Originally posted by cybertroy
Let's make it simple. The best solution is the solution that does the most good with the least amount of harm.

Troy

That's absolutely right. Personally, I feel starting the child on life-saving dialysis is less harmful than feeding him grass clippings and tea. But, then again, I tend to go with logic and results.

Mariella

>I tend to go with logic and results.

Yes... Do share with us the 'logic and results' of EXACTLY how chemotherapy works.



It's Medieval thinking at it's worst to keep repeating a treatment over and over and over that just basically JUST KILLS PEOPLE...

And a lot like the 'thinking' being employed here in 'discussing' this poor child...

Who was doing just fine with the mother's current treatments.
Was, as was agreed to by all parties in court, NOT in any danger.
Had underdeveloped kidneys... Was NOT in renal failure as is maintained by supporters of the MDs.

> grass clippings and tea

What? No 'dirty gypsies' anecdote?



... The problem, is a little thing called the FACTS.

Originally posted by golemina


It's Medieval thinking at it's worst to keep repeating a treatment over and over and over that just basically JUST KILLS PEOPLE...

didn't Einstein define insanity as a condition where people do the same again and again expecting different results? ??

Originally posted by golemina
>I tend to go with logic and results.

Yes... Do share with us the 'logic and results' of EXACTLY how chemotherapy works.

It's sad that you are blind to the fact that chemotherapy has changed radically in the last two decades it has existed. You'd be surprised how many people are on a form of chemo and are living long, fairly healthy lives. Something they certainly couldn't do without the chemo.

It's Medieval thinking at it's worst to keep repeating a treatment over and over and over that just basically JUST KILLS PEOPLE...

Well, TECHNICALLY, giving a diabetic shots of insulin is something you have to do over and over, and the constant injections often lead to cardiovascular problems near the injection sites, so I suppose you're saying we should stop treating diabetics, as well?

Who was doing just fine with the mother's current treatments.
Was, as was agreed to by all parties in court, NOT in any danger.
Had underdeveloped kidneys... Was NOT in renal failure as is maintained by supporters of the MDs.

When they said the child wasn't in immediate danger, I believe they were referring to the Amber Alert. The doctor and police were saying the child wasn't in any imemdiate danger in relation to the kidnapping, not his dire medical condition. And the fact of the matter is, the child was NOT doing just fine under the mother's treatment. If the child's underdeveloped kidney's had been doing fine, there would be no reason to start the child on dialysis. Believe it or not, there is more money to be made in keeping the child on medication than in dialysis. Dialysis is a temporary solution. If the doctors were just doing it to make money, why would they offer such a temporary fix, rather than slam the child with drugs? Seems your ideas a quickly becoming farcical.

... The problem, is a little thing called the FACTS.

That's good that you realise your problem. That's the first step, I hear.

Mariella

No seriously. Don't be so shy Bls4doc.

Let's delve into exactly HOW MEDIEVAL chemotherapy happens to be...

Let's tell the folks about how and what 'chemotherapy' REALLY is...

It's the wholesale poisoning of the FASTEST GROWING cells in your body. In theory, it's supposed to be the cancer cells...

But the REALITY is a whole lot uglier.

It tends to KILL ALL of the fastest growing cells. For starters, basically all of your 'soft tissues'...

It is a long, long list of tissues that basically get seriously hammered/destroyed... Among my personal favorites in the list is hair growing cells (most people shave so that people can't see you're DYING), testes (men only... ), gums, mouth linings... Soft tissues also include a lot of the stuff on the end opposite of your mouth .

>blind to the fact that chemotherapy has changed radically in the last two decades



That's a GOOD one. So 'chemo' has switched from KILLING 98-99% of all people receiving treatment to what... a 98-99% survival rate?



Yes... DO inform us.

What our good doctor is referring to is a type of chemo that would be intelligent... As in some kind of cancer cell differentiation.

Sorry people... That is MOSTLY JUST MARKETING GLOSSY stuff... And is certainly NOT what 'mainstream' 'chemo' does on a daily basis.



What our good doctor fails to tell you is the REAL cause of cancer is toxicity. The body's entire metabollic scheme is falling apart... because the body is saturated with poisons.

