Originally posted by whitewave:
reply to post by NRen2k5
It is impossible to reason with unreasonable people so I was just going to put you on my ignore list but your snide and smug comments need to be
repudiated so, for the benefit of those who may have thought you had some valid come-back to my post, I will respond.

How kind of you. But it would be
me who should put
you on
my ignore list for being unreasonable. But I’m more mature than
that.

1) "Three drugs out of thousands? Fallacy of proof by example!"
I could refer to my PDR, several nursing drug books or my 28 years of observation and experience as a registered nurse to show that many more than 3
drugs are responsible for people's deaths but the last part of your response was the more interesting; fallacy of proof by example. In other words,
"you prooved by example, therefore it's a fallacy." That's actually pretty funny NRen. I guess I'll have to stop cheating by giving examples of
proof. NOT!

There’s nothing funny about it. Just because two things coincide, no matter how much they
seem related, isn’t enough to say definitely that
one caused the other.
In South Korea, they have this urban myth called “Fan Death.” Somehow the people there have latched onto the belief that if you sleep with an
electric fan in the room, it will kill you. Some think it sucks the oxygen out of the room. Others think it somehow chills you to the point of
hypothermia and death. In the news media, deaths are regularly attributed to sleeping with a fan running. Someone can die of a heart attack, stroke,
aneurysm, you name it! But at the end of the day, they decide it was the fan’s fault.
If you were to prove the actual immediate cause of death of such a person to a Korean, they will just try to think of a way that the fan could cause
that.
Why? They were sleeping with the fan on, of course!
And we all know a fan will kill you in your sleep!
They just quite simple refuse to believe otherwise in the face of any proof.

2) You said that just because people had been using natural remedies for millenia didn't proove they were effective. Technically that's
true but one has to ask WHY would people go to the time and trouble of searching for plants, concocting potions, etc. if those remedies were not
effective? Why would they continue to do so for thousands of years if there were no benefit? I think that through trial and error people have found
that certain plants have physiological effects on them and have incorporated that knowlege into their survival repetoire.

To be sure, SOME herbal remedies are effective. Others rely entirely on placebo effect, and others still could be little more than a sort of
aromatherapy.
To say point blank that they’re superior to pharmaceuticals is ludicrous. Many drugs are made by isolating the active chemical in such an organism
and replicating and concentrating it.

3) "Patented? No. Used? Yes." (regarding drug companies researching natural remedies in hopes of finding active ingredients they can
patent) It's true that natural ingredients can not be patented which is why Codex Alimentarius is geared toward ridding us of herbs and supplements
to make way for the multibillion dollar industry left in its wake. Drug companies are researching active ingredients in natural herbs and plants to
determine if a synthetic (ie, patentable) product that mimics the natural plants effectiveness can be produced. Digitalis is the pharmaceutical
industry's answer to the natural Foxglove.

I love how irrational people do this. You confront them with something irrational in their conspiracy hypothesis, so they use another conspiracy
hypothesis to back it up.…

4) You asked for a report on the cancer cure that was shelved due to lack of ability to patent anything that worked as well as the natural.
If you're not too lazy or self-satisfied in what you think passes for knowledge to look it up, the following URL is provided.
www.isecureonline.com/Reports/FCBK/W680/HA01

Dead link.

5) "So NOW you use the FDA's definition? Convenient!" (referring to the word "drug")
I have only referred to natural remedies as "natural remedies". I believe it was YOU that suggested they were drugs, not I. And yes, according to
the FDA, natural remedies are not drugs, negating the need for a prescription.

Prescriptions are an artificial construct created by men to keep other men safe from addiction, overdoses and conflicts with their medications. These
same things can happen with herbal natural remedies too. The original comment applies to people pushing herbal remedies just like big pharma: drug
dealers don’t care about their buyers!

6) "Problem among some members here not understanding burden of proof." Before I open that can of worms (which I am quite willing and able
to do), let me ask if you even know who Royal Raymond Rife was. Do you? Do you know what he accomplished? Do you know his universal microscope is
still on display in the Smithsonian? The Smithsonian does not devote a lot of floor space to snake oil or voodoo dolls.

Yes. Do you know who he is? You might want to brush up on your reading. The Smithsonian to my knowledge doesn’t have one on display, they just
published a report on it, more than 60 years ago. He very well might have made very good microscopes, but his cancer cure was pure quackery.
www.quackwatch.org...

7) "Maybe the machines didn't work?"
I suppose that's why the AMA offered to BUY the machines?

Prove it.

I suppose that's why all those terminal patients didn't die of cancer even though their own doctors had given up on them.

Really? They didn’t die of cancer? Proof time again!

8) "Not true." Are you saying that it's not true that doctors don't educate themselves on what alternative treatments to cancer are
available or are you saying that it's not true that they are taught that chemo, surgery or radiation are the only effective treatments against
cancer?

Yes.

I work with doctors on a daily basis

And you aren’t one yourself.