Originally posted by RogerT
Who suggested you should believe that?
It is being widely used, as evidenced by the posts on this very thread
Luckily, anonymous anecdotes don't a scientific process make.
If a few of your ilk would adopt a bit of integrity and actually promote stuff that worked, rather than stuff that doesn't, a lot more people
would be using it.
Which attitude would you prefer your treating physician have:
a) "I haven't seen sufficient evidence that therapy X works, so I am not comfortable providing it to my patients until that evidence is made
b) "Well, a bunch of people on the internet said this works. There aren't any papers, peer-reviewed data sets, or longterm cohort studies, but what
the hell? Anonymous people on the internet don't lie, do they?"
Of course, if you did that, you'd probably lose your doctor's license. Perhaps there's a clue there
It's exceedingly hard to lose your license. You can use any experimental therapy you wish, as long as you don't violate ethics (first do no harm,
etc.) and the patient has given full consent.
Nice sweeping generalization, though. I suppose all of us have our own biases, you and I both included.
Saying that pharmaceutical companies are "suppressing it" doesn't make any sense, as old home remedies are still very popular, despite marketing
efforts by pharmaceutical companies.
Why wouldn't this become main stream?
I think these questions have been answered a thousand times here on ATS. Regardless, it's outside the scope of the thread. The question is 'does it
work or not'. Popularity in a media led world does not infer efficacy, especially in the health industry. As a doctor peddling a sham of a treatment
with a less than 3% true cure rate, you should know that better than anyone!
Why don't you try reading the data and research that has already been done (some posted here) and challenge that!
I just read the links in the OP. There is no data or research posted. The three links are interviews with Beck, descriptions of his methods, and
that's it. No patient profiles, no percent successes, no blood titers, no histological samples...nothing. Just interviews and claims of suppression.
It's awfully hard to debate the data when no data is given.
Who says they haven't. Although not sure how easy it would be to strap an electically stimulating device to a cat for 2 hours per day
It wouldn't be any harder than keeping an IV or catheter in an animal. And yet, there are no references anywhere of these devices being used in
Some of your rather more learned colleagues completely disagree with you (hint: read the OP and linked research). But it's nice for you to display
your bias and ignorance up front prior to any investigation.
I've yet to see any research posted in the OP. Also, the opinion of one researcher doesn't replace decades of research by scientists all over the
world. The simple fact is, cells don't have constant, unique frequencies or charges. They are dynamic, fluctuating systems, not static objects. This
is why every cell has hundreds ion pores, active transport channels, and endocytosis systems. Our cells (and other cellular organisms) are constantly
adjusting their charge and ionic content.