So what does 'modern medicine' do?

Why POUR MORE POISONS in to an ALREADY POISONED body... of course!



Why the 'side trip' into cancer?

BTW
-----------------------------------------
if you are diagnosed with 'cancer', get some REAL help from a naturopath. They have a foot in both camps of medicine (alternative + allopathic(=Bls4doc )). Allopathic refers to so called 'disease model' 'medicine' ---> everything is a 'disease'...

I'm REALLY not making that up.



A naturopath will tend to just focus on getting you detoxified... without the needless sidetrip down MAIM STREET.

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

Do you REALLY want to get treated by someone who knows ALMOST NOTHING about how the body functions as a whole (Read holistic ).

And back to our point... This little child was in ABSOLUTELY NO DANGER.

>Seems your ideas a quickly becoming farcical.

Farcial?

Farcial... That would be doing procedures on a child that is basically OK...

I've never heard of this 'they were referring to the Amber Alert'...

Crediblity check, anyone?

>Believe it or not, there is more money to be made in keeping the child on medication than in dialysis.

Yeah. Right... Like the good doctors did all of this for free.

... I don't think so!

>Dialysis is a temporary solution.

Exactly. The child had a shot at a normal life... WITHOUT a kidney transplant.

Temporary? As in FORCING this child to get a transplant.

When the child WAS OK.

I guess it's true that 'Ignorance is Bliss'. It certainly applies here.

I would tell you a tale about the wonders of a type of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE called homeopathy.

It basically stands reality on its head. Is certainly a LOT closer to magic than anything really... Actually is ABLE TO RESTORE VIGOR to failing/weak organs....

Shhh... It uses some of the FARCIAL stuff...

That alternative medicine uses to clean up the messes (like autistic children ). That would be FARCIAL (and don't forget IGNORANT ) people like me.

What can I say... It's GOOD to be me!

Psst. The sad truth is we try to share life changing/life saving stuff ALL of the time with people like our good doctor... The MDs WILL NOT EVEN LOOK at what we are offering. Because they KNOW it can't POSSIBLY be true!

As an example and for a good chuckle, go find the thread where she tells me how stupid I am, because I'm telling her you can CURE many of the symptoms of arthritis by balancing your body PH with simple calcium (with a glucosamine and friends chaser)... She informs me that's BS and CAN"T POSSIBLY be true because glucosamine is an acid!



You guys should know me/what I'm going to say next by now... I'm really NOT making this up.

>That's good that you realise your problem. That's the first step, I hear

What can I say Bsl4doc... The facts (and attitudes ) speak for themselves... In all of the subjects you and I have 'conversed' on.

It's a win-win kind of situation. You're going to make a LOT of money in your career. I'm going to help a LOT of people.

Everyone walks away happy.

You take care.

PS. Sorry Bls4doc. I didn't mean to ignore your 'revelations' about 'diabetes'. It's mostly a manufactured disease. I saw MDs treating diabetes in all of their glory 10 days ago... They cut off a friends fathers other foot... You know the one they didn't amputate last time. Just Medieval... I guess will 'talk' later.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by golemina]

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
That's why when I broke my leg I walked around for 6 weeks with a splint fashioned from a broken broomstick and duct tape. Them docters cain't be trusted!

you are joking..?

Of course I'm joking. This was meant to show that though there is reason to be distrustful of hospitals, they're a necessary evil for survival.

When you don't give your child proper medical care, you are abusing the child.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Astyanax
Shouldn't such alternatives have been at least as rigorously tested as the 'conventional' treatments they are supposed to be alternatives to?

They aren't tested by anyone, so they remain forever locked out of the marketplace.... the FDA does whatever some puppet master... tells them to do.

Why does it have to be the FDA that tests them? What about all the people who believe in these alternative treatments? Some of them are probably very rich -- multimillionaires, even. Why don't they get together and fund the appropriate tests? With good solid evidence to back their claims, the FDA and its equivalents in other countries would be bound to sit up and take notice.

Could it be that they fear rigorous testing, because it might well prove the inefficacy of these treatments?

