The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Here's the story:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44568447.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUHDYaGEP7eyckcUr

Basically, a minor needs chemo, but the parents are ignoring the doctors' advice, because it's against their religion.


As all of you know, I'm no fan of religion, but I'm kind of torn on this -- only because it might set a strange precedent.  I don't like the government getting involved in how you choose to take care of your kids, and I think it's important to protect religious personal freedoms.

At the end of the day, the way I see it is that religion is conflicting with another law: child abuse.  It would be like if you had a religious belief that it was okay to beat your kids.  I wouldn't be cool with that.  I think that denying the best available medical attention is negligence, and the state has the right to interfere.  If an adult made this personal choice, I'd have no problem with it, but when they're choosing on behalf of a kid, I just can't jive with that.

If the kid dies, I think the parents are liable.

That said, this seems pretty clear cut -- chemo = good.  Death = bad.  But what about other medical cases that might not be so cut and dry?  Does it set a dangerous precedent that the state has the right to choose medicines or treatments on the behalf of your kids?

Agreed.

Situations like this come up every couple years.  Tragic. 

At the end of the day the any state has the authority to step in and over rule a parental decision in regards to medical treatment if they feel the child's life is in jeopardy. 

Minors are considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care. Parents or guardians are charged with those decisions on their behalf. This is not absolute - when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child a state / will / does intervene.

Dammit...hit "save" before I was ready.  Had this situation been a critical "snap decision, he'll die NOW without this" one...he would have had the treatment by now.  His form of cancer is one where they have a little time where this can be in the court.

I seem to remember something about a kid trying to get some kind of treatment against his parent's wishes.  Maybe it was a tv show.  I can't remember the details. I'm old.

I was just going to post about this.  It is happening quite close to me, so we've heard quite a bit about it, but I am not sure how I feel.

In Wisconsin last  year, an 11 year old girl died from complications from untreated diabetes where the family chose to rely on prayer instead of treating her, and they have been charged with second degree reckless homicide. 

Here I go getting into political/religion threads...

I have a problem with this.

Since when is it the state's/government's responsibility to protect people from medical conditions?  I can see charging the parents with homicide if they caused the kid to get sick and then refused to treat him.  In my opinion, if the family decides not to treat the kid (be it because they're poor and can't afford treatment, or because their religion says its evil and the kid will go to hell for eternity), and the kid dies, the only one affected is the kid's family, and they chose their own fate.

Call me a heartless jerk - fine.  Personal beliefs and preferences should overrule that of all the un-involved people surrounding the situation, like us.  I would be pissed if a bunch of strangers came in and told me how to run my personal life, how is this any different?

I tend to agree with Brian on this one. Just like I don't want government telling me what I cannot put in my body, I don't want them telling me what I have to either.

I did a little research on this. There is already some precedent for a case like this.

In 1995, in a case called Lundman v. McKown, the natural father of a child who'd died while in the "care" of a Christian Science faith healing practitioner sued said practitioner, the child's natural mother (they were divorced), and the Christian Science church. The child had early onset diabetes, and any traditional medical practitioner would've treated him with insulin. Instead, he was treated with prayer.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals made a couple of interesting and pertinent observations in its decision:

The constitutional right to the free exercise of religion does not extend to conduct that threatens a child's life.

A civil claim against a person whose religious faith embraces spiritual healing is not barred because it is that faith that causes the person to fail to act in accord with state's interest in child welfare.

When a person acts on a genuinely held religious belief in spiritual healing, the standard of care is that of a reasonable person acting on that same belief. But that standard of care requires that the religious belief yield to the state's interest in protecting the welfare of children suffering from life-threatening diseases.

[end quote]

From what I can tell in Lundman, it appears as though a person who has a "special relationship" with a child (like the parents, or people who practice any kind of medicine on the child) have a duty of care to act in the child's best interests. If they have a religious belief that states that the child may not receive some sort of medical treatment, then they need to act as a reasonable person who had that religious belief would act, with one caveat: they have to disregard that religious belief if it would stop them from protecting a child's welfare when said child is suffering from a life-threatening disease. If they don't do this, then they can be civilly liable if someone files a claim against them. Furthermore, and probably more damning to the instant case, the Court of Appeals was very plain in stating that you don't have the freedom to exercise your religion to the point where it'd threaten a child's life.

With this kind of precedent in place, it'll be an uphill battle for these parents. That said, the child has filed his own brief, and stated his own personal opposition to the treatment. This is not merely a set of parents defying what is convention wisdom. So, I would wonder whether or not the state can force treatment on someone who himself objects to treatment. Obviously, the boy is a minor, but because he himself opposes the treatment, this case will be, in my estimation, much thornier than was Lundman.

This current case is the battle of one distinct right and one amorphous right vs. one very compelling state interest. On the one hand, you have the right to die/self-determination in medical choice (which is not yet federally constitutionally recognized, but who knows, this may be the case for it) and the right to free exercise of religion vs. the state's interest in protecting the best interests (and continued life) of the child. I'd hate to be the judge that got assigned this one.

Summaries and discussions on Lundman:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3999

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C9710%5C237&invol=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12041170

It's different because you're a consenting adult, and legally allowed to make decisions about your health care, even if they're the wrong ones.

A child is not legally (or otherwise) fit to make those decisions, so they rely on the parents.  When parents are doing (or not doing) something detrimental to a kid's life, it's against the law.  As a parent, you're legally obligated to care for your child.  If you don't, it's child abuse.  You see kids taken away from parents all the time for endangering their safety.  I think we can all agree on that.  This is just an extension of that same logic.

(http://www.jetnation.com/forums/images/smilies/Just%20Joined.gif)

Who's to says chemo is the best available treatment?   The people that provide it?  Cancer is a big time money maker. 

Alternative medicine have a success rate also, without killing your body in the process at a much lesser cost.  Ever heard of the Ph factor?

Friend of mine had breast cancer 4 Yrs ago.  They wanted her to take chemo after the surgery.  Her cancer was bad enough that when they found it the surgery followed only a Wk later.  She refused the chemo, since she felt it would most likely kill her.  They did surgery & she educated herself on alternative treatments & 4 Yrs later there is still a clean bill of health.   

Had another friend that passed away from cancer. Doctors gave him 6 months to live in '90 & basically sent him home to die since his body was in such bad shape from the damage the cancer had done..  He survived 10 Yrs before finally succumbing with alternative treatments.  His cancer actually disappeared for several Yrs.  He only died because he convinced himself it was not cancer that was causing his new problems.

Also, in Va back in '06 there was a case just like this one where a 16 Yr old had Hodgkin's.  He had previously tried the best available medical attention to no avail.  Doctors want him to take another round of chemo & he refused since it was so bad on him.  The Gov stepped in & threatened to take him away from his family because his parents were not going to force him to do it.

It went to court & they finally agreed to allow him to take the alternative medicines with doctors watching over him.  He will turn 19 next month.

Judge lifts order for cancer treatment (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51232)

Starchild Abraham Cherrix turns 18 (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/starchild_abraham_cherrix_turns_18.php)


So if the Gov forces them to take chemo & the kid dies, is the Gov liable?

  The precedent is already set.  The Gov can just about do anything they want to, because they know what is best for us.  We are simply dumb ignorant mice who are to stupid to make decisions for our self. If it wasn't for the Gov we would be lucky to be able to breath on our own.

Again, why are you so narrow minded into thinking only chemo will cure?  Chemo is one of the hardest things to go through & it basically poisons the body.

Its amazing how the age of being able to make a decision for yourself changes depending on the situation.

The medical community.

There is no such thing as alternative medicine.  Alternative medicine that works is just called "medicine."

But seriously man, you don't have to jump down my throat.  I was just raising some questions and giving my opinion.

A certain amount of people will die from cancer with full treatment, and a certain amount of people will survive with no treatment.  But the success rate of chemo is astronomically higher than that of not having it.  You have to play the numbers.

So basically the people making the money off of it.

Kinda like the tobacco companies telling everyone back in the day that smoking would not hurt you, even though they had the knowledge that it was.

  We disagree here.  Alternative medicine is consider something other than what the Gov says is the approved measure.   This is why the money machines will only recognize conventional medicine as the only way to treat aliments.

You have to remember the medical community has lobbyist also to go along with some big pockets.  Why do you think Pharmaceuticals have exploded in Profit & cost since the Gov has allowed them to be advertised.

  Was not meaning to sound like I was jumping down your throat.  My apology if it came off that way.

