Faith over medicine?

[InfiniteNow]

I believe in science too, but that is 'Natural' science', rather than science for profit as the current US healthcare system is motivated by.

 

I seriously call into question your implicit suggestion that the scientific results produced by someone earning a paycheck for doing so are somehow themselves invalid. They may be limited in scope and/or applicability, however, that does nothing to refute the data they show.

[CraigD]

I believe in science too, but that is 'Natural' science', rather than science for profit as the current US healthcare system is motivated by.

I seriously call into question your implicit suggestion that the scientific results produced by someone earning a paycheck for doing so are somehow themselves invalid.

Another dubious implication of Mike’s post is that natural/alternative medicine is not for profit.

 

Although many alternative medicine organizations (and many mainstream medical organizations, also) are not-for-profit, there is not legal prohibition against making very large profits selling its products and services, and substantially less legal regulation. In the US, nearly all alternative medicines are sold as nutritional supplements, not drugs, requiring must less thorough safety and absolutely no efficacy testing. Although organizations such as the US NIH NCCAM have made modest progress in addressing these issues, their funding is typically limited, and many have received considerable criticism regarding irregularities with and the quality of their science.

 

In the meanwhile, many companies, among them many of the large prescription and over-the-counter drug companies, are realizing very high profit margins on the natural product lines, in large part because of this lack or regulation and legal liability.

 

A fairly good essay, IMHO, on an economically large segment of the alternative/natural medicine industry, written by a non-clinician, can be read at this web site.

[maikeru]

I believe in science too, but that is 'Natural' science', rather than science for profit as the current US healthcare system is motivated by.

 

Sorry to read about your grandmother.

Poor circulation or artereoscerosis is the pimary cause of all diseases.

 

Mike C

 

Like InfiniteNow mentioned, so long as the data is good, does it matter whether it is "natural science" or "science for profit"? It's important to keep in mind *who* is performing and funding the science and for what reasons, but that does not have bearing on the validity of results unless results are tampered with or fudged, in which case the results and data are flawed or disputable. I find both of your phrases and descriptions of science to be fairly meaningless. Science done at institutions, universities, or in the home garage can be (and often is) driven for profit. As long as discoveries and data follow the scientific method, they produce scientific knowledge. There are no such things as "natural" or "unnatural," "profit" or "nonprofit" science except as descriptions of supposed intent or goals--they eventually all yield scientific data, contributing to scientific knowledge as a whole if performed well and correctly.

 

I also assure you that my neighbor, the naturopath, makes a very comfortable living from his practice, his treatments, and hawking the local nutraceuticals like Tahitian noni and XanGo (which I regard as harmful and harmless garbage, respectively). He's applying what science he knows for profit, and he's part of the healthcare system. But I don't necessarily know if what he thinks is good science or medicine conforms to what I consider good science and medical knowledge (i.e., scientific knowledge from the scientific method and what doctors in the medical community generally regard as true).

 

Some nutraceuticals and herbs do have good research behind them, explaining some of what they do, how and why they do what they do. Just run a PubMed search or two for things like coffee, tea, cocoa, etc. These have thousands of studies covering them. For example, I think green tea had around 2,000+ studies on it last time I checked. Other nutraceuticals like Tahitian Noni and XanGo (supposedly mangosteen extract) do not have good research or a large amount of research behind them. I did find two reports of noni-induced liver toxicity though, if that's worth anything. Noni has more listed studies on its toxicity and chemical constituents than its supposed health benefits or claims. That tells me something.

 

Poor circulation, etc. can have nothing to do with many diseases. It depends entirely on the nature of the disease.

[Mike C]

I seriously call into question your implicit suggestion that the scientific results produced by someone earning a paycheck for doing so are somehow themselves invalid. They may be limited in scope and/or applicability, however, that does nothing to refute the data they show.

 

One reason I say this is that numerous research has shown that vitamins and mineral difficiencies were the causes of the diseases.

 

Scurvy - vitaminn C, blindness - vitamin A, spinal bifidia - vitamin B5, goiter -iodine, and there are others that I cannot recall or be aware of.

 

On the other hand, I am sure there are no diseases that result from drug dificiencies.

 

That is why I support the Natural treatments of diseases.

 

I could give several other reasons .

