On 4/5/16 12:44 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:
Okay in that case I will give an example as a reference.
>"Cathal (Phone)" <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me>: Feb 18 06:43PM
>I've got a great, ancient topical method for killing MRSA, too: cauterisation. Where's my BBC piece?
Here in the above, Cathal attempts to belittle another researcher's own science experiments towards antibiotics -- which could be called a study into alternative medicine or simply pure research just as many experiments are done out of pure curiosity -- apparently because of something (jealousy? that he isn't getting media coverage on his own projects?). Meanwhile, and here's the possibly political part (in the sense of: acting in a community's self-interests), Cathal's affiliated lab(s) have their own antibiotic research experiments ongoing. As well as a project on probiotics -- which could also currently be called alternative medicine.
On 4/4/16 5:42 PM, David Murphy wrote:
I'm not in either camp, I have equal burden of proof from both sides (alternative and traditional). It all seems fine until traditional medicine prescribes antibiotics "because.. well.. we don't know what it is" (no specific diagnosis, though perhaps good results). If there's no specific diagnosis then an alternative can't really be substituted well or reliably, so just take the personal nuclear bomb of antibiotics. Yet if there is one thing worth studying in modern medicine, it is alternatives to antibiotics.
A long while back in this group (years ago), I believe I posted some refs of studies concluding that the largest problem in alternative medicine was identifying and correctly labeling the ingredients. Sometimes due to honest mistake and often other times due to fraud. Tree bark which supposedly cures cancer is going to be more expensive per weight than the tree bark which supposedly cures hair loss (or whatever), and if they both look very similar, there's the mislabeling problem. So while the predicitions in some cases might have some probability of merit, the wrong ingredients are used or sold, or studied.
Quote http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-dallas-area-hospice-nurses-told-to-overdose-patients-to-speed-death/
> (no I won't give refs).
Nuff said, move on everyone.
Okay in that case I will give an example as a reference.
>"Cathal (Phone)" <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me>: Feb 18 06:43PM
>I've got a great, ancient topical method for killing MRSA, too: cauterisation. Where's my BBC piece?
Here in the above, Cathal attempts to belittle another researcher's own science experiments towards antibiotics -- which could be called a study into alternative medicine or simply pure research just as many experiments are done out of pure curiosity -- apparently because of something (jealousy? that he isn't getting media coverage on his own projects?). Meanwhile, and here's the possibly political part (in the sense of: acting in a community's self-interests), Cathal's affiliated lab(s) have their own antibiotic research experiments ongoing. As well as a project on probiotics -- which could also currently be called alternative medicine.
On 4/4/16 5:42 PM, David Murphy wrote:
That is a very immediate dismissal isn't it? "[Suggestions of alternatives to traditional medicine are] all tripe." Hmm!Sounds lovely. But it's all tripe.
Peppermint tea works great for me for some things. Or how about something UK related for Cathal: munching fennel seed when exiting an Indian restaurant. Much better than something over the counter, I'd say, and far simpler. Are these "just random" prediction? I don't think so. I saw a prediction that sunlight (interpreted as: UV light) could cure gym shower athlete's foot better than pharmacy topical treatments - true or false, I don't know, but sunlight is free, so I doubt it will be studied much.If you watch a stream of random letters for long enough you'll occasionally see a description of something that kind of looks like a prediction that seems to pan out. It's still just random. Sometimes an occasional herb turns out to include some chemical usable as a drug and people crow about it.
I'm not in either camp, I have equal burden of proof from both sides (alternative and traditional). It all seems fine until traditional medicine prescribes antibiotics "because.. well.. we don't know what it is" (no specific diagnosis, though perhaps good results). If there's no specific diagnosis then an alternative can't really be substituted well or reliably, so just take the personal nuclear bomb of antibiotics. Yet if there is one thing worth studying in modern medicine, it is alternatives to antibiotics.
A long while back in this group (years ago), I believe I posted some refs of studies concluding that the largest problem in alternative medicine was identifying and correctly labeling the ingredients. Sometimes due to honest mistake and often other times due to fraud. Tree bark which supposedly cures cancer is going to be more expensive per weight than the tree bark which supposedly cures hair loss (or whatever), and if they both look very similar, there's the mislabeling problem. So while the predicitions in some cases might have some probability of merit, the wrong ingredients are used or sold, or studied.
Allegedly true, literally, in an avenue perhaps unexpectedMore often it turns out that the magic men and conmen have been giving people cancer or simply feeding them poison
Quote http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-dallas-area-hospice-nurses-told-to-overdose-patients-to-speed-death/
"""The owner of a Dallas-area hospice ordered nurses to increase drug dosages for patients to speed their deaths and maximize profits, according to an FBI affidavit. A copy of the affidavit for a search warrant obtained by KXAS-TV in Dallas-Fort Worth alleges Brad Harris ordered higher dosages for at least four patients at Novus Health Services in Frisco. It's unclear whether any deaths resulted from overdoses of drugs like morphine."""
## Jonathan Cline ## jcline@ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ########################
0 comments:
Post a Comment