  Having it against doing nothing I'm sure it is.   I'd like to be able to find the actual numbers for chemo & alternative. 

No, I reject this oversimplification as conspiracy theory babbling.  I refuse to believe that an entire graduate school system, industry, and community of scholars, scientists and doctors are covering up the truth to make a buck.  Science requires peer review -- something that tobacco companies did not.  I have no doubt that certain pharmaceutical companies will unethically push a drug, but chemo is a whole different story.


You wouldn't be happy to see the alternative medicine numbers, because they would be ineffective or placebo.  Again, it's about peer review.  When these things are tested in scientific conditions, with a control, they don't work.  ...that's why they're not medicine.  If it works, it's medicine.  If it doesn't work, the results that are claimed can't be duplicated by a non-biased 3rd party, and it enters the market as "alternative medicine" that's a bunch of hocus pocus garbage.  It works for some, because of the placebo effect.  You could make patients eat pencil erasers and a certain percentage of them would miraculously go into remission.

You always hear about "I saw a study that suggested [whatever bogus claim]".  And that's fine.  But science doesn't end there.  You have to be rigorous and attempt to continue eliminating variables to disprove.  Therefore, preliminary studies are very lax, and suggest things that may not be causal.  The problem with alternative medicine is that the studies stop there, because they've been disproved at a further level.  It's bad science.

By the way, the 2nd link you posted doesn't support your position.  It supports mine.  It claims that his reduction in cancer is most likely linked to radiation treatment, not the alternative medicine that he sought in Mexico.

   You have that right to reject.  I'm not saying chemo is all bad.  If found late chemo may be the only chance you have at survival.  I'm just stating that its not the only method that can work. 

You have to remember its all they have ever been taught.  I'm not saying its a mass conspiracy.  Students today are taught drugs & surgery.  From what I've been told the FDA states that only a drug or surgery can cure.  If factual, isn't it odd that they would have such a policy?   I need to do some research to see if I can actually find that policy.  If you went to school in any study, then you are going to believe what your teacher/books are telling you.  Who is funding the books is another item that would be interesting to find out.  Would you not agree?

  Worked with a guy who lived in Raleigh & had numerous friends in the medical field.  Going off what he told me their reply to him was there will never be a cure, because they are not allowed to find a cure.

Also, every heard of  Tamoxifen?  Tamoxifen is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of breast cancer and for the treatment of breast cancer.     

Ok let me make sure you get this straight.  Its a preventive for breast cancer.

Now one of the side effect of tamoxifen is uterus cancer. 

Ok let me make sure you understand.  The FDA has approved a medicine for the prevention of breast cancer, that can lead to uterus cancer.   This is your Gov that you are so undeniably believing would not forsake you in the name of money.

Now on what planet does this make any kind of sense?

Also, how many drugs has the FDA approved only to pull them off later because its killing people?   How much money did the companies make off the product against how much they had to pay out in damages?    The penalty is never greater than the revenue or any where close.

The Gov is about allowing companies to making money & not protecting us.  If they come up with a drug that will kill 1% of the people taking it & help the others.  They know that in time they will have to pull the drug but can make a ton of cash before the drug will get exposed. 

The Pharm industry is funding the FDA.   

Answer me this.  Which do you hear the most about?  High Triglycerides or high cholesterol being dangerous?  If you say anything other than cholesterol then I'd have to say BS.

Now we have big money being spent on preventing high cholesterol.  High Triglycerides?  You hardly hear about.  Why? If you do some research you will find high Triglycerides are dangerous.

However, how much money is being made off anti cholesterol drugs?

Guess what the one of the most well known treatments for high Triglycerides?  Fish oil / niacin ( vitamin B3  ).

Just something to make you go Hmmm.

My point in all this.  Don't simply take the establishments word on things.   The info is out there if you simply take the time to look for it.


   Fact or opinion?  I agree that the mind can do wonders & that people can take a placebo & get better.  We truly do not understand the human body & its own ability to cure itself.

  One question.  Who is funding these thing & what were they setting out to prove?  Find out who funds the research & you will find out what the results end up being.   Most of the research is funded by Pharm to disprove .


  Believe you are being a touch naive here.  Don't ever get confused the medicine is about making money.

Explain fish oil then.  Most everyone knows the health benefit of fish oil, yet its not recognized by the FDA as a Gov approved method of prevention or treatment, yet doctors constantly refer it to patients.

Don't believe me, ask around & see how many people have been told by their doctor that taking fish oil will provide numerous benefits.


  Was not posting it for it content.  Just posted it to show that he was still alive.

Also, it claims that his reduction was "most likely"  Well its obvious the article was written by someone like yourself who does not believe something not handed down by the Gov would work.

BTW.  Would you let someone get away with stating "most likely" here?  Don't accepted it there either. 

Also who is the 3rd party on conventional medicine?

^^^^

Please stop.

I don't know why, but this just made me laugh.

Not really.  I didn't bother to read the case.  But it is an unpuplished opinion by an intermediate appeals court.  It has zero precendent value.  And even if it was a published case the Minn Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court would be bound by it.   

I don't see how even consenting adults can make "fit" and "sound" decisions about their health care. At some point you have to turn the keys to the car over to the professional(s) in the field. Do regular everyday people have 6 years of graduate school and multiple years residency to be able to exactly know what treatments or what medical work they need?

I think these parents should shut the hell up and let the people who are smarter than they are save this kid.

It is published. The cite which I have is: 530 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 1995).

I highly doubt that the Minnesota Supreme Court or the Supreme Court would overturn the decision in Lundman.

  Stop what?  Explaining that is more than one way to kill a chicken?

I would not agree.  It sounds like conspiracy theory lunacy...the tin-foil hat kind.  Who funds the books?  Really?  You sound like a crazy person rambling on a street corner.  I find nothing relevant or rational in your entire though process, and it comes across as fear of government taken to a whole new level.

I read the rest of your post after this and it seems like more anti-government ranting than anti-medicine.  I'm not here defending the FDA.  I'm defending science and doctors, in general.  I really like the way JTex put it above.  At some point, we need to trust the professionals, because we can't individually study every single subject for 8 years.

You're also contradictory.  Just because something isn't approved by the FDA doesn't make it not medicine.  If fish oil has chemicals in it that are effective in treatment, it's medicine.  ...especially if it's suggested by your doctor, as you mention above.  I can't speak on fish oil specifically, because like mentioned above, I didn't study medicine for 8 years.

At the heart of your statement, you're suggesting that the government knows about alternative and better ways to treat cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, but because they're teamed up with pharmaceutical companies, they're intentionally pushing those ideas away because of money.  Is that accurate?

If so, that just sounds crazy to me.

I have to agree with this since majority of adults do not know enough or care enough until its to late, to make sound decisions about their own health, much less their health care.

  At some point you have to take the bull by the horn & fight the problem yourself & stop waiting around for someone else to fight it for you.

  How would you know if they are smarter?   Just because you are educated with a college degree does not mean you are capable of apply that knowledge to problems.   You can be a educated person but also be a blooming idiot.

   There are people running successful businesses that dropped out of HS better than people who graduated with MBA.

Which is why things in this country will probably never change in any form.  People want to believe the Gov is the greatest thing for this country.  Any one that speaks out against the norm is labels as such.

You do not believe the people paying for the books would not want their opinion spread?  If you gave someone 50 million dollars for research wouldn't you want their results to benefit you?

Anti Gov, anti medicine.  Two peas in a pod.

You do not have to study for 8 Yrs.  You can find more than one doctor  who have & talk with them.  Why do you think they tell you to always get a second opinion sometimes third?

Remember a doctor gets paid a ton of cash if he cuts on you.  Not so much if he doesn't.  My sister goes to a lady who gave up her medical practice to practice holistic.

  If that is your standing opinion then we agree.

   Why is it so out there?   Why is it so hard to believe our Gov is above doing such a thing?   Which benefits the country more?  Chemo at the cost of 250K or holistic at a lower cost. 

Here's a related story (although not specifically with religion) that's in the news now:

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/19369757/detail.html

A baby is born healthy, and then develops eczema (a serious, but common, and very treatable skin condition).  They refuse to take their baby to the suggested specialist and opt for homeopathic treatment (homeopathy is hocus pocus bullshit -- fake medicine).  The baby is now dead.  ...from eczema.

They are being prosecuted.

I think it's rightfully so.

   You are also talking about an infant with no immune system yet.  Whole new ball game there..   

Also, did the homeopathy doctor treated her correctly?   

