Re: Bill's Plea

[Guest guest]

Bill wrote -

"Whatever you may think of the Western medical establishment, it is based on a pretty reasonable methodology: testing of a theory in a clinical trial must show a positive result in most cases before a treatment can be prescribed. Not to say that alternative medicine, diet, and other approaches are not valid, I believe they certainly are, and not to say that all treatments work for everyone - they don't, but I fear that some of the advice given on this list - while completely well-intentioned - needs to be taken with caution. I too have been looking for treatment other than that which my physician is recommending, but I would be much more comfortable if the discussion on this list was monitored: if a panel of experts from different disciplines: MD, Surgeon, Nutritionist, Herbalist, Homeopath, etc. would weigh in with their opinions and experience and help us sort out hype from reality."

Bill, sorry to have to tell you this, but your thinking has some serious drawbacks.

When I compare the methodology that we used in the nuclear field for many years while I was in charge of the operation and maintenance of naval nuclear reactors with that of the Western medical establishment, I find the latter to be seriously lacking.

First, Western methodology starts with a problem, what they call a disease or whatever. Then they try to find something which they can eventually produce, sell and profit from which may or may not be effective. Then they test and tweak, i.e. change the product, until they get one that seems to have a positive effect and is different enough from anything else so that they can patent it and eventually get a return on their investment. They then get into the serious money phases of testing and proving both safety and efficacy to the FDA. $100 to $300M later maybe they have a product.

Sounds simple, but why don't they start by finding out what alternatives already exist such as have been or are being used somewhere in the world. Why don't they test those and then try to tweak those if they exist. Why spend all this money and time starting with a fresh page if mankind somewhere has already learned something of value. The other part of a "reasonable methodology, something which should be done first, would be to look at the causes of the problem/disease, why people are getting it in the first place, who is getting it, who is not getting it and why. I can ramble on with this, but problem solving is a rather well understood process and our Western medical establishment quite simply uses none of it, all backed by the power of the federal government including their courts, lawyers and police.

Why is this methodology so unreasonable? The reason is that would not enable large profits and the all important patents which make the whole thing proprietary and thus profitable. I don't mind (this is meant to be a free country) that the drug companies want to use this methodology as long as it is their money and that their method is not enforced by the federal government as the only acceptable one. Unfortunately, the enforcement is becoming more pervasive every day. Our freedom is fast disappearing as more and more people clamor for the government to create a perfectly safe medical system and the government bureaucrats assume more and more power. All of this is resulting is poorer and poorer medical care. Why does the U.S. have the lowest score among industrialized nations as concerns how long we can expect to live? Why do we have well over 100,000 deaths each year in hospitals from prescribed drugs? I could go on and on, but I'll leave the rest to you. For me, the answer as to why is very clear.

My only real question is why do people like you want more use of a flawed methodology? Any problem solving which refuses to address causes is a bandaid approach at best wherever in life it is used. Why do you want to foist this failed methodoloy on the rest of us?? Why are you wanting less freedom or is it that you just want someone else to make it real easy on you so you won't have to take personal responsibility for your own health?

Your desire to have all the relevant professionals on the list providing their input certainly sounds desirable. I for one have no way to achieve that goal and have not bothered to even think about it. Why don't you do it? I am not sure you'll get any takers, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

I hope that I have caused you to do some thinking, Bill. I do not mean to demean you in any way, only to squarely to face the issue as my experience would indicate. Regards, Ben

[Guest guest]

Ben is right.

There is little pure science done in health. It all about finding

products, not cures.

K

> Bill wrote -

>

> " Whatever you may think of the Western medical establishment, it is

based

> on a pretty reasonable methodology: testing of a theory in a

clinical

> trial must show a positive result in most cases before a treatment

can be

> prescribed. Not to say that alternative medicine, diet, and other

> approaches are not valid, I believe they certainly are, and not to

say

> that all treatments work for everyone - they don't, but I fear that

some

> of the advice given on this list - while completely well-

intentioned -

> needs to be taken with caution. I too have been looking for

treatment

> other than that which my physician is recommending, but I would be

much

> more comfortable if the discussion on this list was monitored: if a

panel

> of experts from different disciplines: MD, Surgeon, Nutritionist,

> Herbalist, Homeopath, etc. would weigh in with their opinions and

> experience and help us sort out hype from reality. "

>

> Bill, sorry to have to tell you this, but your thinking has some

serious drawbacks.

