Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: medical correctness

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear ,

I agree with you to a certain extent. I don't bend over totally

either way on the topic. I believe both conventional, modern,

mainstream medicine is benefitial as well as alternative medicine

approaches. Both have their benefits. I don't want to tose out the

baby with the bath water on this issue. I can't see the point of

bashing the entire medical field as non-helpful, non-concerned, non-

healthy, etc. and totally enbracing the alternative medical

approaches as the only helpful and effective methods of cure.

So, I believe in what works. Both methods have merit on helping live

more healthy lives.

As far as Dr. getting sued, I'd have to read the court

transcripts before commenting on the details of the case. Do you know

what it was the AMA was patitioning for exactly?

It must have been something to do with ignoring the regulations that

protect the general population on what has been deemed (by them as it

may) as corrective and effective methods of medicine. I don't know.

I respect your opinions, as extreme as they may be, but I choose to

keep a more open mind to the subject. Many of my family members lives

have been saved and extended due to the advancement of the medical

field thank God.

Sugar free gum maybe. :-)

Be healthy and happy.

Barry.

> > From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@y...>

>

> > Since these are my statements you are commenting on I feel

compelled to tell you that you are incorrect on your replies. Don't

get me wrong, you are only missunderstanding what I have

> said.

>

> Barry,

> I was thinking of this last night. I might be incorrect as

per " medical methods " . And if so, that is fine with me.

>

> > it is intirely wrong to disregard the benefits of medicine and

it's advancement toward the improvement of human health and wellbeing.

>

> If modern medicine is interested in human health, why did the AMA

sue Dr. and why don't they embrace her? Because they are NOT

interested in human health. To the contrary, they

> want people to be sick.

>

> With medical intervention and guideness heart disease, which was

non existant 100 years ago, is now responsible for 40% of the deaths

in the U.S. each year. Cancer, which was non

> existent 100 years ago, is the #2 killer.

>

> Most all of the advancement against disease has been due to better

sanitation, which the medical establishment fought.

>

> > Medical research is a billion dollar industry just like bubble

gum is but it also advances the healing of human life.

>

> By " it " you mean the bubble gum industry, right? *G*

>

> Thank goodness for the internet, sites like CureZone and the people

on this list. We can learn so much from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>>Because they are NOT interested in human health. To the contrary, they

want people to be sick.<<

I have to disagree with this extreme statement. I would have to have a

pretty grim view of human nature in general to believe this.

>>With medical intervention and guideness heart disease, which was non

>>existant 100 years ago, is now responsible for 40% of the deaths in the

>>U.S. each year. Cancer, which was non

existent 100 years ago, is the #2 killer.<<

100 years ago people were not living anywhere near as long as they are now,

so there was not as much time for the heart to wear down or cancer to

strike. Also, 100 years ago people did not live with all the pollutants and

food additives that we do. A person ate 50 pounds of sugar a year. The

average person today eats 3 times that amount. People did a lot of physical

exercise, which kept then fit, and worked off stress. Today, people sit

behind desks harboring all types of stress which they just internalize.

Stress is a factor in both heart disease and cancer. I don't think we can

blame heart disease and cancer on doctors. A dear friend of mine would be

dead now, if doctors had not discovered an aneurism and performed open heart

surgery last summer. He is 75, and doing fine now. 100 years ago, if he

had lived to his 70's, this problem would have killed him. I am thankful

for the doctors who saved him, and the research which led to this procedure

being possible.

By the way, what was the #1 cause of death 100 years ago?

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

=========Start of Material Being Replied to========

>Hulda Regehr , 72, claims to cure cancer, AIDS, and many other

>serious

>diseases. She describes herself as an " independent research scientist "

>with

>bachelor and master's degrees from the University of Saskatchewan and a

>Ph.D.

>degree in physiology from the University of Minnesota (1958). She also

>lists

>a naturopathic (N.D.) degree from the Clayton College of Natural Health.

>

>Clayton is a nonaccredited correspondence school founded in 1980 and

>located

>in Birmingham Alabama. In 1985, when this school was called Dr.

>Clayton's

>School of Natural Healing, its " Doctor of Naturopathy " course was

>described

>in a magazine article as a " 100-hour course " for which the tuition was

>$695. "

>>>>>>>>>>>==End of Quoted Material==<<<<<<<<<<<

This is the height of impoliteness. A truly bright person can learn in

100 hours what the average person can learn in 120 or even 150

hours. So it's downright unfair to criticize her on these grounds.

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

IRA L. JACOBSON

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

mailto:laser@...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>>A truly bright person can learn in

100 hours what the average person can learn in 120 or even 150

hours.<<

Still, isn't that equivilent to about the amount of time spent in two

college (or High School) subjects? I think most naturopaths probably have

to undergo a bit more training than this, Just a thought.

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...