Lets not get things confused here. People die everyday from conventional methods just as they do from homeopathic methods.    Look at how many people die from pharmaceutical drug usage.  Yet nothing it said.  Why?

Answer me this.  Had they taken her to a regular doctor & she still dies. 

Still prosecute?   

End result is the same & why is conventional medicine not prosecutable?

I'm going to venture a guess.  Because more people believe in it.

No.  He used homeopathy, which is bullshit.


Because conventional drugs and treatments are proven to be the best available, by the numbers.


No.
  

Because conventional medicine (also known as "medicine") is our proven most effective treatment.


It's not a matter of belief.  It's a matter of proof and research.

Did he treat the baby correctly using homeopathic methods?   Do remember its solely your opinion, not fact.


So why is the US so low on scale when it goes up against other nations who also use different methods? 

Says who?  Where are the comparison numbers?


  So basically we get to pick & choose who we prosecute?  I guess we should just turn to the Gov & allow them to decide what medical treatment we get.

  Do you know what is one of the biggest killers in the US?     America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.


  Do you have any idea as to how many people die every year just from taking pharmaceutical drugs correctly?  Yet, its the most proven.  If it doesn't kill you then it will heal you mentality is one I'm not sure I grasp.

Face it they have very little idea as to how a drug will react within the human body or they do & just do not care.

Did you know more people die every year from pharmaceutical drugs than illegal drugs?   Who is making the money?

You are leaving out that they do not record the differences in these deaths. How many of these are from overdoses by people abusing the drugs rather than taking them responsibly?

/rant/

I am getting really tired of the pharmaceutical company conspiracy theory.  Millions of dollars go into developing and testing drugs and they don't all make it to market.  Doctors do not go to medical school, internships, etc because they want to get rich.  There are a lot quicker and easier ways to make a good living.  I get accused of this kind of stuff all the time and it pisses me off.  Yes, we care about pets, but we also need to make a living.  I would love to treat everyone for free, but I am still paying for vet school.  If I wanted to be rich, I would have chosen a different career.

/end rant/

Please define "correctly."

Homeopathy is not a science.  Therefore, any idiot can claim that they are doing it the "right way."

You give me a way to test and verify which method of homeopathy is "correct" (one that doesn't just disprove the entire concept outright) and I'll give you a way to tell if it's being practiced properly.

Some people will die with no treatment (and by "treatment," I mean actual scientific medicine).
Some people will recover with no treatment.
Some people will still die with treatment.
But more people will recover with treatment.  This is the fundamental principle behind the concept of medicine: it's better than doing nothing.
In contrast, homeopathy has consistently shown to be no better than doing nothing (well, worse, because doing nothing is free).

When did anyone claim that conventional medicine is 100% successful?  No one does, or has.

The difference is that one of these things (i.e. medicine) has a scientific history of actually working.  The other (i.e. voodoo hocus pocus) has not.

That's where the criminal negligence comes in.  These people have been informed by trained medical professionals that the choice that they are making is dangerous and reckless.  They chose to stubbornly soldier ahead anyway, and someone else died for it.

I find it rather disturbing that you consider medicine as something that people "believe," as if we're having a discussion over who is better, Pink Floyd or Queen.

Science isn't some sort of popularity contest; you don't vote on whether or not the theory of relativity is accurate.  Science that doesn't work is discarded; science that does work is expanded upon.  If homeopathy actually worked, it would be part of mainstream medicine (do you honestly believe that pharmaceutical companies would be unable to monetize it?).  But it doesn't, so it isn't.

This is what Dave means when he says that alternative medicine that works is just called "medicine."

This story is pretty disturbing. I have excema flare ups sometimes. It seems like mine is mild compared to the babies. However, it really, really hurts. I can't imagine how much pain this baby was in.

With that said, I have a cream to treat my excema. Within a day it's cleared up and I go on with my life. We're messing around with my diet to figure out what's triggering it. However, for flare ups I use my medicine. It's not even anything that goes in my body. It just a lotion.

These people deserve to be prosecuted.

???

"Why medicine is not a science": (link (http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Is-Medicine-a-Science-/55)).

Homeopathy has never ever cured even one person.  It's all placebo effect.  The very concept of homeopathy -- watering down things to near zero levels -- doesn't work.  It's bogus.
 
The best thing that homeopathy has going for it is that sometimes real medicines are used in conjunction with it.  ...like it will have homeopathic cures and zinc or aspirin or something basic, to treat the common cold.  You see this in pharmacies in products like Airborne and Zicam.

If homeopathy really worked, it would stand up to the scientific method, and then be considered "medicine", instead of alternative medicine.

There are no correct homeopathic methods.  At the very best case scenario, they do nothing physically, but have a placebo effect.

Quick question.  Are Pharm companies a business?  If so what is their legal obligation as a business?

Far more than should do make it to the market or otherwise so many would not be pulled from the shelf.  73% of all new drugs put in front of the FDA got approved in 2006.


Your sugar will be in order, but you heart will stop.   Where can I sign up to take this drug?   If this were a homeopathic drug they would be wanting to persecute.   When conventional medicine kills, they simply slap a warning label on it & allow it to be used.

The correct method for homeopathic, whatever that may be.

  Have you ever visited one?  If not, then how can you speak about one without ever being in present of one?  Think you would be surprised.

This is what gets me with this thought process.  Someone dies from using homeopathic methods & damn they were just an idiot. 

However, look how many people die using conventional & its no one said conventional was 100% or some will still die with treatment. 

Try being fair to both sides here.

  How much investigation have you done on this subject?

Believe may have been the wrong word, but my whole point is there is more than one way to reach a destination.

I wish science was a clear cut as you are making it sound.

  Medicine is also about money.  Don't ever fool yourself into thinking its about anything else.

FYI If it goes on your skin, it goes in your body.  Skin absorbs.   

They are linking some diseases to antiperspirant.

  It was just a 9 month old parasite anyway.   ;)

My sister was having all kinds of trouble a couple of years ago & was being shuffled around from doctor to doctor trying to figure out what was going on.  It was test after test after test.  Take this drug, take that drug.  How about this one.

Until a friend suggested to try the doctor I mentioned before that quit her medical practice ( IE was a trained medical professional ) & went into homeopathic.  In a few months her problem was gone

I guess it was just all a placebo effect.   ::)

Not being insulting, but you are speaking out of ignorance on the subject.  Until you go to one & understand how they work.  You truly are simply guessing.  We are not talking a witch doctor or the lighting of incense

This has been addresses by both me and Spider on multiple occasions, yet you continue to bring up this same tired point.

Medicine is proven to be effective in more cases than not using medicine.  Homeopathy isn't effective in more cases -- as a matter of fact, it's not effective in ANY cases.

If the numbers OVERWHELMINGLY support one kind of treatment and you opt against that treatment for your child, you should be held liable.

I find it interesting that you exhibit such an overwhelming distrust of the medical industry, yet in almost every other area you insist that libertarian free markets are the way to go.

Let me give you a hint, here: the pharmaceutical industry does not make diagnoses, nor do they prescribe treatments.  That falls upon the healthcare services industry (i.e. doctors).  Now, you could make the argument that healthcare is also a business, and that doctors are motivated by profit... but it seems to me that a socialized healthcare system would greatly reduce the impact of any such motivation.  Yet you oppose such a system vehemently.

Let me explain something else:  homeopathic "drugs" are not regulated by the FDA, because (wait for it)... they are not drugs!  Homeopathic medicines are, mathematically speaking, pure water.

So you are, in fact, correct; if a homeopathic drug caused a mortality rate greater than doing nothing, they would prosecute, because it's clearly NOT a homeopathic solution!

What do you mean by "visited one"?  I daresay I know more about homeopathy than you do.  Do you even know what a 10C or 100C solution is?  Do you understand why it is physically impossible for it to contain more than a single molecule (and even one is stretching it) of the original substance?

Again, you don't quite get it.

They didn't die from using homeopathic methods.  They died from doing nothing, which is exactly what homeopathy works out to.

If you used conventional medicine which has been clinically tested (<--- this part is important) and shown to have a capability for healing, and it doesn't work, then at least you TRIED.

I understand this. It's still not the same as taking in a medication. I talked with my doctor about that. As long as I'm able to control the condition with the cream, he wants to stay away from the pill. He understands that I would rather not do that. Now, if the condition were to get worse and I needed to go that direction I would.

Once it's out off the body, it's a person.

I need facts, not biased opinions based on biased research funding by a Pharm comp or the Gov who laws are lobbied by the Pharm industry.


