  They have been guilty of distorting evidence, ommiting it, etc.  You really have to look deeply into the claims they make.  But equally, just because something isn't pharma does not automatically mean that it does any good.  You have to look carefully at that too.  Be impartial, ask for evidence across the baord.  

Harradine,

Could you please post the links of anything you refer to? People must be able to follow our conversation by looking at the same data. I equally will post the links I will use for my research.

Thanks

Ben,

I'm heading out of the country tomorrow and will have limited internet access until the 31st of December.  When I get back I will try to find links for the studies.  It might only be the abstracts for some if not all of them though, since they are publications in science journal which are alas, usually under copyright.  

I'll have a look until then have an wonderful Christmas.  To your good health.

Harradine,

Not acceptable. Links to the original texts of the studies are required.

The problem with abstracts is that they are usually heavily interpretated which is where many of the false claims about the outcome of studies arise. An interpretation is not evidence, it is a more or less biased opinion. If we cannot analyse the scientific source, you will appreciate that there is insufficient evidence.

Moreover, if a one year old baby who suffers from chronic sinusitis can be cured from it by just taking 4 doses of homeopathic drops and I can observe this to be the case as I did, I need no more evidence that homeopathy in this instance worked. You will appreciate that there is no placebo effect in a one year old baby because it cannot yet speak and does not have a concept of a medical remedy whatsoever.

I myself was cured from chronic migraines through homeopathy over a period of 6 weeks. Ever since, no more migraines. Placebo effect? Rubbish. Placebo would also have applied to the enormous amounts of Ibuprofen and Tylenol which did not only not help me other than very short term, it also made me feel lousy, especially Tylenol. Do I need more evidence than that? Do I need some scientist to tell me that homeopathy does not work when I have the opposite experience? What can I observe and experience is all the evidence I need because I actually can think and experience all by myself without somebody else telling me what to think or nullify my experience. Obvious, isn't it?

Would the same homeopathic products work for somebody else? I don't know. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Just as is with allopathy. This is why we go to a doctor and he/she will prescribe a product and if it does not work, he will prescribe a different one. If I do not subscribe to the idea of putting petrochemicals into my body, I will go and see a homeopath who will look at me, ask an enormous amount of questions and then will give me a homeopathic remedy. Will it always work? All I can say that it always helped me. My experience is evidence enough as far as I am concerned. If I then tell other people to go and try a honeopath for their ailments and illnesses after they have exhausted the petrochemcial lane and they come back feeling so much better, relieved and full of life and optimism again, I have more evidence because this is what I can observe.

It is not the alternative medicine like homeopathy who tries to destroy allopathy. It is allopathy constantly attacking alternative based medicine saying there is no evidence that it works which clearly contradicts my own personal experience and therefore,  claims that it does not work are clearly false. The evidence that their claims are false also lies in the fact that if alternative medicine would not work, nobody would be using it. Alternative practitioners do not even have the funds to advertise, cannot label their products with information about what they are good for and if they do get a law suite slapped on for malpractice. Despite all these restrictions alternative practitioners have to put up with, more and more people turn towards them because petrochemicals did not help them. Alternative medicine and practitioners can help them in the large majority of cases. So, do the helped ones need evidence from a scientist telling them that it did not help them? Do you see how redicioulus this is? This battle of allopathy versus alternative medicine is not to win over those who are already treated alternatively because that would be a lost cause. This battle is about preventing more and more people to try alternative based medicine. Attempts to outlaw it are constantly being lobbied for but this usually does not go down to well because it creates a real risk of revolution because millions of people in the UK use alternative therapies and are very satisfied. I find it amusing how allopathy tries to convince people that they are seing black when they are seeing white. You call it anectodal evidence because it is outside your realm of experience. Those who have been helped by alternative therapies call it rightly all the evidence they need. It is about people and their health not about some big companies telling us what we have to think.

Copyrights do not apply as long as you just provide the link and do not publish them yourselves. Otherwise, they would not be publicly available on the Internet.

Have a nice and insightful Christmas and I am looking forward to your links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7206322?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8792484?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7969278?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11086376?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7619418?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144371?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10376617?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I have provided links to the studies I cited.  These links should lead you to the pubmed abstract.  As I am sure you will know, some peer reviewed published research can be found freely available on the internet, but most is protected by copyright and cannot be directly linked to via the internet.  Its unfortunate that not all information is yet available on the internet free of charge (and small detail that costs universities and other establishments millions each year in subscription fees.  

