OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
can’t understand why I never saw it before.
3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
all-herbal product.
6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
harmful side-effects.
7) Smokers aren’t addicts, and therefore their views on the effects of
smoking are objective.
I feel as though I have seen the light on the road to Damascus.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Steph wrote:
> OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
> cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
> 1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
> carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
> cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
> no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
> respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
> are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
> healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
> those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
> smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
> human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
> facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
> 2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
> of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
> innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
> being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
> can’t understand why I never saw it before.
> 3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
> are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
> some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
> their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
> too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
> and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
> evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
> stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
> natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
> (understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
> 4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
> which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
> have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
> 5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
> never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
> enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
> all-herbal product.
> 6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
> whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
> harmful side-effects.
> 7) Smokers aren’t addicts, and therefore their views on the effects of
> smoking are objective.
> I feel as though I have seen the light on the road to Damascus.
Best chuckle I’ve had all week..
But seriously, you forgot the following:
claim that cigarettes cause cancer. This explains why they allow smoking to
continue and gladly take the taxes from it.
9) Doctors are well aware that smokers are at increased risk due to occupational
exposures but it’s all one big conspiracy to help corporations because doctors
get kickbacks from corporations.
10) Alcohol poses no risks to one’s health so let’s blame everything on smoking.
*tongue firmly planted in cheek*
Jean
BTW Isn’t smoking and drinking a risk factor in pancreatic cancer too? Bet most
smokers have no idea what a pancreas is and how deadly this cancer can be.
It should be pointed out that cigarette sales are a great source of tax moneys for
many states. Smoking induced shortenning of the life span would save the government
millions, since smokers won’t live long enough to collect their social security. If
our government was really as conspiracial as believed, it would release all this
information about the harmful effects of tobacco.
DISCLAIMER:
Please read the following disclaimer. Reading the entire message indicates
acceptance of the following:
Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions,
and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as
part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making
these comments; no professional fee has been
charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with
his/her personal physicians and to only act upon
the advice of his/her personal physician.
Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a
physician — patient relationship. Medical
recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in person) physical
examination and review of the patients
history.
As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of
confidentiality that may occur in responding to any
electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for
personal use, provided that appropriate credit is
given; but this material may not otherwise be reprinted or reproduced in any format
for any other purpose.
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P
http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/DrRoda.htm
In article <A58d4.1883$Fy3.108…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote sarcastically:
>OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
>cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
>1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
>carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
>cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
>no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
>respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
>are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
>healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
>those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
>smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
>human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
>facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
This assertion is patently false. As Steph knows.
>2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
>of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
>innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
>being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
>can’t understand why I never saw it before.
This assertion is a half-truth. Steph may or may not know this. The
regulatory bodies exist for a variety of reasons. In general they exist
because the complex machinery of Government set them up. That required
a certain momentum in Congress, or else an executive decision by someone
in the Executive Branch. The precise motivation and direction of the
agency then depended on appointments made by individuals. In all cases,
he actual motivation of and direction taken by the agency is influenced
by both overt statements of purpose and hidden agendas. The former typically
are guided by what will play well in Peoria and/or by sincere motives of
the sort that we’d like to think would always guide the use of our tax
dollars. The latter typically have more to do with campaign contributions
and perhaps other forms of bribery that would be less tolerated if made
public.
It DOES appear to many that some safe and effective treatments for cancer
are being blocked by the current system. But it’s not the grass-roots
working physicians who are primarily to blame.
Physicians and their cronies, as he calls them, generally work at a lower
level and are unaware of these goings-on except when they become aware of
apparently effective treatments that are not being allowed. Then they have
to make a choice: speak up and try to use unconventional techniques that
they feel deserve wider recognition, and risk the loss of their license,
or shut up and work within the "system". Many a practitioner has quietly
admitted as much. Ask around.
This is one of many reasons that the American public would be a lot better
off if we FORCED the crooks in Washington to stop taking bribes, whether
legalized or not. (Note: This sentence does NOT imply that everyone in
Washington is a crook. It is an assertion that applies to those who are.)
Let’s stop pussyfooting around calling the matter "campaign finance reform".
Let’s start calling it what it is, LEGALIZED OR TOLERATED BRIBERY.
And let’s stop tolerating it, and make it illegal from now on. Slowing
down progress in medicine is only one of the evils that this system
perpetuates.
>3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
>are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
>some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
>their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
>too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
>and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
>evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
>stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
>natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
>(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
This is patent nonsense. For openers, "all" of any group rarely follow
the same practices. The level of ethics and honesty obviously vary across
any group, unfortunately. Presumably this is intended as sarcasm, with
the goal of getting readers to mindlessly jump to the conclusion that the
exact opposite is true. It’s not. There are unethical profit-seekers
who masquerade as sincere practitioners of both types. And there are
genuinely sincere practitioners in both camps. As well as "complementary"
practitioners who draw on both conventional and unconventional medicine,
according to what they believe is best for the patient, based on all of
their knowledge and experience.
I should think we would all support the latter approach.
>4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
>which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
>have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
This may well be close to the truth, except that the "kinder, gentler"
alternatives would promote health generally instead of generating
secondary cancers. However, since the alternatives generally cost so much
less, and therefore have so much less profit potential, the present system
has not provided much funding for testing such assertions. Fortunately,
this is gradually changing, despite the efforts of the likes of Steph to
keep the brakes on. It’s changing because of the efforts of a small number
of people in Congress who have forced the creation of the National Center
for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) at NIH. People like
Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Guy Molinari, among others.
Anyone who genuinely wants to see more rapid progress in cancer treatment
should welcome this initiative, which puts funding in an area where the
profit motive won’t. But people like Steph tend to ridicule the NCCAM
instead. (After all, they study "unproven" medicine, which is somehow
ridiculous. He and others like him would prefer that we only study
"proven" medicine, so that no further progress will ever happen.)
>5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
>never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
>enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
>all-herbal product.
This is false, as Steph knows. But he’s treading on dangerous ground here.