This is where you both are getting me wrong.  I'm not say conventional medicine is all bad or wrong.  I just believe you can find two ways to a final destination in most cases & I've seen homeopathic work when conventional didn't.  Cannot hard for me to buy the placebo effect when conventional was tried first & failed.  Explain how the homeopathic doctor nailed the problem on my sister when 3 doctors could not?   Blind squirrel thought process?


Please provide these numbers.  Please provide the people who did the research & please provide who funded the research & please provide what they were setting out to prove at the start of the research.

All the things that are very important to determining the validity of the research.

Are you f*cking joking?

The person who supports homeopathy is asking for clinical proof before he considers a treatment valid?  And not only that, but you need to know who paid for it and what they were "setting out to prove"?

HAVE YOU EVER ASKED ANY OF THESE THINGS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY?

Some consistency, please!

It was either placebo, coincidence (the disease was running its natural course), "real" medicine had eventually worked, flawed or dishonest evaluation of treatments, or what she was doing wasn't homeopathy to begin with.

Homeopathy didn't cure your sister from anything.  It's just water.  It can't work to ever do anything.

Different people have different beliefs.  Who made YOU the person to decide who's beliefs are valid and whose are not?

If someone believes in homeopathy, even if science "proves" them wrong, its their BELIEF, which is completely subjective and up to the interpreter.  Science isn't always right.

No legal function should be able to determine whose beliefs are valid and whose are not.

I'm not deciding what's right.  What works is.  I don't like how you guys are using Science as a belief.  Science is not a belief, anymore than math is a belief  -- it's a method.


Science is always right.  It might not always be applied right, but science is a tool set, just like math.  Math is always right.  Someone might use the wrong equation, but math itself is right -- just as is science.  Scientist are constantly altering theories.


Legal functions choose this kind of stuff all the time.  If you believe that you should starve your baby to death that God will help them -- it may be your belief, but legal functions determine that your belief is flawed.  This case has already been tested in court and the dude who did it is in jail.

------


Another thing -- This kind of thinking is keeping society from progressing.  We can't just start from zero with every new generation and have everyone figure things out for themselves.  We need to build on established facts from professionals.  If something doesn't pass the scientific method of proof, then it should be discarded and moved on to the next thing.

...otherwise we're in a constant state of limbo with everything.

You're seeing it now with AIDS denial and anti-vaccinationists.  We can't move forward if we have to re-establish our facts at every turn.

The burden of proof isn't on us to prove that homeopathy doesn't work -- it's the burden of proof on them to show that it does.  That's our basic concept for understanding everything about our world.

Science is a set of laws that are determined by nature.

The CONCLUSIONS drawn by scientists using these laws are often flawed.

In 1400, scientists KNEW the world was flat.  It was a scientific fact.  Does that mean it is (was) true?

Careful careful. This is not correct. Instead, the law says that there are two interests involved, and that one simply overrides the other. It makes no decision over whether or not something is "correct" or "flawed." The two interests involved are these: freedom of religious practice and the life of the child. The life of the child simply wins out, because the state considers it the more pressing concern. It does not consider the religious belief "flawed." To do so would be to "establish" a religion, and to violate the 1st Amendment.

Bad example.  Greek scientists had already determined that the earth was round (and had gotten a reasonably accurate estimate of its diameter) over 1500 years prior.  The belief that the earth was flat was not really "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the word.

It would be like saying that we scientifically know that humans are the only intelligent life on earth.

^^ That's just semantics.

Either way, they put you in jail for it.

Yes and scientists knew the earth was not the center of the earth but because of wrongly  held beliefd by people in power, it was self suppressed by a real fear of reprisal.
I keep reading about this one case of homeopathy working, but what is its long term track record, especially when held up against medicine.

Why would you not wonder if they are not feeding you a line on some things?  They are motivated by profit since they are a business who's stockholders want a return on their investment.  They do the research & also have the treatment.

Its not a level playing field is the main reason.  Have you not notice the explosion of cost from the industry since they paid off the Gov to allow them to advertise their drugs on TV & mags.

When is the last time you visited a doctor & did not see a Pharm rep not enter or exit the office?  With advertising, majority of doctors have basically become drug pushers.

Friends daughter was put on a new medicine & they charged a high price for it when all they did was rearrange the molecules from an older medicine & add basically a placebo  to it.  When they could have prescribed the older cheaper medicine.  The fathers brother is a Pharmacist is how I know this.  I had the same type experience when one of mine got pink eye once.  The only difference was I had to put it in my kids eyes twice a day for 10 days instead of three times at a much higher cost to the insurance company & higher co-pay..

Don't see how, but not going down that road.

IYO they are.  They are not regulate because ( Wait for it) the Gov would have to acknowledge they can work.. 


  That is the great thing about the internet.  You can claim anything you want to claim & no one can disprove you. 

Can't say I know the answers to both, but one is about the dilution of the substance.

If you say so.

  Gotcha.  Do as I say you should.

  Gonna have to tell me how its not the same.

   I guess it was just a miracle that it all happened at the time she visited the lady.  Its amazing.

No I'm not F*cking joking & yes I have.  Anyone wanting to sell me something is motivated by profit, not by my best interest..   I like to know more about it besides what they are telling me.

You two continue to reference science & scientific proof.  One question has scientific proof ever been proven wrong later down the line?

 More of less in 1980 scientific proof says something is one way, but then 25 Yrs later more scientific proof proves the earlier scientific proof wrong.

  According to some in 2009 back in 1400 the world was actually flat.  Why?

Because scientific proof said so.

Geez can we not double post Back,to Back,to Back,to Back,to back,to back?

There was a time Chiropractic care was consider something done by a quack.  Acupuncture is another.  However, both have become much larger & more accepted today then every before.  Why?  Because they work.

You make excuses for conventional medicine.  Drugs are being pulled of the shelf because of the side effects all the time & it simply goes over your head.  Had to take my son to the ER last fall because of a reaction to a medication. People drop dead from reaction to drugs.  However, for you its not a big deal.   

Some side effects of FDA approved medication is death.

 Listen the two of you & I simply have a different outlook on things.

You both believe that the food we eat more or less does not have much of a bearing on your health.  You two believe food can be made in a lab & be just as healthy for you are something grown out of the ground.

I believe food is the best medicine for your body.  Food that is grown from the ground that is..

FYI the former a FDA Commissioner has written a book on the food industry & how they are manipulating us.. 


You two believe man knows more than nature. 

I believe nature knows more than man.

We will never agree.  Never.  Why?  Because the two believe in man.  Something I do not.

Sorry.  Actually trying not to.

Guess this is another.

You mean like scientists who haven't bought into global warming? 

And what, exactly, are the makers of homeopathy products motivated by?  Let me guess, they are motivated by a sense of duty to humanity?

You mean the explosion of cost from "before the pharmaceutical industry existed" (i.e. mid 20th century) to "after the pharmaceutical industry started existing"?

You're right... pharmaceuticals were a lot cheaper when they weren't invented yet.

Every time I've went to my doctor, ever?

Is your friend's daughter's father's brother the attending physician?  Did he examine her?  Is he even qualified to examine her?

"Rearrange the molecules" in table salt and you get a highly toxic gas and an explosive metal.  Different molecules do different things.

Chicken or the egg?  Again, you act like:

a) homeopathy makers are not in it for the money (I assure you that their profit margins are much higher than any pharmco, as they pay zero for clinical trials, they don't have to deal with the FDA, and 99.999999999999999999%* of their product is straight water)

b) if homeopathy actually worked, the pharmcos would not be able to monetize it

So let me proceed to explain to you what you are promoting.

A 20C solution means that you take one part "active ingredient" (e.g. arsenic) and ninety nine parts inactive ingredient (e.g. water) and mix them together.  Take one part of the resulting solution, and mix it with ninety nine parts inactive ingredient again.  Repeat until you have diluted a total of 20 times.

I'm going to guess that you don't know a whole lot about chemistry.  So let's just say that when you dilute something to that degree, it is extremely unlikely that you have even one molecule of the original substance (12C is the point where the diluent statistically contains zero molecules of the original substance).  A homeopathy professional will tell you that a 100C dilution is more powerful than a 10C solution.  Are you starting to understand the problem now?

Chiropractic is no more effective than massage therapy; specifically, the original idea behind chiropractic (misalignments in the spine cause ailments all over the body, including, for example, varicose veins) has been completely and thoroughly discredited.