I believe some of if you follow links from some of those references via pubmed to the journal ,several are freely available as pdfs.  Otherwise I’m afraid, just like everyone else you will either have to purchase the article or have access to a library which does.

I will have a look for some studied which are available freely.  That might make more sense since I don’t expect many people are really interested in paying for papers for the purposes of this discussion.  I am assuming you do not have access to an academic library but of course I may be wrong.

A one year old baby is cured of chronic sinusitis by 4 drops of homeopathic water.  Let’s look at this critically (as, you understand, one looks at all claims).  There are several possible explanations for this effect.  One is that homeopathy is an effective treatment for chronic sinusitis.  This would be a very important result, since homeopathy is known to be free from side effects, so if this is the case, a very valuable treatment.  But alternative explanations would need to be ruled out before this hypothesis could stand.  Another explanations is that, given that this was just one child, mere chance alone connected the treatment with the result.  As an analogy, we know that tossing a coin gives us a 50-50 chance of getting either heads or tails, but in reality, it takes more that just 2 tosses of a coin to see 1 head and one tails, for example.  The more times you toss the coin, the loser to 50-50 your result.  As it is here.

So, if I were a homeopath who had a possible treatment for this childhood illness, I would want some evidence to support this so I could convince medical practitioners, health authorities and parents that my treatment worked.  The best way to do this would be to test my hypothessis by controlled experiment, removing my own possible bias and ruling out any other explanations.  I would want to test the treatment or the method of treatment on as many children as possible.  I couyld do this by testing my homeopathc treatment blindly comparing it with ordinary water.  Of course, I would treat all children as normal, and direct make up the individual remedies as normal.  Then, some independent observes could randomly assign either my treatment or water, which I would give to the patient without knowing which was which.  If after doing this, children taking the active treatment recovered significantly more often that those given the control, I would be in a much stronger position to approach the medical community with my now tested theory.  However, if children recovered just as often in both control and treatment groups, I would realise that the results were not due to whatever was added to the water, but some other possibility which I would want to then identify and study further.

What I would not do is see one child recover after one treatment and conclude that all other possible explanations had been exhausted and ruled out despite no testing and it was valid for me to advice people with no medical training who trust what I say that the treatment is proven to work.  That I would consider to be premature and misleading, risking my own professional reputation, the reputation of my fellow practitioners and indeed the health of children who could otherwise seek treatment which had gone through the process of testing that I had not even attempted.

Worse still would be if for example, someone challenged me as to why I had not done more rigorous testing I argued that no further evidence was necessary, or indeed that testing could not be done.  That people should simply trust what I say.

And this is just for acute sinusitis.  This same logic it being applied to many illnesses.

I agree that is someone finds benefit from using homeopathy where other treatments have failed, then they should continue to use them.  Whatever works, use it and be glad that it does.  It certainly is not the intention of researchers to tell people what to think.  Just to provide evidence to the debate to allow people to make their own minds up.  If they conclude from personal experience that they should take one course of action, they it would be a stoic logistician indeed who would forge on with a course of treatment that wasn’t working simply because a GP tells them that when given to ten thousand people and that it should work because it did for them.

And likewise, your experience tells you that homeopathy works, so it would clearly appear nonsensical for someone to argue to you that it doesn’t.  I think that is at the heart of this debate.  What people feel to be real based on their own experience, vs what they are being told happens when “real research” is conducted.  Often these two can be so different that to some people, they loose faith with the process of research itself.  

You have explained the sort of evidence that you find conclusive and convincing, which is not unreasonably and to be realistic, the sort of evidence that most people will hold as being the best- personal experience.  What works for you and what has failed, what others have relayed to you via personal experience.  All I will say about that is that if pharmaceutical companies were ever allowed to use this standard of evidence alone (and make no mistake they never, ever should be), then the results would be truly catastrophic.  The system as it is now is far from perfect, but if anecdotal evidence suddenly became accepted across the board as the gold standard, then we truly would enter a terrible age and I for one would not trust any medicine.  