A close examination of the ownership of those tobacco companies in the
spirit of "follow the money" may show a surprising commonality of interest
(financially speaking) of them with the pharmaceutical industry. That might
explain why, in the 1970s, executives of some of the tobacco companies
successfully dissuaded Liggett-Myers from introducing "low-carcinogen
tobacco". No kidding, this was written up in the Wall Street Journal a
few months back, in connection with the tobacco lawsuit. The ostensible
reason was that the industry did not DARE to admit that cigarettes caused
cancer. What was quite odd was that nobody figured out that they wouldn’t
HAVE TO admit anything, just quietly change the tobacco processing formula
and see a drop in cancer among their best customers.
So instead, they kept on producing cigarettes that were ten times more
carcinogenic than they KNEW HOW to make them. And anybody who made money
from the cancer industry profited from this decision. Anybody who smoked
ran a much higher risk of cancer as a result of it.
Follow the money. Follow it right into Washington, where it buys
Congressional votes and executive appointments. Which in turn have a
profound effect on things like the cost and quality of the health care
we are allowed to receive.
And next time you get a chance, vote for somebody who will finally make
"campaign finance reform" something more than an empty phrase.
>6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
>whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
>harmful side-effects.
There are of course some well-meaning people who misguidedly believe
something like assertion 6).
The truth is of course quite different, as every thinking person knows.
There are plenty of highly effective plant-based poisons and toxins.
What *IS* true is that herbal remedies that have been selected over time
by countless generations of "medicine men" are fairly likely to have a good
efficacy/toxicity ratio. There is at least a modest amount of wisdom in
"folk medicine", just as there is wisdom in what living organisms
voluntarily decide to eat. No panel of scientists ordained the latter,
either, at least for creatures in the wild. But what works gets handed
down. And in the case of herbal medicines, there are usually multiple
"active ingredients", despite the pharmaceutical companies’ penchant for
finding only one of them to bottle and sell. In the fullness of time,
we’ll probably understand why some of these things work better in the
"natural" form, e.g. by discovering the secondary molecules that block
side effects, etc.
There *IS* a certain wisdom in nature. And there are herbal remedies that
are both safe and effective. What is needed is more and better research
to quantify this. And high-quality, UNBIASED information made available
to the public, to guide their decisions.
>7) Smokers aren’t addicts, and therefore their views on the effects of
>smoking are objective.
This is a dumb non-sequitur. Addicts can have perfectly rational views,
but not be able to put them into practice very well, because after all
they are addicts. Like the rest of what Steph says here, this statement
is obviously
…
read more »
In article <38753A0C.5815F…@home.com>,
(Jean Wootton) <jwoot…@home.com> wrote:
>BTW Isn’t smoking and drinking a risk factor in pancreatic cancer too?
>Bet most smokers have no idea what a pancreas is and how deadly this
>cancer can be.
I bet most DECAFFEINATED COFFEE DRINKERS also don’t know that drinking
the chemically-decaffeinated kind is a risk factor in pancreatic cancer.
Or that even some very fashionable, high-end coffee specialty shops sell
mostly the chemically-decaffeinated variety. I won’t name names, because
I am fond of the well-known chain that is guilty of this. But if you are
concerned about your health, ASK before you drink decaf ANYWHERE. And
if the answer is "no, it’s not water-process decaf, it’s done chemically",
then let them know in no uncertain terms that you’d rather not get
pancreatic cancer!
If enough customers ask, maybe they’ll get the idea!
-John S.,
Wellesley Hills, MA USA
Apparently, somebody cross posted a message to alt.smokers, which has resulted
in continuing cross posting by the inhabitants of that news group to
sci.med.diseases.cancer. I only discovered this yesterday, when I opened a
header to cancel a duplicate post. I apologize for any inconvenience. I am sure
that the cross poster was not a pro-smoker, but rather, an anti-smoker.
None-the-less, this somewhat self righteous post needs an answer.
In article <A58d4.1883$Fy3.108…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>, "Steph" says…
>OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
>cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
>1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
>carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
>cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
>no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
>respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
>are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
>healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
>those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
>smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
>human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
>facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
Tobacco smoke is not ingested; it is inhaled. This is an important distinction.
In animal experiments, nobody has ever been able to induce lung cancer by
forcing an animal to inhale any amount of tobacco smoke, no matter how large the
concentration of smoke or duration of exposure. On the other hand, researchers
have recently had some success, inducing lung cancer or increasing the rate of
lung cancer in especially bred F344 rats, by putting nitrosamines in the
animals’ drinking water or forcing the substances down their throats ("gavage").
Benzo(a)pyrene, found in tobacco smoke, is not a carcinogen. However, when BAP
is ingested in burnt food, it is metabolized into by-products which *are*
carcinogens and find their way into the lungs in the bloodstream during
oxygenation. This should tell you something.
>2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
>of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
>innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
>being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
>can’t understand why I never saw it before.
As far as I am concerned, cancer treatment has advanced very little since the
early part of the 20th century, when President Cleveland was taken out into the
Atlantic Ocean on the Presidential yacht, so that surgeons could secretly and
successfully remove a cancerous tumor from his throat. It was possible then and
it’s possible today.
>3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
>are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
>some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
>their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
>too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
>and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
>evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
>stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
>natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
>(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
I happen to know an oncologist and have spoken to her about her work. She is
very sincere and dedicated but she would be the first to concede that, so far as
lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and liver cancer are concerned, she has little to
offer except palliation. As far as "alternative" treatments are concerned, I
don’t think they are any better than conventional treatments. If somebody is
diagnosed with any of the three types of cancer that I’ve mentioned, the best
treatment may well be no treatment.
>4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
>which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
>have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
50% is a little high, isn’t it? But the point still remains that these cancers
have been treatable with surgery and radiation since the early part of the 20th
century, and survival rate has improved very little since that time. Nobody is
saying, or at least I am not saying that "alternative" treatments can cure any
of these cancers. But conventional treatment can’t cure many of these cancers,
either; the best that can be done is to extend life a few months (as in
radiation for lung cancer) and relieve some of the symptoms.