Acupuncture has been shown, in some studies, to have an effect beyond that of a placebo.  However, this effect had nothing to do with where the acupuncturists SAID the needles should be placed, and correlated simply and directly to whether needles were inserted at all.  Again, the fundamental tenets behind acupuncture (redirection of chi lines in the body) has been thoroughly discredited.

And how was the life expectancy of man when nature was solely in charge?

*This number is not a guess or an exaggeration.  It is the exact percentage of water in a 10C solution, which is on the low end of a homeopathic dilution; many products are 100C.

Just to clarify Spider. Are you saying going to a chiropractor is wasting money?

That depends.

If you are going there for back or neck pain, and your treatments help your back or neck pain, then fine.  It's basically no different than going to a masseuse or some other kind of physical therapist.

If, however, you are going to a chiropractor because you have carpal tunnel, or sinus congestion, or acid reflux, or varicose veins, then you might as well set your money on fire.

No, but they are not paying off Gov officials to pass laws that make the FDA go after Cheerios.

How the hell did you come up with that reply? 
I point blank said one drug ads were allowed on TV.  How do you go from that to before the pharmaceutical industry existed? 

Unless you were unaware that drug ads have not always been the norm for a TV commercial.

Nope, but he knew his job ( That is what a Pharmacist is trained to know ) & what the difference between the two drugs were.    A simple call to the doctor got the prescription changed at a much lower cost to every one, but less revenue to the drug industry.  So I figure the doctor knew he was busted on that one.

Well if I ever have a need to do that with table salt then I know who to come ask about it.

Yea, that FDA is a tough one to get something by.


Wikipedia?

  I know absolutely nothing.  I simply work in the chemical industry.


2 parts per million of something is enough to warrant a concern where I work.  Yet there is hardly any of the original material in it.

 A small part of something can have a tremendous effect on the human body..  Again 2 parts per million. That means for million molecules 2 are a organic.    50 parts per million is you had better get the F out of there or you are going to end up in the hospital..  100 parts per million & if you stick around ( Which you cannot because you cannot breath ) & your odds of death are greatly increased.

So tell me again how a small amount of a substance is nothing.  I love reading this.

  Don't care about that.  Just saying back in the '80s they were considered quacks.

Discredited by who?    All I know is it worked on my shoulder & neck & several other people I know who have had it.  When he inserted a needle into my shoulder I could feel something going on in my shoulder.  After 3 visits my shoulder had full range after 5 YRs of not having full range & pain.  Guess it was all a well timed placebo effect.   However, you have your studies to fall back on.   I know first hand.

Did you ever think that maybe we were not meant to live as long as we are?   We are living longer.  With more sickness, more problems & more drugs.

Its human nature to want to prolong death.

  Do you know that chiropractors have more education of the human body than a doctor?   

  To clarify.   Is this your opinion or has there been a study on it that you can quote?

1. We should distrust the pharmcos because they are motivated by profit.
2. The makers of homeopathic products are equally motivated by profit.
3. ??
4. Homeopathic products are, therefore, acceptable.

You also said in print.  To my knowledge, print advertising predates the pharmaceutical industry by several hundred years.

What use is it to know what the differences between drug A and drug B are when you have no idea what the actual medical diagnosis is?

If an electrical engineer knows the difference between an ignition coil and a sparkplug, and a mechanic tells you that you need a new ignition coil, on what grounds can an electrical engineer say "just buy new sparkplugs instead, they're cheaper!" without actually examining the car?

As for why the doctor went along with it: you'd be surprised how many people "know someone in the medical industry," or just have access to Google, and suddenly decide that they know more about medicine than the doctor.  If you want to know the reason why the doctor prescribed one medicine over the other, perhaps you should try actually asking the doctor?  Again, different molecules do different things.

If I have a rash on my arm, and the doctor prescribes me an ointment for it, does that mean that soaking my arm in oatmeal won't work at all?  No.  It means that the doctor thinks that the ointment will work better.  I don't know about you, but I expect my doctor to give me the best possible solution for the problem, not the cheapest or the most holistic.  If I want to be advised of a cheap home remedy, I'll ASK him to do so.

This is not my first day at the homeopathy circus.  One newsletter that I used to read "religiously" is the JREF newsletter (now called SWIFT), which discusses homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and other such pseudoscience at great length.  Here is an entry from 2001 (http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html) that discusses homeopathy in some detail.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

You say two parts per million warrants a concern?  A homeopathic solution prepared to such a concentration would not even qualify as homeopathic; it's about 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE too concentrated to be considered a legitimate homeopathic solution.

Since you claim to have a chemistry background, let me try to explain this again:  a 10C homeopathic solution (which is a lightweight, entry-level solution; remember, in homeopathy, the more you dilute something, the more potent it is purported to be) means that you have ONE part in ONE HUNDRED QUINTILLION.

Read:  1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000

You're comparing that to 2/1,000,000?  Please.

They still are considered quacks, if they are of the strain that claims that chiropractic will prevent pancreatic cancer.

If they are of the non-fundamentalist chiropractic school that basically whitewashes chiropractic into really expensive physical therapy?  Sure, they work great.

Is there any other kind of placebo effect?

Funny, I said the same thing when people tried to tell me that leprechauns don't exist.

Considering that I'm an atheist, I spend very little time thinking about what we are supposedly "meant" to do.

The dead never get sick, have no problems, and need no drugs.  So I guess they do have that.

Did you know that unicorns are faster than fighter jets?  True story.

  Just 100% to afraid to acknowledge that Pharm & the FDA are in collusion.   There is nothing wrong with being motivated by profit. 

No comment on the FDA going after Cheerios?

How are you twisting something to pull that comment out of your backside? 

  The diagnosis is provided to the parent who relayed it to his brother.   If he were wrong then the doctor would not have changed the prescription.

Because a ignition coil & a spark plug are not the same piece as in this case.  The fact a simple call to the doctor got the prescription changed proves it.

 To make this analogy work.  The mechanic would have told you to go by an ignition coil that was made from a new type of wire, that the ignition coil representative told him to push, when the old type of wire would work just fine.  Cost different of about 350 dollars ( A month in the medicine case )

A Pharmacist does not know more about medicine that a doctor.  Its what they go to school for.    Do you think all a pharmacist learns in school is how to read piss poor handwriting & count?

I expect my doctor to tell me what is in mine best interest.

Had a doctor want to put me on a brand new medicine at a higher cost.  When the generic ( Which is a whole other thread ) was working fine.   When I ask is something wrong that I need this new medicine?  He said no.  When I ask if the generic was not working the way it should.  He said no.  I just want you to take this medicine also. 


     The point was.  Minute quantities of a substance can/will have an affect on the human body.  So the fact its not high dose not mean the body does not notice it.

Never heard one make such a claim & I've been going to a chiropractor since the late '80s.  I've had 5 different in my life time & know people that go to others & have never heard that claim. 

Its amazing what can be written off as a placebo effect, but with conventional medicine its scientific proof. 

Even if the drug is prove to increase your chances of death.  The FDA allows it to be handed out.  On what level does that make sense?

BTW you nor Dave even acknowledge this question.  Why?

Has scientific proof ever been proven wrong years later?

  They do exist.  You see them on cereal boxes that is passed off as being good for you.  Even made a couple movies about the little suckers.  Damn they are mean.   Now if they would just stop moving that pot of gold.

There lies the problem & why we will never agree.

Yeap & who profits from our extended life?  People eat tasteless, void of nutrition so called  food that man makes, then need a drug to hide the results of that food with chemicals made by man.

  I'm sure you have a study done by the Unicorn assoc. of America somewhere that would prove it.   ;D

Link, please.

You claim that prices have exploded since drugs have started being advertised on TV and in print.  Drugs have been advertised in print since the very start, and have been advertised on TV for almost as long.

And if the doctor had refused to change the prescription, this would have made you and your friend more trusting of the medical industry, right?

If I tell my doctor that I want to soak my irritated arm in oatmeal instead of using a cortisone cream (remember: your friend went to the doctor with his suggestion), and the doctor doesn't think that it's going to cause any harm, OF COURSE he's going to let me!  The patient's wishes do actually count for something, you know.

A pharmacist learns what the effects of drugs are.  They do not learn how to (and are not qualified to) diagnose medical conditions.  This is one of the things that separates pharmacists from, you know, actual doctors.

For some strange reason (I'm sure it's just a coincidence), you left out the part where you asked him "why?" and he explained why.  I sense that this may be somewhat relevant to the discussion.

Tell me, what is the effect of a substance in a concentration of zero parts per million?