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Another dubious implication of Mike’s post is that natural/alternative medicine is not for profit.

 

Although many alternative medicine organizations (and many mainstream medical organizations, also) are not-for-profit, there is not legal prohibition against making very large profits selling its products and services, and substantially less legal regulation. In the US, nearly all alternative medicines are sold as nutritional supplements, not drugs, requiring must less thorough safety and absolutely no efficacy testing. Although organizations such as the US NIH NCCAM have made modest progress in addressing these issues, their funding is typically limited, and many have received considerable criticism regarding irregularities with and the quality of their science.

 

In the meanwhile, many companies, among them many of the large prescription and over-the-counter drug companies, are realizing very high profit margins on the natural product lines, in large part because of this lack or regulation and legal liability.

 

A fairly good essay, IMHO, on an economically large segment of the alternative/natural medicine industry, written by a non-clinician, can be read at this web site.

 

The natural substances cannot be patented, so there is no monopoly here.

Conpetition is strong. So the prices are reduced accordingly.

 

The monopolies the drug companies have has given them the pricing policies they choose to use. And compared to the world market, you should be aware of the large differences in prices.

Not only that, but some s eniors are prescribed more than just one drug .

I have heard that some take as much as 10 drugs . No wonder, a lot of them wind up in the hospitals for the side effects .

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Like InfiniteNow mentioned, so long as the data is good, does it matter whether it is "natural science" or "science for profit"? It's important to keep in mind *who* is performing and funding the science and for what reasons, but that does not have bearing on the validity of results unless results are tampered with or fudged, in which case the results and data are flawed or disputable. I find both of your phrases and descriptions of science to be fairly meaningless. Science done at institutions, universities, or in the home garage can be (and often is) driven for profit. As long as discoveries and data follow the scientific method, they produce scientific knowledge. There are no such things as "natural" or "unnatural," "profit" or "nonprofit" science except as descriptions of supposed intent or goals--they eventually all yield scientific data, contributing to scientific knowledge as a whole if performed well and correctly.

 

I also assure you that my neighbor, the naturopath, makes a very comfortable living from his practice, his treatments, and hawking the local nutraceuticals like Tahitian noni and XanGo (which I regard as harmful and harmless garbage, respectively). He's applying what science he knows for profit, and he's part of the healthcare system. But I don't necessarily know if what he thinks is good science or medicine conforms to what I consider good science and medical knowledge (i.e., scientific knowledge from the scientific method and what doctors in the medical community generally regard as true).

 

Some nutraceuticals and herbs do have good research behind them, explaining some of what they do, how and why they do what they do. Just run a PubMed search or two for things like coffee, tea, cocoa, etc. These have thousands of studies covering them. For example, I think green tea had around 2,000+ studies on it last time I checked. Other nutraceuticals like Tahitian Noni and XanGo (supposedly mangosteen extract) do not have good research or a large amount of research behind them. I did find two reports of noni-induced liver toxicity though, if that's worth anything. Noni has more listed studies on its toxicity and chemical constituents than its supposed health benefits or claims. That tells me something.

 

Poor circulation, etc. can have nothing to do with many diseases. It depends entirely on the nature of the disease.

 

The largest cause of disease in the US is the atheroscerosis disease that is caused by blocked circulation throughout the body. this causes the lack of nutrients to the various body parts, so diseaes result.

 

Mike C

[KerryK]

This whole issue brings up a lot (to say the least) issues. One of the biggest ones is "should parents have absolute authority over their children or should the state have that authority?" Of course, most people (I suspect) will say something of the order "it's something in the middle". After all, children are born to parents and thus responsible for their upbringing, but, on the other hand, children are a part of society (whether they or their parents want them to be or not) and there's at least a certain responsibility of society to protect children and provide them with the "general welfare" it provides all it's citizens. (Yes, I've the USA in mind more than any other, but I think this is generally true, even if in weird ways, in any society.)

 

It comes down to what kind of society we want to develop and live in. Ah, that's the rub. But I think most people answer this question for themselves considering what it is they want personally. This is certainly not a bad thing, but it often runs counter to the values they proclaim. (For example, "freedom of religion, so long as it's Christian." I know, this isn't quite fair, but it ofen seems the case.)