>5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
>never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
>enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
>all-herbal product.
Years ago, tobacco companies made health claims for cigarettes (not a cough in a
carload). But that practice ended, long, long ago, when their lawyers told them
never to deny the dangers of smoking. That’s how they win lawsuits. If somebody
gets lung cancer and sues them, they want to be able to defend on the grounds
that the plaintiff was advised of the dangers and assumed the risk.
>6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
>whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
>harmful side-effects.
I assure you that we do’t believe that (at least I don’t). We wouldn’t eat
mushrooms, raised in "nature", unless they were harvested by an expert!
>7) Smokers aren’t addicts, and therefore their views on the effects of
>smoking are objective.
If smokers are "addicts" how is it possible that millions of them have given up
smoking since 1960, so that the rate of smoking has declined from nearly 70% to
about 22%?
>I feel as though I have seen the light on the road to Damascus.
Larry
http://www.lcolby.com
sphinx, this is one of the most kick-ass rebuttals i have ever seen to the
annoyingly pervasive sarcasm (i.e. their cynical idea of wit) of the anti-alt
crowd. i have left it intact to post it to the alt.folklore group (who may be
particularly interested in item #6–although your handling of the initial
poster’s "wit" throughout on all points is extraordinarily well done) so anyone
who is going to snip at me regarding not snipping dont bother.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
SPHINX Technologies wrote:
> In article <A58d4.1883$Fy3.108…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote sarcastically:
> >OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
> >cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
> >1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
> >carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
> >cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
> >no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
> >respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
> >are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
> >healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
> >those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
> >smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
> >human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
> >facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
> This assertion is patently false. As Steph knows.
> >2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
> >of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
> >innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
> >being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
> >can’t understand why I never saw it before.
> This assertion is a half-truth. Steph may or may not know this. The
> regulatory bodies exist for a variety of reasons. In general they exist
> because the complex machinery of Government set them up. That required
> a certain momentum in Congress, or else an executive decision by someone
> in the Executive Branch. The precise motivation and direction of the
> agency then depended on appointments made by individuals. In all cases,
> he actual motivation of and direction taken by the agency is influenced
> by both overt statements of purpose and hidden agendas. The former typically
> are guided by what will play well in Peoria and/or by sincere motives of
> the sort that we’d like to think would always guide the use of our tax
> dollars. The latter typically have more to do with campaign contributions
> and perhaps other forms of bribery that would be less tolerated if made
> public.
> It DOES appear to many that some safe and effective treatments for cancer
> are being blocked by the current system. But it’s not the grass-roots
> working physicians who are primarily to blame.
> Physicians and their cronies, as he calls them, generally work at a lower
> level and are unaware of these goings-on except when they become aware of
> apparently effective treatments that are not being allowed. Then they have
> to make a choice: speak up and try to use unconventional techniques that
> they feel deserve wider recognition, and risk the loss of their license,
> or shut up and work within the "system". Many a practitioner has quietly
> admitted as much. Ask around.
> This is one of many reasons that the American public would be a lot better
> off if we FORCED the crooks in Washington to stop taking bribes, whether
> legalized or not. (Note: This sentence does NOT imply that everyone in
> Washington is a crook. It is an assertion that applies to those who are.)
> Let’s stop pussyfooting around calling the matter "campaign finance reform".
> Let’s start calling it what it is, LEGALIZED OR TOLERATED BRIBERY.
> And let’s stop tolerating it, and make it illegal from now on. Slowing
> down progress in medicine is only one of the evils that this system
> perpetuates.
> >3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
> >are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
> >some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
> >their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
> >too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
> >and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
> >evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
> >stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
> >natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
> >(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
> This is patent nonsense. For openers, "all" of any group rarely follow
> the same practices. The level of ethics and honesty obviously vary across
> any group, unfortunately. Presumably this is intended as sarcasm, with
> the goal of getting readers to mindlessly jump to the conclusion that the
> exact opposite is true. It’s not. There are unethical profit-seekers
> who masquerade as sincere practitioners of both types. And there are
> genuinely sincere practitioners in both camps. As well as "complementary"
> practitioners who draw on both conventional and unconventional medicine,
> according to what they believe is best for the patient, based on all of
> their knowledge and experience.
> I should think we would all support the latter approach.
> >4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
> >which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
> >have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
> This may well be close to the truth, except that the "kinder, gentler"
> alternatives would promote health generally instead of generating
> secondary cancers. However, since the alternatives generally cost so much
> less, and therefore have so much less profit potential, the present system
> has not provided much funding for testing such assertions. Fortunately,
> this is gradually changing, despite the efforts of the likes of Steph to
> keep the brakes on. It’s changing because of the efforts of a small number
> of people in Congress who have forced the creation of the National Center
> for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) at NIH. People like
> Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Guy Molinari, among others.
> Anyone who genuinely wants to see more rapid progress in cancer treatment
> should welcome this initiative, which puts funding in an area where the
> profit motive won’t. But people like Steph tend to ridicule the NCCAM
> instead. (After all, they study "unproven" medicine, which is somehow
> ridiculous. He and others like him would prefer that we only study
> "proven" medicine, so that no further progress will ever happen.)
> >5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
> >never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
> >enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
> >all-herbal product.
> This is false, as Steph knows. But he’s treading on dangerous ground here.
> A close examination of the ownership of those tobacco companies in the
> spirit of "follow the money" may show a surprising commonality of interest
> (financially speaking) of them with the pharmaceutical industry. That might
> explain why, in the 1970s, executives of some of the tobacco companies
> successfully dissuaded Liggett-Myers from introducing "low-carcinogen
> tobacco". No kidding, this was written up in the Wall Street Journal a
> few months back, in connection with the tobacco lawsuit. The ostensible
> reason was that the industry did not DARE to admit that cigarettes caused
> cancer. What was quite odd was that nobody figured out that they wouldn’t
> HAVE TO admit anything, just quietly change the tobacco processing formula
> and see a drop in cancer among their best customers.