You seem to be confusing "minute quantities" with "quantities so low as to statistically not exist at all".

Then you haven't done any research at all into chiropractic.  Look up the term "vertebral subluxation," or, better yet, ask your chiropractor what it means.

The founder of chiropractic, Dr. David Palmer, claimed that he cured both deafness and heart disease by adjusting the spine.

That's because conventional medicine uses clinical trials, which are carefully designed to eliminate placebo effects.

Link, please.

Of course it has.  That is the entire point of science!  New observations require that new theories are formed to account for new data.

In contrast, pseudosciences like homeopathy and chiropractic never have to change or adjust their theories, because their theories aren't based on any real data to begin with.

If you would prefer to be dead instead, no one is forcing you to participate.  You can experience all that 16th century, all-natural, good, clean living has to offer, and enjoy a long and fruitful life well into your late 30s.  Who wants to live to 40, anyway?   You're basically useless and decrepit by that age.

I know you are not incapable of doing a Google search.  I'm sure someone as smart as you can do something that simple.

  I'm not talking Tylenol here

Actually no.  No one said my friend did not trust the industry.   He just had his eyes opened on that one.

  Am I understanding this correct.  You are equivocating oatmeal to a different pharmaceutical that is simply a older version of what was prescribed?

Years of pharmacy school also I see.

  Sorry, yes I ask why.  Reply was I just think it will help you. 

Funny thing is.  When I changed my diet.  My problem went away, but again just a well timed placebo.  Its amazing what can be written off as a well timed placebo. 
I never realized how many one person can be around in such a short time period.

Would you take something you know would kill you in a quantity so low as to statistically not exist at all

  See I knew you would know how to do a search.
BTW, Have you ever visited one? 

Maybe he did.  You cannot prove he didn't.     I'm sure he had his belief, just as these Pharm. companies had their scientific proof that their drug would not kill people.  However, people still died.


Yes, they use clinical trials. 


Defective Drug Side Effects (http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/drug_recall/drug_recall.html) 



Thank goodness for scientific data & clinical trails.  Now wonder how much money they made verses how much they are going to pay out.  I bet one will be much larger than the other.


So what you are quoting today as scientific proof may be 100% incorrect in 10 Yrs or less?

So basically they are giving us their best guess based on the info they have at the time.

  What are you calling real data?  Something with Gov support?

   Again we are back to where each put our faith.  You put your faith in man.  I put mine in God & nature.

My whole point is there can be two different ways to heal.

Cliff notes: the FDA went after Cheerios for making unsupported claims about the cholesterol-lowering properties of their product.

So I guess your point is that you should be allowed to say that your product does anything and everything, as long as you are not a pharmco?  I mean, on the one hand, you are bashing pharmcos for "false representation" of their product, but on the other, you think that homeopaths and food companies can claim whatever they want with no proof required?

To be precise, I am equivocating the treatment the doctor recommended with an alternative treatment that the patient suggested.

Did you ask in any sort of detail as to how he thought it would help, or immediately write it off as corporate shilling?

Even funnier thing:  sometimes I get sick, or pull a muscle, and do nothing in particular to help heal; I don't take any drugs or change my diet.  Yet, for some reason, I get better anyway!  Strange how that works.
Do you realize that several homeopathic products are made with toxic chemicals like arsenic?

The fundamental idea behind homeopathy is "like cures like" (it's the source of the word homeopathy).  You take a chemical that causes the symptoms in question, water it down until it statistically does not exist, then apply/ingest this water and claim that it's a cure.

So, by design, homeopathy patients take chemicals that they know are supposed to be harmful.  Would I take a properly prepared 20C homeopathic solution of arsenic, or mercury?  Sure... like I just said, it contains NONE of the "active ingredient".

My money is more valuable than that, so no.

Again, funny that when talking about anyone that is not a pharmco, "you can't prove it doesn't work" is your default position.

If Proctor & Gamble starts making a product tomorrow that they claim cures AIDS, is your response going to be, "well, you can't prove it doesn't..."?

Um, yes.  Welcome to the scientific method?

Newton's laws of motion were "the best guess based on the info available at the time".  Einstein disproved many of them later.  This does not mean that we should have simply ignored Newton from the start.

  Lets not forget that in order to make that claim the product has to be a drug.  There is a law on that one.

Quality food ( Not that I think Cheerios is a quality food ) cannot make that claim.

  I never said Pharm made false claims.  Their products generally work.   Even the ones that have killed people have worked on what they were designed for.

The patient did not suggest it.  The Pharmacist did.

  His answers told me all I needed to know.

Yea, because my problem & those problems go hand in hand.

With the way you are posting I would figure you to have at least experienced one.  Posting like you are an expert on the matter, but you have no first hand knowledge.   Where are you getting your opinion from? 

Would it be safe for me to assume you have also not been to a homeopathic doctor either?

Just goes hand in hand with your "placebo effect" position.

We know that will never happen.  Cure?  Please.

   So what you are telling me is scientific proof is in fact not actual proof.  Are shall I said its the proof for the moment.

You are confusing cause and effect.

If Cheerios actually did what General Mills was claiming, it would be classified as a drug, not a food.  This is for almost exactly the same reason that Bayer cannot classify aspirin as a food; when you start doing clinical tests on the medicinal properties of your product, it ceases to be a food (eaten for sustenance) and is reclassified as a drug.  The FDA has much more stringent requirements on drugs than on food.

Without such a policy, any company could evade the FDA's drug regulation by simply claiming that their product was a food, and not a drug.

Um, no.  As you told it, the patient suggested the change to the doctor.  Unless you are now saying that the pharmacist-family-friend consulted this doctor directly?

Why would I waste my money on unproven products that have no logical foundation?

You have a problem with spending your hard-earned money on expensive drugs that actually have clinical tests backing them up, yet you criticize me for not spending my money on pseudoscientific scams with no proof at all?

Why wouldn't they?  Remember, it doesn't have to actually work; under your philosophy, as long as "you can't prove it DOESN'T work," it's full steam ahead, right?

You are using a distorted and meaningless definition of the word "proof" that basically makes the word itself useless.

Using your twisted logic, we can't even "prove" something as simple as "a balanced diet is necessary for optimum health," because if someone invents a machine that directly transfuses nutrients into the blood at any point in the future then oops, you just got "proven" wrong!

The unknown future is not a reasonable excuse for believing in things that have already conclusively failed to work in the PRESENT.

Dphins, your logic is unsound.  You're committing many, many logical fallacies along the way.

You're getting more and more trounced in your argument with every single post.

Considering how lax they are on drugs, that is a scary comment. 

Policy would not be needed if they simply went to food is either grown out of the ground or comes from an animal.  Not a lab.  Wouldn't that be simpler?

Pharmacist called the Doctor.

   Why waste you time of learning about it if you have no intention of putting it to work?  Do you really believe you know what you are posting about?

I have a hard time spending my hard-earned money on something that odd are will be pulled off the shelf or slapped with a black box warning label telling me how taking this medication will do more harm to my body than good.

Not criticizing, just find it odd that someone who quotes so much as you do would have at least experienced it at least once. 

Its like having a gay man tell me how to do a woman.  If you have never been there, do you really understand.

  Any time someone provide an experience that it works, you dismiss it as placebo.  What is the difference?

Nothing is being distorted.  Its not scientific proof if its been proven wrong.   Its just a wrong guess that everyone took as fact.

Is a balanced diet equal to nutrients?

  I can agree, but it should lead one to at least question.  Do they know what they think they know.  Are they correct & by the amount of drugs being pulled off the market or slapped with a black box they are not.

100% unbiased opinion I'm sure.

Dphins, I thought of you when I saw this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg)


Shout-out to my boy Dave for this show.  This shit is hilarious!!!!

The judge just ruled on this in favor of the County.  He will order chemo.

  That was funny, but remember it is a edited TV show.

Was there ever any doubt?

Congratulations!  Under your new policy, the following items are no longer classified as food:

bread
cookies
pizza
ramen
soda
muffins
burritos

In short, basically every item in the grocery store that isn't produce, meat, eggs, milk, or juice.

Yeah, that's a lot simpler.

Why do you post on a site about the NFL when you have no intention of playing professional football?

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a perfectly legitimate pursuit.  Furthermore, I specifically research pseudoscience so that if someone tries to take in one of my loved ones with a scam like these, I will be prepared to refute it.

So instead, you would prefer to spend your hard-earned money on a product that will never be examined by the FDA at all.  Check.

Your problems with the pharmcos would all be resolved by disbanding the FDA and just turning a blind eye to the results.