But if that sort of evidence really is good enough for you, then ask yourself why so many people have been vaccinated and are perfectly healthy, why so many people swear by the medicines they take, are alive because of them and would not wish to stop taking them?  As I say, anecdotal evidence does not convince me and I suspect it doesn’t convince you either.  I’m sure if there was very strong good experimental evidence to support homeopathy, then its proponents would be taking about that and relying less and less, if at all, on anecdotes.  There is every possibility that one day that may be the case, but we are still waiting for it.  But in the meantime, you will understand that statements like “my experience is good enough evidence” is a perfectly acceptable argument for how you have convinced yourself of something, but not how to convince anyone else.  Hundreds of millions of people could argue the exact same thing about conventional treatments, and you would not accept their experiences as any sort of evidence for the benefits of modern medicine, I assume?

Let me know if the links work.

H

Well here's some 'evidence' on conventional medicine for sinus infections seing as you chose to use it as an example.  Is this the sort of 'evidence' you want to see?

...................................................................................................................

The widespread use of standard antibiotics to treat sinus infections does not help cure patients and may harm them by increasing their resistance to the drugs, according to a study published Tuesday.

The researchers found that the percentage of patients who got well in 10 days was about the same whether they took an antibiotic or a placebo.

full article here: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-flasinus1205sbdec05,0,6412488.story

funded by the British Government no less.

In fact Google picked up quite a few reference to it: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=test+antibiotics+and+sinusitis+%2B+10+days&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

So 4 days for homeopathy would seem like a result to me :-)

I think it is about time your changed the record Harradine.  We are not out to try and convince others that our experiences with alternative remedies work.  We just post in the hope that it may help others.  We don't need any other form of evidence other than that which we have seen with our own eyes.

You insult our inteligence if you think that we are not capable of making up our own minds if something works for us or not.  I have tried the conventional route for the last 50 odd years, luckily nothing serious but boy how many misdiagnosis can one person take.  It is pure guesswork and if and when treated addresses the symptoms and not the underlying cause.  Give me holistic treatment every time.

I recently went to see a homeopathic doctor at the cost of £130 an hour (thank goodness the medical insurance picked up the bill :-0 )  He also happened to be my old GP and sadly left our surgery.  I have to say there was some degree of reassurance that he knew his way about the body but he thankfully didn't find the need to get his prescription book out.

Doctors are 'dealers' in white coats or worse a suit.  They have nothing else to offer but drugs which supress our immune system and some can cause organ damage if used long term.  I'm not comparing them to surgeons who please if I have an accident can put me back together again but once I am stable please send me home to lick my wounds and tend to my own needs.

As for vitamins being withdrawn I might have to invest in a juicer if this happens as I rattle with them, all tested by my kinesiologist of course ;-)

Hello Harradine,

Unfortunately, all the links only lead to abstracts which do not allow anybody to study the methodology on how the results were obtained. I certainly do not want to pay $70 for a study. If the complete information is not available in the public domain, I have to classify it as hearsay because I have no way of verifying the claims made in the abstracts. Equally, I also do not see it as justified to point towards critical articles because the original study cannot be accessed by the general public. As a result, the studies itself are irrelevant  as far as "real research" is concerned.

I do not believe that pharmaceutical companies who make up to 15000% of profits on some of their products are concerned with "real research". The notion that drug companies use a scientific approach is more than doubtful because I have been unable to find any proof although there are many claims. Claims are not proof. Anybody can claim anything.

You said: "All I will say about that is that if pharmaceutical companies were ever allowed to use this standard of evidence alone (and make no mistake they never, ever should be), then the results would be truly catastrophic."

And they are catastrophic. In the US alone, every year more than 300.000 people die from the side effects of chemical drugs.

Here a link of interest: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/21/2171

Fully referenced to full text studies and official websites.

You said: "then ask yourself why so many people have been vaccinated and are perfectly healthy, why so many people swear by the medicines they take, are alive because of them and would not wish to stop taking them?"

Where do you get your claim from that vaccinated people are perfectly healthy? There are over 1500 papers which link vaccination to any illness from heart disease, autism, cancer, altzheimers etc. as contributry factors. These are all delayed illnesses. They do not set in straight away. Often decades pass before they become apparent. All these illnesses have increased manifold over the past 50-60 years. So, how can anybody claim that we live in a day and age when people are healthy?