> So instead, they kept on producing cigarettes that were ten times more
> carcinogenic than they KNEW HOW to make them. And anybody who made money
> from the cancer industry profited from this decision. Anybody who smoked
> ran a much higher risk of cancer as a result of it.
> Follow the money. Follow it right into Washington, where it buys
> Congressional votes and executive appointments. Which in turn have a
> profound effect on things like the cost and quality of the health care
> we are allowed to receive.
> And next time you get a chance, vote for somebody who will finally make
> "campaign finance reform" something more than an empty phrase.
> >6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
> >whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
> >harmful side-effects.
> There are of course some well-meaning people who misguidedly believe
> something like assertion 6).
> The truth is of course quite different, as every thinking person knows.
> There are plenty of highly effective plant-based poisons and toxins.
> What *IS* true is that herbal remedies that have been selected over time
> by countless generations of "medicine men" are fairly likely to have a good
> efficacy/toxicity ratio. There is at least a modest amount of wisdom in
> "folk medicine", just as there is wisdom in what living organisms
> voluntarily decide to eat. No panel of scientists ordained the latter,
> either, at least for creatures in the wild. But what works gets handed
> down. And in the case of herbal medicines, there are usually multiple
> "active ingredients", despite the pharmaceutical companies’ penchant for
> finding only one of them to bottle and sell. In the
…
read more »
"SPHINX Technologies" <sph…@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Fnz6yA.M57@world.std.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <A58d4.1883$Fy3.108…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote sarcastically:
> >OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have
finally
> >cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
.
> >2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and
protection
> >of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
> >innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
> >being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so
obvious I
> >can’t understand why I never saw it before.
> This assertion is a half-truth. Steph may or may not know this. The
> regulatory bodies exist for a variety of reasons. In general they exist
> because the complex machinery of Government set them up. That required
> a certain momentum in Congress, or else an executive decision by someone
> in the Executive Branch. The precise motivation and direction of the
> agency then depended on appointments made by individuals. In all cases,
> he actual motivation of and direction taken by the agency is influenced
> by both overt statements of purpose and hidden agendas. The former
typically
> are guided by what will play well in Peoria and/or by sincere motives of
> the sort that we’d like to think would always guide the use of our tax
> dollars. The latter typically have more to do with campaign contributions
> and perhaps other forms of bribery that would be less tolerated if made
> public.
Fortunately, I don’t live or work in the good ol’ US of A, so your comments
are irrelevant.
> This is one of many reasons that the American public would be a lot better
> off if we FORCED the crooks in Washington to stop taking bribes, whether
> legalized or not. (Note: This sentence does NOT imply that everyone in
> Washington is a crook. It is an assertion that applies to those who are.)
Reas my comment above
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> >3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars
who
> >are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
> >some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects
of
> >their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
> >too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
> >and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
> >evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
> >stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
> >natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as
possible
> >(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
> This is patent nonsense. For openers, "all" of any group rarely follow
> the same practices. The level of ethics and honesty obviously vary across
> any group, unfortunately. Presumably this is intended as sarcasm,
Gosh I never thought it might sound like "sarcasm"!
> >4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
> >which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
> >have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
> This may well be close to the truth, except that the "kinder, gentler"
> alternatives would promote health generally instead of generating
> secondary cancers.
If they worked, which they don’t
> Anyone who genuinely wants to see more rapid progress in cancer treatment
> should welcome this initiative, which puts funding in an area where the
> profit motive won’t. But people like Steph tend to ridicule the NCCAM
> instead. (After all, they study "unproven" medicine, which is somehow
> ridiculous. He and others like him would prefer that we only study
> "proven" medicine, so that no further progress will ever happen.)
As I’ve stated here before, I am NOT ANTI-ALTERNATIVE medicine! I am a
member of the British Medical Acupuncture Society. My cancer Agency has it’s
own Centre for Complementary Health. I AM against scam-peddlars, uncritical
thinkers, and people who will not apply the same stringent criteria to
"alternatives" as they do to "conventional" medicine.
> >5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
> >never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
> >enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
> >all-herbal product.
> This is false, as Steph knows. But he’s treading on dangerous ground
here.
> A close examination of the ownership of those tobacco companies in the
> spirit of "follow the money" may show a surprising commonality of interest
> (financially speaking) of them with the pharmaceutical industry.
The tobacco companies market an addictive drug. They ARE pharmaceutical
companies.
> Follow the money. Follow it right into Washington, where it buys
> Congressional votes and executive appointments.
Though not in my country
> What *IS* true is that herbal remedies that have been selected over time
> by countless generations of "medicine men" are fairly likely to have a
good
> efficacy/toxicity ratio. There is at least a modest amount of wisdom in
> "folk medicine", just as there is wisdom in what living organisms
> voluntarily decide to eat.
I actually agree with this John. About 1/3rd of the drugs used by physicians
are Galenicals or derivatives thereof. These are your effective herbs. The
ineffective ones have been thrown out.
> >7) Smokers aren’t addicts, and therefore their views on the effects of
> >smoking are objective.
> This is a dumb non-sequitur. Addicts can have perfectly rational views,
We should certainly allow the herooin addicts to decide whether heroin
should be legalised.
> Like the rest of what Steph says here, this statement
> is obviously intended as sarcasm, not information.
Well, at least you got that
"k a & g" <kaa…@spamthis.mpinet.net> wrote in message
news:38762F43.EBD64BAC@spamthis.mpinet.net…
> sphinx, this is one of the most kick-ass rebuttals i have ever seen to the
> annoyingly pervasive sarcasm (i.e. their cynical idea of wit) of the
anti-alt
> crowd.
Some people are easy to please.
In article <38755DB2.2B3C4…@epix.net>,
"Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P." <paulr…@epix.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> It should be pointed out that cigarette sales are a great source of
tax moneys for
> many states. Smoking induced shortenning of the life span would save
the government
> millions, since smokers won’t live long enough to collect their social
security. If
> our government was really as conspiracial as believed, it would
release all this
> information about the harmful effects of tobacco.