 

Okay, I've gone on too far now, but the point is, the issue about the little girl, her parents, and the faith of her parents is a really complex issue. I personally believe in a God that, while personal to us, nevertheless, gives us freedom and the tools to live. But others don't. It isn't easy.

 

Kerry

[freeztar]

The largest cause of disease in the US is the atheroscerosis disease that is caused by blocked circulation throughout the body. this causes the lack of nutrients to the various body parts, so diseaes result.

 

Mike C

 

Do you have a source for this Mike?

[InfiniteNow]

One reason I say this is that numerous research has shown that vitamins and mineral difficiencies were the causes of the diseases.

 

Scurvy - vitaminn C, blindness - vitamin A, spinal bifidia - vitamin B5, goiter -iodine, and there are others that I cannot recall or be aware of.

 

On the other hand, I am sure there are no diseases that result from drug dificiencies.

 

That is why I support the Natural treatments of diseases.

 

I could give several other reasons .

 

Mike C

 

I'm sorry, Mike, but when taken in the context of this discussion on diabetes, your comments come across as very ignorant and uninformed.

[Zythryn]

Mike, I agree that lack of vitamins can cause some aflictions.

Surely though, you don't intend to say lack of vitamins are the only cause for disease?

[Mike C]

Mike, I agree that lack of vitamins can cause some aflictions.

Surely though, you don't intend to say lack of vitamins are the only cause for disease?

 

Well, there are heredity factors (genes), but the greatest part of health problems is dietary IMO.

 

The reason I say this is because the most common foods that everyone in the US eats is hamburgers and to a much lesser extent is hot dogs.

 

These two foods are a combination of meat and white breads.

Both of these foods are deficient in calcium, vitamin A and vitamin C.

Potatoes are also deficient in these nutrients. Potatoes are sold along with the hamburgers.

So anybody that uses these foods as a frequent dietary meal is prone to have health problems.

 

That is why the government is telling the people to eat 'five' servings of fruits and vegatables daily.

 

FYI, The most nutritional foods to eat is the 'leafy green vegetables'.

These foods nourish the giant vegan land animals like the elephants, rhinos and etc down to the smalest of these vegan animals.

So you do need a 'varied' diet.

 

Hamburgers, French fries and colas are not exactly a healthy diet.

If you include a slice of cheese, you get a supply of calcium and vitamin A, but you still do not get any vitaminn C that is very important to your diet, the Green leafy vegetables have the most vitamin C of all the foods with some rare vitamin C rich foods that are not normally eaten.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Okay, I've gone on too far now, but the point is, the issue about the little girl, her parents, and the faith of her parents is a really complex issue. I personally believe in a God that, while personal to us, nevertheless, gives us freedom and the tools to live. But others don't. It isn't easy.

 

Those tools are 'hands' that are not designed to kill and eat meat.

These tools are designed to eat fruit and vegetation.

Mike C

[Mike C]

Do you have a source for this Mike?

 

If you look up this information in any Almanac, you will see that heart diseases are the greatest health problems and the causes of death.

 

Mike C

[KerryK]

Those tools are 'hands' that are not designed to kill and eat meat.

These tools are designed to eat fruit and vegetation.

Mike C

 

Mike, I'd not argue with you one way or the other. This is another one of those perplexing questions for me.

[freeztar]

If you look up this information in any Almanac, you will see that heart diseases are the greatest health problems and the causes of death.

 

Mike C

 

I'm more curious about your statement that this causes lack of nutrient-rich blood flow to areas of the body, which causes disease.

[Mike C]

I'm more curious about your statement that this causes lack of nutrient-rich blood flow to areas of the body, which causes disease.

 

Although my opinions are given here, they are based on common sense.

 

When the main artery from the heart is occluded, this forces the heart to pump harder to supply the nutrients to the outer limbs. This results in high blood pressure.

But when drugs are ingested to lower this HBP, the body then is not getting the nutrients that the natural HBP was trying to overcome because the problem is still there. So it gets back to the original problem of the outer limbs that also include the brain not getting a supply of nutrients that are needed.

 

So my conlusion is that these outer limbs then will have problems like

diabetics that have foot problems. Most diabetics are obese and have circulation problems.

Notice that I said 'most'.

I persinally know of two diabetics that have foot problems.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

I persinally know of two diabetics that have foot problems.

Do yourself, and all of us, a favor and look up neuropathy.