I'd actually say you're more like a customer at a restaurant insisting that because you really like lasagna, you know more about how to make it than a vegetarian chef.

I'm glad you asked.

The difference between "placebo" and "proven effective" is that in clinical trials, they use double-blind testing specifically to eliminate the effects of a placebo.  You will notice that purveyors of quackery like homeopathy will ALWAYS come out against the horrid unfairness of double-blind testing; this is because when you actually put them to the test, their products are statistically no better than doing nothing.

It is not a reasonable excuse to dismiss currently supported facts, just because they might be disproven at some point in the future.

In any case, you've got the comparison wrong; you're talking about dismissing ideas that have support in the PRESENT with other ideas that have already conclusively failed in the PRESENT.  The FUTURE is not particularly relevant.

Does a diet provide something besides nutrients?

It is unbiased.

I do agree with Dan on this particular content, as well, but that doesn't have to do with the argument methods.

Logical fallacies are logical fallacies, and I can (and do) recognize them whether they support my position or not.

Basically because non of those items are basically food.  They are processed so called food loaded with sodium & sugar..   Not one of those items do the body good.


Stay on the perimeter of the store & you will be better off for it.

I buy very little on the inside shelves of a grocery store.

No intention or not enough talent.  Big difference.

  You must have a ton of free time on your hand.  To do something this in depth for just in case scenario

Burnt a couple of fingers today.  As I was reaching for the chemically enhanced burn ointment designed to help with the stinging.  My wife suggested I break off a piece of Aloe instead. 

I adamantly told her that Aloe could not work, because the Gov has not told us it will.

She insisted I try it.   With my eye rolling I broke off a piece of Aloe.

With such high doubt in my mind & to make her happy.  I tried it.  While rubbing the liquid that comes from the Aloe plant onto my burnt fingers telling myself the whole time this is ignorant & that no way would it possibly work since the Gov has not gave us its stamp of approval, the stinging slowly went away.  Another well time placebo effect.  Its amazing how many times a placebo effect can happen, even when you remind yourself how silly it is.  Just amazing.

BTW.  Why do you need to Gov. stamp of approval for everything you believe in or don't believe in?   I've never met anyone who considers them self intelligent needing someone else to provide validity to their opinion.

  What good is the FDA doing us.  How many more drugs to they need to allow go through only to pull them off the shelves a Yr later because people are dying from using them.  Also, how many more outbreaks of food bore illnesses in our food supply do you need before you realize how what a piss poor job the FDA is doing.

I'd be much happier if the FDA started doing what it was originally for.  Consumer protection.

If I've made it before & he hasn't then I would know more.

Once again.  I have never once said their drugs do not work.  I have said.  Their drugs come with some major side effects.

You have already admitted that the body can heal itself, so why is it so hard for you to believe there COULD be a natural way of helping your body heal itself?

All I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. 

  Do you consider Fiber a nutrient? 

I believe I just explained that.

I disagree with your substance -- so I may be biased there.

But a logical fallacy in argument (whether I agree or disagree) is something different.  You are making poor arguments to support you position, with basic fallacious statements and comparisons.

The fact that your position is entirely wrong is a completely seperate matter.

Good.

So then, if you personally believe that overprocessed, unnatural products such as bread do not qualify as food, on what basis do you claim that Cheerios are food?

You should be APPLAUDING the FDA's statement!

Are you going to play in the NFL at any point in the foreseeable future?
No?
Then why do you discuss it?

What if your wife told you to run some cold water over it?  Or just pray for healing?

I don't.

I need scientific confirmation that this product is effective, and also give me a good idea of what sort of side effects I can expect.  Luckily for me, the gov't is in the business of... making sure that pharmcos perform clinical trials to accomplish both of the aforementioned objectives.

Funny, because I'd say that the people who are most certain of their own independent intelligence are usually the ones that are the least informed.

Yes, instead, what they should be doing is not pulling them off the shelves at all.  They should just stand back and let the free market regulate itself, like they do with all the pseudoscientific claptrap that doesn't work, like reflexology and homeopathy.

That is the ticket to saving lives.

Shouting that the FDA is not doing enough at the same time that you are screaming that they are doing too much is somewhat counterproductive.

Please make up your mind.  You cannot go after them for overregulation when they tell General Mills that they need to stop trying to sell Cheerios as anti-cholesterol medication while, AT THE SAME TIME, complaining that they aren't protecting consumers enough.

Let's suppose that (being a chef) he makes it, professionally, every day.  Hell, let's suppose that it's THE ONLY THING HE EVER MAKES.

By your logic, since the chef doesn't eat it, any restaurant patron knows more about making lasagna than the chef does.

How are these two things connected?

If the body can frequently heal itself with no assistance at all, how does that speak to "natural" vs. "artificial" assistance towards that end?

Why would the body care if the assistance came from a cow's teat, a tree's bark, or a laboratory tube?  How would it even be able to distinguish between those three equally non-human sources?

Um, yes?

Is this a trick question?

   White bread has no redeeming quality about it.   Bread is the only thing on your list that can even be argued.    I do not think Cheerios is food.  I made that point when I brought it up..  Basically if it comes out of a box then it most likely is not food.

  It’s the reasoning, not the actual statement.

  Because football is something I watch & played as a youth.   Now compare that to never going to a Chiropractor, but believing you are a foremost expert on it does not compare.


 So the people making the product are also doing the testing & simply reporting to the FDA..   Where is the oversight?
 
Dang I need a smiley face that whistles.

  See this is where you continue to ignore things.  If the FDA did what it was designed to do, then we would have a successful agency.


And drugs that kill are a better solution.

Please do not tell me you are trying to compare a claim made by a cereal company with no oversight on conditions in plants?  General Mills claim is one of the last things the FDA needs to be concerned with.

   I believe the body understands how to process things that are natural better than man made products. 

  Nope.  Just wanted to know, if you did.

We are not going to agree no matter what.

Lets let is die here.

I heard about a homeless dude in Los Angeles who was living in a box, and got eaten by a local rottweiler. I do believe he qualifies as food.

You don't think Cheerios is food?

I have had a spine for my entire life.  I am intimately familiar with it.

Therefore, by your logic, I am already just as much of an expert as any chiropractor.  Q.E.D.
 
Along the same line of thought, I have a question for you: why do male gynecologists exist?  I mean, surely they cannot tell a woman (who has possessed a vagina for her whole life) anything about the female body, right?  You must view such persons as pointless quacks.

The oversight is the whole "reporting to the FDA" part.

I'd say that we do have a successful agency, particularly if you compare the results to what we had before the FDA existed.

LOL.  Good one.

   So a company gets to create the problem, invent the drug, do the testing & then shove a ton of papers onto the table.  Then the FDA does what?  Review the companies findings?  Are we on the honor system of something?

Year or two later people start dropping dead from the drug.

Great oversight.

I would think a bullet in the leg is particularly better if you compare it with a bullet to the head.

I'll grant you its better than nothing.  However, its falling down on the job with not policing the industry.

Why would I?  Its processed grain

Will people die from eating it?  No.  Will it help them remain healthy?  No.


Are Cheerios A Healthy Cereal? (http://www.answerfitness.com/tag/cheerios-ingredients/)

Yeah, thus food.

Processed grain = food.  Cheerios are food.  This thread is getting crazier by the minute.

Has this thread set the all time record for quoting? I think this horse is dead, flayed, and formulated into glue.

What, exactly, would you call "oversight"?

I mean, short of nationalizing every pharmco, I'm not sure what you expect the FDA to be able to do.  Pharmcos are required to keep very detailed records of their clinical trials and manufacturing processes.  If a problem occurs later on, the FDA audits the pharmco, verifying that all the information that has been submitted is, in fact, accurate.  If it's not, the pharmco faces stiff penalties, including being shut down.

If you think that the FDA is a failure as an agency, I would like to hear you name any agency (or business, or hell, any organization period) that is a "success".  I am interested in hearing of an organization that performs its role without a single error ever slipping through the cracks.

Dave, you and I are just more of the brainwashed masses that think that when we go to a restaurant, we are eating "food".

It's a sad state of affairs when the vast majority of the population would qualify items like "pasta" and "ice cream" as food.  Because there is no such thing as a sliding scale between "healthier food" and "less healthy food"... no, there is simply "food" and "toxic poison".  Dphins4me is one of the enlightened few on this subject.

  Oh its food ( cough cough ) just as poisoned water is still water.  Drink it at your own risk, but don't be shocked when your body starts to deteriorate.   