> DISCLAIMER:
> Please read the following disclaimer. Reading the entire message
indicates
> acceptance of the following:
> Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice,
suggestions,
> and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as
> part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined
prior to making
> these comments; no professional fee has been
> charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these
comments with
> his/her personal physicians and to only act upon
> the advice of his/her personal physician.
> Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT
creating a
> physician — patient relationship. Medical
> recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in
person) physical
> examination and review of the patients
> history.
> As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any
breaches of
> confidentiality that may occur in responding to any
> electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be
reproduced for
> personal use, provided that appropriate credit is
> given; but this material may not otherwise be reprinted or reproduced
in any format
> for any other purpose.
> Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P
> http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/DrRoda.htm
Wow! what a disclaimer!
Haele
"Close captioned for the humor impaired…"
"…That’s right…come closer to see the captioning…"
"…Closer…"
<splat>
"…coconut cream…get’s ‘em every time."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
: >I feel as though I have seen the light on the road to Damascus.
Just before you were run over by that truck? ;^]
Kristofer Dale,
ragged individualist,
statistic at large…
In article <jerd4.2403$Fy3.138…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote:
>> >4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
>> >which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
>> >have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
>> This may well be close to the truth, except that the "kinder, gentler"
>> alternatives would promote health generally instead of generating
>> secondary cancers.
>If they worked, which they don’t
This is unsubstantiated opinion, if you really believe it. Since you
say below that you are actively involved with accupuncture, you presumably
are more open-minded and better informed than some.
My own opinion is that some of the dietary approaches to cancer therapy,
notably Gerson and Cone, with metabolic augmentation, DO have merit, and
seem to have an effect ranging from mildly beneficial to "miraculous
‘spontaneous’ remission", depending on as yet unquantified factors.
If I’m right, two things seem to follow:
(1) These methods should be intensively studied, starting as soon as
possible, to find out what all those factors are and how to optimize
the methods for each individual patient’s situation.
(2) These methods should be routinely used as an adjunct to whatever other
conventional treatments seem most appropriate (no need to treat it as
an either-or decision!).
I also find it interesting that the basic method behind most of these dietary
approaches is nothing more than taking today’s very mainstream "eat more
fresh fruits and veggies" advice and carrying it to what would be a ridiculous
extreme except for the fact that it has a funny way of producing those
‘spontaneous’ remissions in a lot of patients.
This is what the anecdotal evidence suggests happens. If anybody doubts it,
I think THEY should do the tests that disprove it before they try to talk
cancer patients OUT of trying these harmless, not-very-expensive ideas.
Given that mainstream medicine does not yet have any fully satisfactory
method of treating most cancers, I can’t see why anybody would resist the
idea of trying to harness the body’s own defenses and/or natural phytochemicals
that fight cancer in this way… UNLESS of course they are just defending
their turf and profits rather than seriously trying to help cancer patients.
>As I’ve stated here before, I am NOT ANTI-ALTERNATIVE medicine! I am a
>member of the British Medical Acupuncture Society. My cancer Agency has it’s
>own Centre for Complementary Health. I AM against scam-peddlars, uncritical
>thinkers, and people who will not apply the same stringent criteria to
>"alternatives" as they do to "conventional" medicine.
Fair enough. But you should also take into account the cost and risk of
a therapeutic method or alleged therapeutic method. I don’t think it is
"uncritical thinking" to say "what the heck, why not try it" if something
is safe, inexpensive, and widely asserted anecdotally to have helped a lot
of patients achieve better outcomes. I would emphatically NOT recommend
whimsical experiments with deadly drugs or even herbal products with known
potential for toxicity. Ordinary foods are a whole lot safer and more
appropriate for such experimentation, IMO.
>The tobacco companies market an addictive drug. They ARE pharmaceutical
>companies.
They have the effect of being FEEDER businesses to keep the medical
industry busy. My point was that maybe somebody should look into whether
this is just a COINCIDENCE or are there perhaps financial interests that
directly benefit from this coincidence and do so knowingly.
>> What *IS* true is that herbal remedies that have been selected over time
>> by countless generations of "medicine men" are fairly likely to have a
>> good efficacy/toxicity ratio. There is at least a modest amount of wisdom
>>in "folk medicine", just as there is wisdom in what living organisms
>> voluntarily decide to eat.
>I actually agree with this John. About 1/3rd of the drugs used by physicians
>are Galenicals or derivatives thereof. These are your effective herbs. The
>ineffective ones have been thrown out.
And that’s a good use of science, except that when a herbal product has
been found effective over centuries, my point is that we should not be so
quick to try to isolate ONE ‘active ingredient’ and throw out all the many
other molecules that are present in the herbal product. I suspect that
there have been cases in which that seemingly scientific process has led to
reduced effectiveness, e.g. eliminating moderating factors that perhaps
block unpleasant side effects of the "active ingredient". This comment
is motivated by accounts that I have read of natural substances that were
isolated and then found to be toxic, whereas the original herbal product
had a reputation for effectiveness and for not having bad side effects.
I’m also not at all against science in medicine. But science gets the
best results when it asks the right questions. Some of the problems we
have today (e.g. side effects from medications) are due to not having
asked all the right questions yet.
If we could get rid of all the scam artists of all stripes, and develop
mutual respect among who is left, I think we’d see a lot more progress.
Nobody has all of the answers. Nobody has all of the right questions.
But jointly, those interested in better health care have a lot of both.
-John S.
In article <FnzEsn…@news.online.de>, Thomas F. Unke <t…@iname.com> wrote:
>In <jerd4.2403$Fy3.138…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com> "Steph" wrote:
>It’s quite typical for the proponents of a conspiracy theory to believe
What’s a "conspiracy" ? I thought that word had been replaced by the
word "conspiracytheory", as a result of all the brainwash programming
of people like you. So I am really quite at a loss to understand
what you mean by a "conspiracy theory". You mean a "conspiracytheory
theory", or what?