>

> When I compare the methodology that we used in the nuclear field

for many years while I was in charge of the operation and maintenance

of naval nuclear reactors with that of the Western medical

establishment, I find the latter to be seriously lacking.

>

> First, Western methodology starts with a problem, what they call a

disease or whatever. Then they try to find something which they can

eventually produce, sell and profit from which may or may not be

effective. Then they test and tweak, i.e. change the product, until

they get one that seems to have a positive effect and is different

enough from anything else so that they can patent it and eventually

get a return on their investment. They then get into the serious

money phases of testing and proving both safety and efficacy to the

FDA. $100 to $300M later maybe they have a product.

>

> Sounds simple, but why don't they start by finding out what

alternatives already exist such as have been or are being used

somewhere in the world. Why don't they test those and then try to

tweak those if they exist. Why spend all this money and time starting

with a fresh page if mankind somewhere has already learned something

of value. The other part of a " reasonable methodology, something

which should be done first, would be to look at the causes of the

problem/disease, why people are getting it in the first place, who is

getting it, who is not getting it and why. I can ramble on with

this, but problem solving is a rather well understood process and our

Western medical establishment quite simply uses none of it, all

backed by the power of the federal government including their courts,

lawyers and police.

>

> Why is this methodology so unreasonable? The reason is that would

not enable large profits and the all important patents which make the

whole thing proprietary and thus profitable. I don't mind (this is

meant to be a free country) that the drug companies want to use this

methodology as long as it is their money and that their method is not

enforced by the federal government as the only acceptable one.

Unfortunately, the enforcement is becoming more pervasive every day.

Our freedom is fast disappearing as more and more people clamor for

the government to create a perfectly safe medical system and the

government bureaucrats assume more and more power. All of this is

resulting is poorer and poorer medical care. Why does the U.S. have

the lowest score among industrialized nations as concerns how long we

can expect to live? Why do we have well over 100,000 deaths each year

in hospitals from prescribed drugs? I could go on and on, but I'll

leave the rest to you. For me, the answer as to why is very clear.

>

> My only real question is why do people like you want more use of a

flawed methodology? Any problem solving which refuses to address

causes is a bandaid approach at best wherever in life it is used. Why

do you want to foist this failed methodoloy on the rest of us?? Why

are you wanting less freedom or is it that you just want someone else

to make it real easy on you so you won't have to take personal

responsibility for your own health?

>

> Your desire to have all the relevant professionals on the list

providing their input certainly sounds desirable. I for one have no

way to achieve that goal and have not bothered to even think about

it. Why don't you do it? I am not sure you'll get any takers, but

nothing ventured nothing gained.

>

> I hope that I have caused you to do some thinking, Bill. I do not

mean to demean you in any way, only to squarely to face the issue as

my experience would indicate. Regards, Ben

[Guest guest]

Ben Simonton wrote a delightful exposure of the whole "profit first, patient

second" disease-perpetuation industry in this country:

First, Western methodology

starts with a problem, what they call a disease or whatever. Then they

try to find something which they can eventually produce, sell and profit

from which may or may not be effective. Then they test and tweak, i.e.

change the product, until they get one that seems to have a positive effect

and is different enough from anything else so that they can patent it and

eventually get a return on their investment.

Ben, the paid trolls are hard at work in the newsgroups. I've

talked with them and I no longer am willing to sit back and watch them

cast their subtle (and sly) doubts that natural healing is best.

Natural healing should always be first choice and we can't let them keep

stampeding people toward the knife-wielders and potion sellers.

It's time for a good muckraker to collect the troll reports and write

a book that exposes what is going on. "Muckraker," BTW, is a badge

of honor. They were the people who alerted the public to all the

horrid food adulteration going on just before Congress was forced to create

the FDA. Sadly, the medical and agri-business giants soon corrupted

what could have been a boon for our people.

Did you know that when medical tonsil-snatching was at its zenith in

this country, over 600 kids a year were dying on the table?

Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Rex Harrill

Hey,

they've been fooling me!!!