Shut down?   Good one.  Stiff penalties?  Another good one.  FDA fines company millions after revenue of billions. 
Its like trading a one dollar bill for tens & saying I've been ripped off.

Businesses are required to keep very detailed records of their balance sheet.  Have they ever been skewed to make them look better than they actually were?


  If the FDA only had one failure then we would not be discussing them.

  You are brainwashed or void of knowledge on the subject.  There is a reason America is obese & considered an over feed, but under nourished nation.   You do not become obese by eating healthy foods.  You becomes obese by eathing less healthy foods.

 I did something about my own health & it wasn't asking someone else to pay for my personal decision of constantly consuming "less healthy food"  People need to own up for their own decisions & stop asking the Gov to force someone else to pay for their piss poor decision.

Are you one of these people who believe eating french fries means a daily serving of vegetables has been met?

You don't know WTF you are talking about.

It took me all of 10 seconds to google "FDA shutdown" and come up with the following:

http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=173557


I don't know why you have this insane hard-on for the FDA (particularly when you shout vigorously for less gov't in virtually every other area), but please wake up.

I notice that you failed to answer the question.

Please name any "successful" organization that exists in this country.  If you cannot, then your characterization of the FDA as "failed" is meaningless, since everyone else has also failed.

Please give me an example of a "less healthy food".  Since Cheerios (and even bread!) are not healthy enough to even qualify as food in your book, I am interested in hearing what could possibly qualify as a "less healthy food".

!!!

This from the person who screams bloody murder if the FDA does not stop every single death from every drug ever made!  Apparently owning up for your own decisions doesn't apply if you are taking pharmaceuticals, or something?

Make up your mind.  If you are going to play the ultra-libertarian people-who-are-stupid-enough-to-eat-hamburgers-don't-deserve-healthcare card, then you need to stop playing the gov't-should-wield-an-iron-fist-over-the-pharmcos card.

In all honesty, you sound like a libertarian that lost a family member to a undisclosed drug side effect, causing cognitive dissonance between your desire for free, unregulated markets and your anger over losing a loved one to a defective product.

Back to the actual story:

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=718924&catid=2

The mother and the boy went to the Doctor yesterday for an X-ray, were told that the cancer spread significantly, and then failed to show up for a court hearing today where the results were supposed to be revealed.  The Father says he hasn't seen or heard from them.

It sounds like Mom now realizes how badly she's screwed up and is fleeing the law at this point.

...maybe her Church will loan her the use of a good attorney.

I feel bad for the little boy because I think he is in a crappy spot.  I read the entire 77 page transcript from when he testified, and it is clear that his Mother has fed him every line.  It's no wonder he doesn't want the chemo, he doesn't even believe that he is sick because of her.

An arrest warrant has been issued for the mother, as her and the boy are on the run. 

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967

He's 13!!! He doesn't know shit from shit. He's even MORE unfit to make any decisions...thank you Minnesota judge for not allowing some idiot 7th grader who listens to "Souja Boy" and rides his bicycle to middle school make a decision about chemotherapy.

Dphins4me - Please don't break down every 3 words of my reply and whether you agree, disagree, or whether you just feel like talking about it. Please spare me this:

------------------------------------------------------

Actually, he's 14. Get your facts straight before posting here.

YOU don't know "shit from shit". Actually, isn't that a paradox? How can shit know shit from shit, if shit is the one being known from shit?

Actually, he's currently taking Earth Space Science with Ms. Johnson in the "Wildcat" Classroom. They are currently discussing tectonic plate structures, which makes him eligible to make advanced medical decisions decades beyond his comprehension.

Why are you thanking the judge?

This is your un-biased opinion.

First of all it's "Soulja Boy" and second his mom drives him to school in the family SUV. Why would I consider Fruit Loops as a food? It only has all the nutritious elements and is part of a balanced breakfast. It's obvious that we're never going to agree on everything so let's just let it die right here.

This is where you're FLAT OUT wrong!!! I am agreeing on you about....oh, shit, I'm quoting myself now.

---------------------------------------------------------------

(Seriously, man, if this were the Super Bowl of arguing, you're the Buffalo Bills down 50 points against the Cowboys in the Rose Bowl. Also, how do you even have time to do all of these quotes like that? That shit up above took me 20 minutes and I'm exhausted...how do you have so much time to make such outlandish points and use the quote function?)

If this woman manages to hide her son and he dies (which there's a 95% chance that he will), I think she has to be tried for manslaughter. 

In all seriousness, isn't this considered "Depraved Indifference"?

More like taking the law into your own hands.  If she's smart, she'll leave the country with him. 

No, if she is smart, she will take him back and get him the medical treatment that he needs.

We need to see this how it is: She's most likely going to kill her child.

The worst case scenario here is that she runs for a long time, the disease gets worse, then she finally comes around or gets caught, and the kid gets treatment, but it's too late.  That will lend credibility to whatever crystal blessing BS she has in mind.

I think all evidence points to the fact that she ISN'T smart...she's deluded, and her delusion will likely cause the death of her child.

It's equal parts sad, tragic and criminal...

I don't think that she has mal-intent.  I really think that she thinks that vitamins and ionized water is going to cure Hotchkin's disease.  Unfortunately, she's not in a mental state to be making decisions on behalf of the well-being of her child.

I did not say anything other than.  Good one.  By the way you posted it sounded like you did not know either.  I'm not impressed with this BTW.  Its one company in how many.  Heck I have a face clock that is broke & its right twice a day.



So its not like they did not get multiple do overs.   Way to crack that whip.



My hard-on has nothing to do with less or more Gov.  Simply do what they were intended to do.   Protect the people & not simply look at the profits of the drug & food industry.

  Single error?   Besides with all these clinical trails, scientific proof how can there be any errors?   


I posted Cherrios is food.   I simply stated don't expect eating it will help you maintain a healthy body.   To your body, its basically sugar.  Sugar is not healthy for the body & why Type 2 is exploding in America along with their waist line.

   In the basic sense it is there fault.  The FDA is telling them our drugs are safe & as we know from discussions here.  Some people have physical problems brought on by genetics. 

I find it sadly pathetic that you have no problem with someone dying from using a FDA approved drug.  Even people who were not in danger of dying. 

   Again.  Understand the argument. 

Protection of the people over the protection of revenue.

  Rarely is the day I take the time to reply to one of your post.   You are not someone I care to have a discussion with.

Nothing personal though.

10 second google search.  There are many other examples.

Since when are clinical trials (or anything else) perfect?  The best we can hope for is to make corrections when new data becomes available.  And again, this is in contrast to the number of successful in-depth, peer-reviewed, double-blind clinical trials of treatments like homeopathy (that number being zero).

Direct quote: "I do not think Cheerios is food."
You then attempted to backtrack by saying that it is food in the same sense that poisoned water is water (i.e. it isn't).  Guess what?  When I take "water" and I mix in "poison," we do not refer to the resulting product as "water".  We call it "slightly diluted poison".

Which is why no natural products (you know, your source for Glorious And Perfect All-Health) contain sugars, right?

Quick question: which contains more sugars, Cheerios (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/breakfast-cereals/1522/2) or an all-natural apple (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2)?

I find it bizarre and contradictory that instead of recommending an FDA-approved drug that has gone through hundreds of clinical trials, you instead prefer some untested product based purely on someone's anecdotal say-so.

And yet somehow, this concept does not apply to using your tax money to provide a healthcare plan for those who are unable to afford one.

Some consistency, please.

I'd say they are all the little guys.  You know the ones without the big time lobbyist.

The drug has to be pretty dang bad before the FDA rejects it.   The FDA has been rubber stamping drug approval at a higher rate than ever before.  We have more & more reports of contamination in our food chain than ever before.


  Correct.  I ( Meaning myself ) do not consider it is food.  However, it is technically food & I cannot argue against it, since it can be eaten.   Just as stagnant water is still technically water & still can be drank.  However I do not want to drink it.

   You do realize you are talking two different types of sugars?
There is a huge difference in how they effect your BG level.


Might want to backup & punt on that.  All I've ever maintained is there may be more than one way to reach a destination.

Not really sure how you are trying to spin this into HC. 

I was gravedigging today and wondered what happened to this kid.  He got chemo, went into remission and made a full recovery, from all I could tell -- I don't see any updates past 2011, but that was a full 3 years after the original story.  About a year afterward, his father was diagnosed with cancer, decided to forgo traditional methods and treat it with "dietary therapies" and was dead in a year, at 56 years old.