I never can understand you guys who see "conspiracytheories" in everything
you read. ;^)
-John S.,
Wellesley Hills, MA USA
"SPHINX Technologies" <sph…@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Fo23Lv.J7@world.std.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <FnzEsn…@news.online.de>, Thomas F. Unke <t…@iname.com>
wrote:
> >In <jerd4.2403$Fy3.138…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com> "Steph" wrote:
> >It’s quite typical for the proponents of a conspiracy theory to believe
> What’s a "conspiracy" ? I thought that word had been replaced by the
> word "conspiracytheory", as a result of all the brainwash programming
> of people like you. So I am really quite at a loss to understand
> what you mean by a "conspiracy theory". You mean a "conspiracytheory
> theory", or what?
> I never can understand you guys who see "conspiracytheories" in everything
> you read. ;^)
> -John S.,
> Wellesley Hills, MA USA
Well, John, you know, I know, and I know that you know I know, that the
paranoia is very much in.the alternative camp.
I don’t want to get too far down the road of semantics with you, but there
is a difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory", you know.
One is fact, and one is a theory. Maybe a bit subtle for you? But both
concepts are perfectly valid grammatically and in no way mutually exclusive.
What’s your problem (on this issue)?
In article <dsXd4.2957$Fy3.200…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote:
>> What’s a "conspiracy" ? I thought that word had been replaced by the
>> word "conspiracytheory", as a result of all the brainwash programming
>> of people like you. So I am really quite at a loss to understand
>> what you mean by a "conspiracy theory". You mean a "conspiracytheory
>> theory", or what?
>> I never can understand you guys who see "conspiracytheories" in everything
>> you read. ;^)
>> -John S.,
>> Wellesley Hills, MA USA
>Well, John, you know, I know, and I know that you know I know, that the
>paranoia is very much in.the alternative camp.
Well, there’s a bit of paranoia also in the pharmaceutical industry.
They think people with kinder, gentler treatments for cancer… even
CURES for cancer, which they lack, are OUT TO GET THEM. You know,
undermine their accustomed PROFITS and stuff like the.
And they are RIGHT. It’s TIME. The word is getting out, in large part
because of the way people can now share information and compare notes,
with the Internet.
For example, I have been trying to publicize the growing body of evidence
indicating that maybe those people who have been saying that an all-grape
diet can cure cancer were onto something. And just in the past few days,
TWO people have posted corroborative statements. (Do a dejanews search
on "grape cure" or "Johanna Brandt" or "Fred Wortmann" if you missed the
postings.)
>I don’t want to get too far down the road of semantics with you, but there
>is a difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory", you know.
>One is fact, and one is a theory. Maybe a bit subtle for you? But both
>concepts are perfectly valid grammatically and in no way mutually exclusive.
>What’s your problem (on this issue)?
(Maybe *I* was a little too subtle for *HIM*!!! He didn’t get the sarcasm.)
My problem is that somebody out there appears to have PROGRAMMED the whole
U.S. population… even the whole WORLD population… to react immediately,
negatively, and almost viscerally, to the word "conspiracy" — immediately
going into a Pavlovian reaction that replaces it with the newer word
"conspiracytheory" and assuming that whoever was tagged with being a
"conspiracytheorist" is irrational and stupid. It’s an amazing bit of
conditioning! All one has to do, now that the programming has been
accomplished, is to mutter the word "conspiracy" or the word "conspiracytheory"
in context with any statement that is getting too close to the truth, and
presto!, the whistleblower is instantly discredited! It’s BRILLIANT!
And even you yourself have fallen right into it and don’t even know you’ve
been conditioned!
For example, I didn’t even MENTION the word "conspiracy" in my discussion
of how campaign contributions can get things done that are in the interests
of the pharmaceutical companies and contrary to the interests of the
public. YOU mentioned it. It’s probably applicable, but it’s totally
superfluous. The mechanism is well understood. It’s admitted to! There
is so little doubt that this kind of thing goes on that it’s even a subject
of discussion in political campaign debates. At least one candidate is
making it the CENTERPIECE of his campaign. Yet when I bring it up,
someone inevitably drags in the word "conspiracy", in the vain hope that
they will trigger the Pavlovian reaction in people and thus deflect
serious attention away from what I am saying.
And the AMA remains one of the BIGGEST PAC money contributors of all.
Just what ‘favors’ are they BUYING with all that money? Or are we to
believe it’s all just altruism? :^)
-John S.
"SPHINX Technologies" <sph…@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Fo2t0K.Bsz@world.std.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <dsXd4.2957$Fy3.200…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> For example, I didn’t even MENTION the word "conspiracy" in my discussion
> of how campaign contributions can get things done that are in the
interests
> of the pharmaceutical companies and contrary to the interests of the
> public. YOU mentioned it. It’s probably applicable, but it’s totally
> superfluous. The mechanism is well understood. It’s admitted to! There
> is so little doubt that this kind of thing goes on that it’s even a
subject
> of discussion in political campaign debates. At least one candidate is
> making it the CENTERPIECE of his campaign. Yet when I bring it up,
> someone inevitably drags in the word "conspiracy", in the vain hope that
> they will trigger the Pavlovian reaction in people and thus deflect
> serious attention away from what I am saying.
So you’re saying that although you admit that it’s "probably applicable",
you don’t like it pointed out?
And don’t bring up all that grape juice nonsense again, John. It comes up
every 3 months from you, someone looks up the "references" (such as they
are) and reports back that it is baseless nonsense. Then you go quiet for a
bit and bring it up again 3 months later.
In article <38755DB2.2B3C4…@epix.net>,
"Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P." <paulr…@epix.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> It should be pointed out that cigarette sales are a great source of
tax moneys for
> many states. Smoking induced shortenning of the life span would save
the government
> millions, since smokers won’t live long enough to collect their
social security. If
> our government was really as conspiracial as believed, it would
release all this
> information about the harmful effects of tobacco.
> DISCLAIMER:
> Please read the following disclaimer. Reading the entire message
indicates
> acceptance of the following:
> Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice,
suggestions,
> and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as
> part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined
prior to making
> these comments; no professional fee has been
> charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these
comments with
> his/her personal physicians and to only act upon
> the advice of his/her personal physician.
> Note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT
creating a
> physician — patient relationship. Medical
> recommendations & advise can only be generated after a complete (in
person) physical
> examination and review of the patients
> history.