Originally posted by golemina
The REAL cause of cancer is toxicity. The body's entire metabollic scheme is falling apart... because the body is saturated with poisons.

How do you know this? Can you provide scientifically credible evidence to prove that this is true?

Do you REALLY want to get treated by someone who knows ALMOST NOTHING about how the body functions as a whole (Read holistic ).

Why are you assuming that doctors don't see the body as a functioning whole or understand its workings holistically? Or do you mean 'holistic' to mean something beyond its dictionary definition? Once again, it would be nice to hear a -- scientifically credible -- explanation.

Believe it or not, there is more money to be made in keeping the child on medication than in dialysis.

Could you provide figures, please? I know how to read a balance sheet, and I'm sure other people on this board do too.

I would tell you a tale about the wonders of a type of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE called homeopathy.

Would your tale include quotes from some scientifically plausible studies that indicate whether, and if so how, homeopathy achieves anything beyond a placebo effect?

The MDs WILL NOT EVEN LOOK at what we are offering. Because they KNOW it can't POSSIBLY be true!

How about offering it (just for fun) in a form that medics would find credible? You know, with falsifiable results from some honest, replicable research and a believable hypothesis regarding how the effect you're peddling actually works in physiological, physical and chemical terms?

[Diabetes is] mostly a manufactured disease.

Who is manufacturing it? Could you please provide some support for your fascinating theory?

I'm not taking the mickey -- at least, not entirely. It's obvious you're a believer in alternative medicine, or at least in homeopathy. Well, then, instead of fulminating against bsl4doc, convince the sceptical non-medics, like myself, who have nothing to gain from supporting the medical establishment but cannot, because of our scientific outlook, take things simply on faith. I know you don't see it like that, but believe me, that is how most people do see it. If you're going to 'help lots of people' as you so clearly wish to, make a credible case.

Originally posted by Nygdan
When you don't give your child proper medical care, you are abusing the child.

While in principle I agree with you.. (and I'm starting to wonder if I agree because I was conditioned to do so..) this whole thing brings a point to mind that makes me wonder:

Does a mother/parents have a right over the life of the child.. and how come society suddenly knows better than a mother?
(And yes, some of this is Devil's Advocate, but I have to wonder nevertheless because this issue breeches many personal freedoms..)

If I have a child that turns out retarded, or deformed, or sick, and I decide to kill it (since it will obviously not benefit society, and will in fact be a drain..)... *why am I at fault?*
If _my_ child is not suited to life, cannot survive on its own.. why is it such a bad thing to let it die or kill it? Surely any animal-mother would eat her young simply because of the fact* that it cannot survive. It is not a viable creature, and would die on its own. It cannot reproduce and raise its own children..

I say, it's her child.. let her do with it as she pleases. If she wants to throw it in a trash bin, or try a different method of healing.. let her. It doesn't harm you or yours in any fashion.. and so long as she doesn't come near your children, what should it matter to you?

Am I at fault for not making sure my child does not get a flu shot every single year? Especially considering that I don't get the flu anymore since I've stopped going in for the shots... How else is our immune system supposed to get practice killing germs???


All this 'society knows better than you' nonsense is seriously worrying me.. It's become akin to the sidewalks outside my house.. They are the city's property and cannot do anything with or to it.. and yet I get fined if I don't manage them, and can get jailed if someone else hurts themselves on them. What kind of b.s. is that??
If I make a mistake with my child and it dies, then it's my fault and my genes are not passed on. Not to mention the guilt trips I'd suffer of my own free will....
If society wants to raise the children, then fine.. take them all and do it.. just go 'Brave New World' already and go away. This half-in-half-out crap truly borders on fascism..