I personally don't know anybody who is happy with the chemical drugs they take. I know a lot of people who think that it might help them, but they all have stories along the lines of: "I feel lousy when I take this drug but if it keeps me alive..." These people trust their doctors who in turn do not have the slightest idea of what the drugs actually do or whether they are harmful. Every day, drug reps appear in doctors surgeries bringing in free lunches for all staff to talk about the benefits of new chemical drugs. The doctors have no time to review the alleged research, they prescribe the drug or sell it. That's it. Medical students get groomed by drug reps, pharmaceutical companies sponsor the medical sections at universities, students learn from a predefined set of medical books and publications which can all be traced back to pharmaceutical industries, in short, the pharmaceutical industry is big business and a cured customer is a lost customer.

What a surprise then when an allopath actually says: "You have an ear infection, don't worry, it will clear itself up. No need for antibiotics. Eat less and drink more fresh water without chlorine and it will be fine." Well, this lady came from india and trained in the US where she became a doctor. This was the only allopathic doctor I knew in my adult life who would not resort to prescribing chemical drugs.

One has to look at the underlaying principles of the whole system and not just pick out single aspects. All aspects together create the whole picture and the picture that chemical drugs and their manufacturers create is a horror story.

I believe a lot more in what people say to me about this or that remedy. "Anectodal evidence" can also be called "word by mouth" and I find it derrogatory to suggest that one could not trust what somebody recommends out from his or her own experience.

It all boils down to realising that one is responsible for ones own health. Contrary to the pharma cartel, I do not wish to convince anybody of any specific treatment. I, however, see it as important to make people aware of the fact that there are other therapies out there and that they should take a good hard look at their own situation . I also do not convince myself of anything. I observe and conclude.

You said: "Hundreds of millions of people could argue the exact same thing about conventional treatments, and you would not accept their experiences as any sort of evidence for the benefits of modern medicine, I assume?"

I would. If people said that this or that drug cured this or that problem for them, I would. The problem is that I do not know anybody who was cured from a chronic disease by "modern medicine". I know that surgeons are very important because they can put somebody back together after an accident. I see the value of modern medicine here. Out of my own experience and the experiences of everybody I know, the drug industry is a complete and utter failure when it comes to treating chronic diseases, cancer and AIDS.

What you have to understand is that for as long as there is no evidence that chemical drugs work better than natural remedies, people will go by their experience. We would not have this discussion if the medical cartel would not try to discredit, surpress and discredit working natural remedies at every opportunity. They want customers, and due to the nature of their business, their customers have to be sick. Are you seriously suggesting that they want people to become healthy?

Show me an alternative practitioner who has a big house and drives an expensive car. The ones I know struggle to keep up with their payments and despite that provide free treatements for people who cannot pay. Many accept a basket full of groceries as payment, a fuel card, an old computer donated by one of their patients etc. All of the ones I know always say that general health is in people's own hand.

One of the homeopaths I know once told me that the day when people can cure their own diseases, he can finally retrain as a lawyer, something he has wanted to do all his life.

You see, my personal experience. This is what counts. Give people the freedom of choice and stop brainwashing them away from their own experiences and the world will be rid of cancers like the pharma industry. The pharma industry will disappear the moment that enough people have been killed or disabled by their drugs. My experience is also that more and more people start using alternative treatements and actually get better. A silent revolution if you will. The awareness is rising and spreading and there is nothing the pharma industry and associated interests can do about and I tell you why: Once they have managed to kill or disable the majority of mankind, they will be left with all those who do not wish to be their customers.

I want to help to increase the amount of people who will survive this medical pharma holocaust by raising awareness. People have the choice. They can become aware and live or continue to sleep and die.

Ben

This debate fascinated me for many reasons.  Most of of the response of those who support homeoapthy when questioned about.

For weeks now I have seen the same thing over and over on this forum.  Rants about the pharmaceutical industry, how I must work for them, support their treatments, etc.  And again and again I have said that I don't trust a word they say and beleive they should be closely scritinized and regulated with a high standard of evidence demanded.

This seems to have been swept aside repeatedly.  It look very much to me that, in the absence of evidence other than "well, it works for me", then the immediate response when questioned is "Aha, you are phamaceutical companies!  You are all evil!"

As I've also said many times now, use whatever treatment works for you!  Of course, that makes sense.  But test how treatments work and if indeed they do when advising others to use them.

Few people ever go to an alternative practicioner when they become ill as first line treatment.  They almost always end up their when the medical prfoession has let them down and it does.