> As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any
breaches of
> confidentiality that may occur in responding to any
> electronic question. Finally, the material produced by myself may be
reproduced for
> personal use, provided that appropriate credit is
> given; but this material may not otherwise be reprinted or reproduced
in any format
> for any other purpose.
> Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P
> http://www.DoctorsOffice.org/DrRoda.htm
Dr.Roda,
Just how much are the premiums for malpractice insurance? If we all
took the responsibility for our actions and what we say I suppose we
would all be slaves to the government or the insurance agency, heck,
what’s the difference anyway?
No disclaimer submitted….
Sue me!
Sincerely,
The Resurrected Hero
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
If it takes a constitutional convention to get around the current
congress then so be it. We need one primary alteration to the
constitution and I believe it would fix about 80% of the problem: Let
us outlaw the use of paid political advertisements on television and
radio. This will effectively eliminate the power of money in the
electoral process. It will encourage debate and bring issues to the
fore among candidates who wish to have broad exposure. And it will
insulate those candidates from blitzkrieg commercials launched by
moneyed opponents. The hope of an enlightened electorate returns when
political hopefuls actually debated real issues in a public forum. This
will only happen if and when we take the marketing tools away. And may
the best man win.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
SPHINX Technologies wrote:
> In article <A58d4.1883$Fy3.108…@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> Steph <St…@vancouver.island> wrote sarcastically:
> >OK, guys, Marky, William, Kyotee, Eidem, Larry and the others have finally
> >cracked my resolve, and I’ve decided to come clean.
> >1) Smoking isn’t at all harmful. All claims by oncologists that smoking
> >carries an increased risk of lung cancer, cancer of the head and neck, and
> >cancer of the bladder and cervix are simply self-serving hearsay, based on
> >no evidence whatsoever. All claims by internists that smoking causes chronic
> >respiratory disease, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease
> >are just rumours spread by physicians to scare people. In fact smoking is a
> >healthy thing to do, and prevents many diseases, and gives great pleasure to
> >those in the immediate vicinity. I know someone who is eighty years old, has
> >smaked for sixty years, and is as fit as a fiddle, so I know it’s true. The
> >human respiratory system clearly eveolved into its present form in order to
> >facilitate the ingestion of tobacco smoke.
> This assertion is patently false. As Steph knows.
> >2) All regulatory bodies are there solely for the benefit of, and protection
> >of the interests of, physicians and pharmaceutical companies. There are
> >innumerable safe, effective cancer treatments out there which are simply
> >being blocked by the physicians and their cronies. The truth is so obvious I
> >can’t understand why I never saw it before.
> This assertion is a half-truth. Steph may or may not know this. The
> regulatory bodies exist for a variety of reasons. In general they exist
> because the complex machinery of Government set them up. That required
> a certain momentum in Congress, or else an executive decision by someone
> in the Executive Branch. The precise motivation and direction of the
> agency then depended on appointments made by individuals. In all cases,
> he actual motivation of and direction taken by the agency is influenced
> by both overt statements of purpose and hidden agendas. The former typically
> are guided by what will play well in Peoria and/or by sincere motives of
> the sort that we’d like to think would always guide the use of our tax
> dollars. The latter typically have more to do with campaign contributions
> and perhaps other forms of bribery that would be less tolerated if made
> public.
> It DOES appear to many that some safe and effective treatments for cancer
> are being blocked by the current system. But it’s not the grass-roots
> working physicians who are primarily to blame.
> Physicians and their cronies, as he calls them, generally work at a lower
> level and are unaware of these goings-on except when they become aware of
> apparently effective treatments that are not being allowed. Then they have
> to make a choice: speak up and try to use unconventional techniques that
> they feel deserve wider recognition, and risk the loss of their license,
> or shut up and work within the "system". Many a practitioner has quietly
> admitted as much. Ask around.
> This is one of many reasons that the American public would be a lot better
> off if we FORCED the crooks in Washington to stop taking bribes, whether
> legalized or not. (Note: This sentence does NOT imply that everyone in
> Washington is a crook. It is an assertion that applies to those who are.)
> Let’s stop pussyfooting around calling the matter "campaign finance reform".
> Let’s start calling it what it is, LEGALIZED OR TOLERATED BRIBERY.
> And let’s stop tolerating it, and make it illegal from now on. Slowing
> down progress in medicine is only one of the evils that this system
> perpetuates.
> >3) All conventional oncologists are uncaring, cynical, unethical liars who
> >are just interested in extracting money from people with cancer, although
> >some of them also enjoy the spectacle of patients suffering side effects of
> >their barbaric treatments. It’s possible that they are all closet "Nazis"
> >too. All "alternative" therapists, however, are caring, empathic, ethical
> >and honest and are motivated by nothing other than the absolute
> >evidence-based certainty that their natural, clean products can cure any
> >stage of any cancer without any side-effects, and not surprisingly, their
> >natural inbuilt altruism motivates them to help as many people as possible
> >(understandably though, they have to recover their costs).
> This is patent nonsense. For openers, "all" of any group rarely follow
> the same practices. The level of ethics and honesty obviously vary across
> any group, unfortunately. Presumably this is intended as sarcasm, with
> the goal of getting readers to mindlessly jump to the conclusion that the
> exact opposite is true. It’s not. There are unethical profit-seekers
> who masquerade as sincere practitioners of both types. And there are
> genuinely sincere practitioners in both camps. As well as "complementary"
> practitioners who draw on both conventional and unconventional medicine,
> according to what they believe is best for the patient, based on all of
> their knowledge and experience.
> I should think we would all support the latter approach.
> >4) The 97% of non-melanoma skin cancers, and the 50% of all other cancers
> >which are cured by "conventional" slash, burn and poison medicine, would
> >have been cured by the "alternatives" (as would the other 3% and 50%.)