(Edited to add...)
If all medicines were tested, re-tested, and proven one way or the other.. I'd feel a whole lot better about taking them. But, most aren't.. even the ones being pushed in ads every other page in every friggin' magazine.
WE ARE the guinea pigs.. and the results will show at the end of our lives. So trying out alternative methods is really the same as anyother non-tested well-advertised 'medicine'...
In the society that we live in, profit is the name of the game. And anything that can bring profit wil be pushed and touted as effective.. whether or not it really is.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Diseria]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why does it have to be the FDA that tests them? What about all the people who believe in these alternative treatments

Why does it have to be the fed controlling the money supply? it's called a monopoly and it works primarily by coercion, then by denial of resources and finally by ignorance (effective secrecy if you will). if you try to get some quack treatment out the door (esp. electromedicine or another matterless treatment) they will simply lock you up. happened to Rife, among others, happened to Naessens (although he was acquitted due to public pressure, but that was in Canada anyway), happened to many others i've never heard of.

It's a political issue, the establishment will never admit what caused the Gulf War Syndrome or Autism or that most cancer treatments should be considered mortal torture. They'd have to admit they were WRONG all along. as long as these few key monopolies exist, not much is going to change anytime soon.

equal standards are all we need, call snake oil by its name, be it herbal, homeopathic, or big pharma's latest and greatest toxic brew or plain ole aspirin, now suddenly useful against headaches, coronary heart disease, shortsighteness, perhaps schizophrenia and alzheimer, too gotta love it when they're promising the world and then some, then proceed to deliver a synthesized birch extract probably the only redeeming feature, though.

You trolling me or really looking for reality based answers to your questions?

Which is it Astyanax?

It might help you to understand that I used to be squarely in Bsl4docs camp, as in lock, stock and barrel.

Shocking isn't it?



But contrary to an 'interest in the truth' your words are saying... that's not what I'm hearing.

If you are REALLY in search of the truth... We'll take you there.

(Like that is going to happen... )



Sorry... Really! To me this is like the 'Shes a witch!' scene out of that Monty Python movie.




[edit on 7-7-2006 by golemina]

Originally posted by golemina
You trolling me or really looking for reality based answers to your questions?

Why not answer the questions and find out? I'm sure you understand that prevarication of this sort hardly helps your case.

It might help you to understand that I used to be squarely in Bsl4docs camp, as in lock, stock and barrel.

As far as I am concerned, that would make your answers all the more interesting and relevant. So let's have them...

...preferably with fewer of these, since they don't add materially to the facts.

There's a difference between ordinary debate and 'trolling'. I'm merely asking you to substantiate your claims, as any ATS member is entitled to do. I look forward to reading your response.

Originally posted by Diseria
I say, it's her child.. let her do with it as she pleases... If she wants to throw it in a trash bin, or try a different method of healing...let her.

It's 'her' child only in the sense that she bore it. It doesn't belong to her. It 'belongs' to itself, though society and the species both have stronger claims over it than a mere parent. Parents are custodians of their children on behalf of society and the species. They have no rights of their own over their children -- at least, none that are morally defensible.

How come society suddenly knows better than a mother?

That's how. And there's nothing sudden about it.

Does a mother/parents have a right over the life of the child.. and how come society suddenly knows better than a mother?
(And yes, some of this is Devil's Advocate, but I have to wonder nevertheless because this issue breeches many personal freedoms..)

If I have a child that turns out retarded, or deformed, or sick, and I decide to kill it (since it will obviously not benefit society, and will in fact be a drain..)... *why am I at fault?*
If _my_ child is not suited to life, cannot survive on its own.. why is it such a bad thing to let it die or kill it? Surely any animal-mother would eat her young simply because of the fact* that it cannot survive. It is not a viable creature, and would die on its own. It cannot reproduce and raise its own children..

I say, it's her child.. let her do with it as she pleases. If she wants to throw it in a trash bin, or try a different method of healing.. let her. It doesn't harm you or yours in any fashion.. and so long as she doesn't come near your children, what should it matter to you?

Am I at fault for not making sure my child does not get a flu shot every single year? Especially considering that I don't get the flu anymore since I've stopped going in for the shots... How else is our immune system supposed to get practice killing germs???

Becoming amother doesn't make suddenly make you a moral, just person. Take a look at Andrea Yates. She was a mother of four, and she drowned all of them in the bathtub while her husband was out and showed no remorse. There are mothers like that out there. Granted, that is an etremely rare case, but a case nonetheless.

