I don't know that I am entirely "AntiPharma" but I have some issues when it comes to the CDC, NIH and some pharma companies. I haven't researched
each and every company so can only answer these in general terms with what I know. I will never claim to be an expert on really anything except
signing my name, but here are my answers/thoughts.
"A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective..."
I'm going to stop you at that point and say the last part is not always true. It depends on the infection, the doctor, your immune system, and
multiple other factors but antibiotics are many times NOT "very effective."
and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that
get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?
There are many herbal medicines that treat infections quite well and have proven, at times, to be "better" because they do not kill "good
Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your
anti-pharma paradigm explain that?
I wonder, from this statement, if you are including herbal medicines at all. I apologize for my new-ness and if I am getting this wrong.
I'm not sure why you would think that no alternative therapy would be better than antibiotics, and by alternative therapy I am mostly talking about
herbal remedies. That is all I really have knowledge of as far as alternative medicine. To KNOW this, you would need to know how antibiotics work
(some work on killing the cell wall, some work in other ways) and you would need to know how the herbal medicines work. Then you could compare them.
For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use
some New Age healing that will probably not work?
For these examples, I would first do my own research and would most likely go with the usual treatment for these just because they have been around a
while and are pretty straight-forward to treat. I do have a bit of a medical background, though, so I don't exactly advise that to everyone. Luckily,
I also have a doctor who is well-versed on all treatments and can advise me better than your "usual" doctor.
I don't quite know about the whole AIDS topic that you are referring to so I'm staying out of that one.
One thing you may not realize is that the research/study publishing process is not what it used to be. There are many hands in many pies guiding
research and treatment guidelines in a way that would profit them and the places they work for, including drug companies, universities,
"researchers," those teaching new physicians, some newer-vaccine patent owners, etc.
I'll probably get into more detail about that in the Lyme topics I reply to.
The FDA is butting in on the supplement industry. Why? In my opinion because there is a lot of money in it. Any why is that? Because they work.
There are other theories out there, but I think the pharma companies want to get their hands on these and make their own proprietary formulas and kick
out their competition.
If you find any typos, words that are just WRONG in the sentence, please excuse my Lyme brain and the late time of the night.