Homepaths are all struggling to make ends meat?  I doubt that the CEO of the company that puts homeopathic medicines on the shelves at Boots is having to do a paper round to cover the bills!

Again, what happens in the mind when someone questions what you beleive in, you falsely charaterise their entire point of view as "you support drug companies!"

I support and inherent requirement from ANYONE to provide good evidence of what they say helps people.  I don't care what it is you are selling.  Has it been tested and does it work.  Surely a committement to that principle would be accepted across the board?  Why not test things properly?  If drugs turn out to be useless and more harm than good, then ban them!  And if homeopathic remedies turn out to do nothing more than placebo, then so what!  People will then at least know that and still be perfectly free to use them if they fell like it.

It speaks volumes that in a debate about the merits of alternative medicine, we spend almost all of the time discussing the faults and wrongs of the pharmaceutical industry (which is fair enough), but hardly no time on for example, one homepathic treatment that has any actual effect, how we know this and what sort of mechanism this might use.  

This is what leads me to realise that a choice for alternatives is probably a choice NOT to use pharma, (or use it when pharma has failed).

I’m interested that people should believe that conventional medicines have no use, or have not helped anyone.  There really is a mountain of evidence to suggest that this is not the case.  Still, all drugs have side effects and obviously this is why people who are not ill should never take drugs that they don’t need!  

When any new drugs is being developed, the regulators perform a risk/benefit analysis.  Who is the drug for and will it help them (is it efficacious) vs what harm can the drug do?  In other words, is it worth having this drug available.  Most drugs in development never make it to the patient since the criteria to get them there are so strict.  There are examples of when this system has failed, such as Vioxx.  

I’ll give you an example of how complex a problem we are talking about- epilepsy medication.  Epilepsy is a very serious disorder indeed.  There are many types with varying degrees of severity, some easier to control with very few seizures and perhaps even one of two then no more.  For other people, this is a very serious disease with multiple daily seizures than can be very difficult to control and ruins their life.

Severe epilepsy can be treated using drugs.  Depending on the type of epilepsy, some drugs have been so effective at doing this that they are hailed as breakthroughs in the treatment of the disease.  I’ve posted a couple of links to the SANAD study, a non-pharma based study testing which drug is more effective for certain types of epilepsy.  This was conducted on drugs mostly long off patent by neurologists themselves as they wanted to know which drug was best to use.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/neuroscience/root/division%20of%20neurological%20science/research/sanad/index.htm

http://www.nelm.nhs.uk/Record%20Viewing/vR.aspx?id=578632

Neurologist who treat epilepsy all agree that without these drugs, there is very little they could say to the worst cases.  I don’t mean a couple of seizures a year.  I mean many a day.  There are theories that these disorders can be treatment using alternative methods, but so far none have been found to help people with really quite significant problems.

So they drugs are good and there are no alternatives.  But the side effects are terrible.  They make people put on weight, become more hairy, can affect liver function and might even affect babies in the womb.  So these are definitely far from what one would call ideal and far from being cures. (we even had one clown on this site advising people to buy phenytoin on the internet for all sorts of stupid ailments because they though it was “natural and benign”!!  Its an antiepileptic drug with very serious effects!!!- see why this site frustrates me?  Sends out dangerous advice.

So why use them?  No choice for many people.  If they have a choice which doesn’t have side effects, then use it.  But, nomatter how much we wish it to be so, or how much we believe it to be so, for many people drugs are their only option.  For now.

This is precisely why medical scientists including academics perform research.  Not just into new drugs, but into how the body functions normally (in this case the brain) and how this malfunctions in disease.  Understanding that better is the first step in developing new treatments, these could be drugs, but also could be many others things.  If a dietary change was found that would help these people, it would be advised to them (and some already are, lifestyle changes make drug companies zero revenue yet as among the most common of all first line therapies used).  

So these are complex problems involving real people’s lives, weighing up treatment options (where available) and research new one, not just drugs but including them.  To say that “no drugs have any use” would sound a bit daft to someone who needs them to live any sort of life.  Likewise telling them that the search for better more effective drugs with fewer side effect is over would seem very silly.