Mariella

Originally posted by Astyanax
It's 'her' child only in the sense that she bore it. It doesn't belong to her. It 'belongs' to itself, though society and the species both have stronger claims over it than a mere parent. Parents are custodians of their children on behalf of society and the species. They have no rights of their own over their children -- at least, none that are morally defensible.

While in a far off stand point I kinda sorta almost somewhat agree, the majority of my being still disagrees.

If an apple tree produces an apple, does that apple not belong to the tree?
Or, does that tree, along with the apple, belong to all of existence -- which is far beyond any specific species or society?

And if any animal stopped to debate the moral logistics of eating another, be it vittles or its deformed young, the species would be very short lived. Which seriously makes me wonder about humanity..

I refuse to think that society knows what's best, considering how messed up the American society is.
On a daily basis, I have to deal with parents who have adopted the 'I don't hit my children for any reason' philosophy.. which is all well and good in theory, but is rotten at the very core in practice. Because society deems any smack as a form of abuse, now *any* form of discipline is considered abuse!
So while the intentions are well and true, undoubtedly towards some moral 'good' end, society is producing a generation of children with absolutely no sense of how to act in public, nor any respect for the authority of their parents!
Meanwhile, if I step in and point out their fallacy, no matter my reasons, I am wrong for stepping in! How dare I think that I know better then the parents do! (I've had it happen.)
So, society tells me to stay the heck out of the parents' affairs.. even if the lack of discipline impedes my life.
But somehow society still knows better?

Granted, that was a little off topic, but the point is that no, society does not own the child.
I did not 'belong' to myself until at least the age of 23.. simply because I did not possess any level of maturity to make my own sound decisions. Until that age, I belonged to my parents. Admittedly, I have no sense of 'belonging' to society when, for the most part, society tried to instill values and morals through advertisements for products.. taught me that any individual's virtue is known by merely looking at them.. at their clothes and the brand names they sport.

I do not doubt that society played a role in my development. However, it was my parents who kept my moral ruler straight.

How come society suddenly knows better than a mother? .....
That's how. And there's nothing sudden about it.

Your reasons are not sound, in my book. And really, it feels totally sudden considering the length that our species has been around, verses the short span of this so-called 'civilization'....
Now-a-days we fight for the lives of retards, half-wits, and other genetically unacceptables.. we try desparately to save them, to work them into society.. and are surprised when it fails...
(And the truth of the matter is that our Civilized American Society doesn't really give a hoot about anyone unless they're rich.. Money talks.. not Reason and Virtue. Not even Justice. Thank society for that lesson...)

Society was human-made.. thus, it is obviously it's flawed -- we cannot know everything! So how can you argue that society is morally infallible? ..is the earth still flat?

If society thinks that it can raise children better.. then it may as well get off its friggin' duff, take them all from birth, and do it. Either y'all take 'em and raise 'em, figure out how to take the parents out of the equation by decanting or something...
Or get out of the way.

This outside authority figure stuff is annoying. And frankly, it's morally insulting.
When is our society gonna leave the nest already?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Diseria]

Becoming amother doesn't make suddenly make you a moral, just person. Take a look at Andrea Yates. She was a mother of four, and she drowned all of them in the bathtub while her husband was out and showed no remorse. There are mothers like that out there. Granted, that is an etremely rare case, but a case nonetheless.

I don't argue that at all. In fact, most people I've met irl are not moral, just people. Morality and Justice have no place in a capitalistic society.. they do ideally, but not really. An honest, morally upright business man will not be in business for long. Those who are willing to lie and cheat, they are the rich ones..

But, there too, morals have some place in the argument.. some. Morals are not the end all be all of the issue at hand..

Humanity makes them so, but Nature does not. The system (world-wide environment) would not work if that were the case.. (again, if a wolf debated the morality of eating a rabbit, it'd starve right quick)

In the end, this is a case of Morals verses Biology.. tis a very fine line to walk, indeed.

I would be seriously depressed if I had to kill my child because I knew it would not survive on its own.
I'd be morally ashamed of myself, ashamed for my species, my society, and for my genes, if I let it live because I was not strong enough to do what was necessary.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Diseria]