> This may well be close to the truth, except that the "kinder, gentler"
> alternatives would promote health generally instead of generating
> secondary cancers. However, since the alternatives generally cost so much
> less, and therefore have so much less profit potential, the present system
> has not provided much funding for testing such assertions. Fortunately,
> this is gradually changing, despite the efforts of the likes of Steph to
> keep the brakes on. It’s changing because of the efforts of a small number
> of people in Congress who have forced the creation of the National Center
> for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) at NIH. People like
> Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Guy Molinari, among others.
> Anyone who genuinely wants to see more rapid progress in cancer treatment
> should welcome this initiative, which puts funding in an area where the
> profit motive won’t. But people like Steph tend to ridicule the NCCAM
> instead. (After all, they study "unproven" medicine, which is somehow
> ridiculous. He and others like him would prefer that we only study
> "proven" medicine, so that no further progress will ever happen.)
> >5) The tobacco companies have no vested interest in people smoking, have
> >never lied, do not make excessive profits, and are only in business to
> >enrich people’s lives and make them healthier by promoting their natural,
> >all-herbal product.
> This is false, as Steph knows. But he’s treading on dangerous ground here.
> A close examination of the ownership of those tobacco companies in the
> spirit of "follow the money" may show a surprising commonality of interest
> (financially speaking) of them with the pharmaceutical industry. That might
> explain why, in the 1970s, executives of some of the tobacco companies
> successfully dissuaded Liggett-Myers from introducing "low-carcinogen
> tobacco". No kidding, this was written up in the Wall Street Journal a
> few months back, in connection with the tobacco lawsuit. The ostensible
> reason was that the industry did not DARE to admit that cigarettes caused
> cancer. What was quite odd was that nobody figured out that they wouldn’t
> HAVE TO admit anything, just quietly change the tobacco processing formula
> and see a drop in cancer among their best customers.
> So instead, they kept on producing cigarettes that were ten times more
> carcinogenic than they KNEW HOW to make them. And anybody who made money
> from the cancer industry profited from this decision. Anybody who smoked
> ran a much higher risk of cancer as a result of it.
> Follow the money. Follow it right into Washington, where it buys
> Congressional votes and executive appointments. Which in turn have a
> profound effect on things like the cost and quality of the health care
> we are allowed to receive.
> And next time you get a chance, vote for somebody who will finally make
> "campaign finance reform" something more than an empty phrase.
> >6) Chemicals made in a laboratory are by definition ineffective and harmful,
> >whereas chemicals made by plants are by definition effective and have no
> >harmful side-effects.
> There are of course some well-meaning people who misguidedly believe
> something like assertion 6).
> The truth is of course quite different, as every thinking person knows.
> There are plenty of highly effective plant-based poisons and toxins.
> What *IS* true is that herbal remedies that have been selected over time
> by countless generations of "medicine men" are fairly likely to have a good
> efficacy/toxicity ratio. There is at least a modest amount of wisdom in
> "folk medicine", just as there is wisdom in what living organisms
…
read more »
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:17:50 GMT, "Mr. Coburn"
<michael.l.cob…@gte.net> wrote:
>If it takes a constitutional convention to get around the current
>congress then so be it. We need one primary alteration to the
>constitution and I believe it would fix about 80% of the problem: Let
>us outlaw the use of paid political advertisements on television and
>radio. This will effectively eliminate the power of money in the
>electoral process. It will encourage debate and bring issues to the
>fore among candidates who wish to have broad exposure. And it will
>insulate those candidates from blitzkrieg commercials launched by
>moneyed opponents. The hope of an enlightened electorate returns when
>political hopefuls actually debated real issues in a public forum. This
>will only happen if and when we take the marketing tools away. And may
>the best man win.
and how exactly do you plan to do this in your constitutional
convention?? repeal the first ammendment??
because that is what a law that outlaws radio and tv ads would violate
again this is a case where more laws are not necessary, but
enforcing the ones that are there, make corruption by a public
official treason, and punishable as such (hanging, or a lethal
alternative, for those of you that don’t know) and you would probably
see a very marked change in the willingness of officials to accept
"under the table" money.
also, if you want to make a GOOD change in american democracy then
let’s get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, this institution is a gross
corruption of the democratic process. No one should EVER rise to the
highest office in this land without at least 50% +1 of the popular
vote. the last 2 elections have been less than 50% and in this day and
(electronic) age there is absolutely NO reason for that.
if you’re 20 and not a liberal you have no heart…
if you’re 40 and not a conservative you have no brain…
attributed to Winston Churchill
I don’t think we need discussions about the American Constitution on
sci.med.diseases.cancer
<m…@maxx.net> wrote in message
news:n07gbs8eo19fr89mbq1vfhts6pclfn94ql@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:17:50 GMT, "Mr. Coburn"
> <michael.l.cob…@gte.net> wrote:
> >If it takes a constitutional convention to get around the current
> >congress then so be it. We need one primary alteration to the
> >constitution and I believe it would fix about 80% of the problem: Let
> >us outlaw the use of paid political advertisements on television and
> >radio. This will effectively eliminate the power of money in the
> >electoral process. It will encourage debate and bring issues to the
> >fore among candidates who wish to have broad exposure. And it will
> >insulate those candidates from blitzkrieg commercials launched by
> >moneyed opponents. The hope of an enlightened electorate returns when
> >political hopefuls actually debated real issues in a public forum. This
> >will only happen if and when we take the marketing tools away. And may
> >the best man win.
> and how exactly do you plan to do this in your constitutional
> convention?? repeal the first ammendment??
> because that is what a law that outlaws radio and tv ads would violate
> again this is a case where more laws are not necessary, but
> enforcing the ones that are there, make corruption by a public
> official treason, and punishable as such (hanging, or a lethal
> alternative, for those of you that don’t know) and you would probably
> see a very marked change in the willingness of officials to accept
> "under the table" money.
> also, if you want to make a GOOD change in american democracy then
> let’s get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, this institution is a gross
> corruption of the democratic process. No one should EVER rise to the
> highest office in this land without at least 50% +1 of the popular
> vote. the last 2 elections have been less than 50% and in this day and
> (electronic) age there is absolutely NO reason for that.
> if you’re 20 and not a liberal you have no heart…
> if you’re 40 and not a conservative you have no brain…
> attributed to Winston Churchill