All this in a debate about alternatives.  From what I can gather on this site, people who support things like homeopathy have clearly had some bad experiences with the medical profession and some positive experiences of homeopathy.  To them homeopathy works where conventional science has failed.  Every conversation about the merits of homeopathy I have had so far includes a list of reasons why conventional medicine is no good.  I can’t think of any medical practitioner who explains their methods by outlining why they don’t use homeopathy!  

It seem bizarre to say that conventional medicine has no evidence that it works (which just shows you don’t read medical literature) as a means of proving that homeopathy does.  Some drugs work and some are crap.  Some are over prescribed and some are downright dangerous.  But what has this to do with homeopathy and whether or not it works?

Why does a call for homeopathy to be tested thoroughly not meet with welcome enthusiasm from its practitioners that finally their treatments can be vindicated properly for all to see?  If a treatment works, then tested it will only demonstrate this and shut critics up once and for all!

First I hear that all treatments are individualized.  Then that they are given to animals and sold off the shelf (so, how can they be individualised).  Then, homeopaths work from the goodness or their heart for no profit (so again, what about the manufacturers for expensive homeopathic treatment found in Boots?  Are they not-for profit family businesses?).  Then about how many people medicines kill, etc.  But only one person so far with any actual peer reviewed evidence that homeopathy isn’t just pure water.  Why?  Why not thousand of studies.  Its been around for long enough.

Lets find out of it works.  I remain open minded, but admit that the evidence so far says it probably doesn’t.

I agree with many of the criticism of the medical profession I've heard here.  In fact, even within the medical profession you will here many of the same criticisms being made repeatedly.

But some are over simplistic.  Its not true that no medicines whatsoever do any good and should always be avoided- some people really need them.

I'm happy to join in constructive crticism of the medical profession as long as it is evidence based and based firmly in reality.

But again, not one single criticism of any medical approach is evidence that homeopathy works.  Not one.  I can't say that some drug or other works because homeopathy is just water.  

If people find benefit from using homeopathy, then use it and be thankful that you do.  But its wrong to take responsibilty for people's health and not take on the responsibility of demonstrating that your treatments work.  Drug companies will twist data any way they can to get around regulators.  Any scientist (perhaps not ones who work for drug companies) will tell you this.  

But I this still doesn't mean homeopathy works.  Even if it were proven beyond all doubt that every single pahrmaceutical was a waste of time (which is clearly not the case), this would not mean than one single homepathic treatment actually did anything beyond placebo.

Harradine,

Homeopathy is one of the oldest froms of medicine. In the US, there were more than 1,200 homeopathic hospitals and almost 20,000 homeopathic practitioners before the AMA took over through an act of fraud generously sponsored by the Rockefellers. This by the way is all documented in the US library of congress in congress hearings before and after 1900. At that time, Congress was initially laughing at the AMA for trying to introduce "science" based medicine and congress said that they already had working treatements like homeopathy and chiropractic.

Then in 1910 came the fraudulent Flexner report and the rest is history. There were only 40 homeopathic hospitals left by 1940  due to government closing down most of them and with that the general health of the US population started its downhill spiral.

It is of uttmost importance to understand that the CEO and/or controlling shareholders of the top pharma companies were all involved with the active financing of the NAZI warmachine, were conducting barbaric medical experiments on concentration camp inmates and the after the war took all that knowledge to the US and Canada were many of the top german NAZI research scientists were absorbed into secret government projects to develop new viruses in illnesses. The Merck and Fort Detrick connection stands out here.

Pharma companies are filthy rich and the question is how that can be after such an apaling, murderous, treasonous and immoral history. Well, they sponsor governments all around the world and in return the governments sell their products in their hospitals, national healthcare systems or allow direct marketing. Students of medicine are surrounded by pharma reps as soon as they enter their second year of medical studies, donating to the students and universities books and study materials. Phrama companies are so invasive, so obsessed, so driven to push their products and procedures that it would be called stalking and harrassment if a single individual did that. Pharma companies are psycopaths and allopathic medicine has to be considered as a virulent cancer which thanks to millions of people waking up these days is in retreat.

I would not accept a bag of herb tea from a pharma company even if I had the chance to look over their shoulders from sowing to harvesting the tea.

I find it funny how you always ask for evidence that homeopathy works when in fact there is no evidence that pharma products work except antibiotics if given not too often. Evidence is what we directly experience. Anything else is hearsay unless we have a clear and precise way of verifying information and come to a distinct conclusion.