User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 77

  1. #21
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    It's total nonsense. Dangerous nonsense I should even say.

    This plea for "alternative medecines" is extremely suspect in its origin, given the weird and wild theories it pretends to describe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    OK: this delirious paper about the "so-called" dangers of science and modern medicine comes from a creepy cult called the "Universal White Brotherhood".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...te_Brotherhood

    So people please: avoid this at all cost: your sanity, your health and your money are at stake and those people are VERY DANGEROUS.

    I just hope our dear JAVO is not one of them.
    Thinking can be dangerous. Don't try this at home kids!

    But seriously, I expected a response like this. Questioning the fundamental paradigms of life scares people.

    I don't know if the article is somehow connected to that cult or not. It doesn't matter to me enough to research it. I prefer to consider ideas on their own basis regardless of their source. Everything has some truth to it. I enjoy exercises in free thought where all possibilities are entertained.

    The article appears to be endorsed by Suzanne Humphries who has earned an MD, as it resides on her site and is referenced by her as explaining the issues very well.

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a conventionally educated medical doctor who fully and successfully participated in the conventional system from 1989 until 2011. During those years she witnessed first-hand how often that approach fails patients and creates new disease. She left conventional medicine to research the many problems in mainstream medical practice, to write, and to conduct a holistic medical practice

    Quote Originally Posted by kquirk View Post
    The basic premise of the excerpt quoted here is seriously flawed, however. Yes, healthy tissue is better at fighting disease than compromised or unhealthy tissue. That does not mean that "germs" (bacteria, viruses, fungi, prions, etc) don't cause disease. One of Pasteurs's contemporaries, Robert Koch, proved this. When there is a disease caused by a microorganism, it is isolated from the diseased tissue, grown in pure culture, and introduced to a healthy host. It causes the same disease in the previously healthy host.
    But the counterpoint is that by "introducing" the organism to the host, the experimenter has created an artificial condition which may not exist in the natural infection process. In many cases, the method itself presupposes the germ model.


    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I don't think science is mistaken, only incomplete.

    It's only common sense that people survived most of history by more than trial and error, and EVERY indigenous culture has used medicinal plants pretty effectively for longer than modern medicine has been in existence.
    I agree with this perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    our bodies are free of dis-ease when our blood is at a more alkaline PH.
    Later in the article, the author says that also.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    I also know that there are ways that you can heal yourself by engaging the sodium - potassium pumps (which create the energy in each cell @greenfairy) To stop your own blood proteins from spilling into your cells. (which then, is what causes the PH of your blood to become more basic.)
    Interesting. I'll have to read more about that.

  2. #22
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    I prefer to consider ideas on their own basis regardless of their source. Everything has some truth to it. I enjoy exercises in free thought where all possibilities are entertained.
    Whoa....man. I think we're both from the same cult Except you can articulate better than moi!
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  3. #23
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    Chinese medicine saved my tonsils -- so I'm all for alternative medicine!
    4w5 sp/sx EII

  4. #24
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    Whoa....man. I think we're both from the same cult Except you can articulate better than moi!


    Time to come clean. I think I've seen you at the new moon meetings before. I'm a member of a secretive Pythagorean Geometry cult which believes that the universe is logical and that relationships between things can be known based on both their relationship with other things and known rules of logic.

    a^2 + b^2 = c^2!



    Quote Originally Posted by 21% View Post
    Chinese medicine saved my tonsils -- so I'm all for alternative medicine!
    Awesome! I'm interested in what specific method/treatment worked?

  5. #25
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I'm in the dangerous nonsense camp.

    Too many friends afraid of vaccines, doctors, authority, etc because of strange possibilities posited as a highly plausible alternative to common understanding.

    There's nothing wrong with questioning method, I'm convinced there is always new methodology to discover for even basic operation. People simply take the liberty of free inquiry too far.

  6. #26
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Plenty of homeopathic frauds out there.

  7. #27
    Senior Member two cents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Um, ok. So, let's analyze the premises of the OP...

    "What if modern medicine were based on a divergent branch of science whose objectivity was tainted by egos and people who used their power to enforce the truth as they see it?"

    First of all, by "modern medicine" I'm assuming you mean the medicine your doctor studied at medical school for 7 years plus residency (on top of 4 year undergad degree). Are you aware of how many pharmaceuticals used in "modern medicine" are based on the "natural herbs and remedies" used in "traditional medicine"? If a compound is proven safe and effective (as demonstrated by experimentation), it's used by "modern medicine". The stuff that ISN'T either unsafe or has been proven not to do anything useful, or hasn't been sufficiently tested yet. And no, my "my grandma said this totally cured her auntie's cancer" doesn't qualify as "sufficiently tested". Neither does "it has been used by ___ native peoples for thousands of years". Have you heard of "birthwort", by any chance? It's been used in Ancient Greece, Rome, and is still used in Traditional Chinese "Medicine" to help in childbirth and, to a lesser extent, with various other "female complaints". It causes severe kidney damage and urinary tract cancer. Lots of people on dialysis or dead thanks to it! And it's not like it's an exception that proves the rule, plenty of traditional remedies of various stripes aren't just ineffective but actively dangerous.

    Next, what does "divergent branch of science" mean? Divergent from what, exactly? The scientific method is based on using empirical and measurable evidence to shape theoretical understanding. Are you aware of the rigor with which medical research is conducted? The sheer number of experiments that go into proving that any given therapy or compound is safe and effective for treating any given condition is staggering, and the standard for demonstrating effectiveness is very high (testing treatments against a placebo, for example, and demonstrating a statistically significant difference in effectiveness).

    And what about the "egos and people who used their power to enforce the truth as they see it"? Do only scientists working in the medical fields have egos and misuse the power of their authority? Do you have any evidence of this? Is "alternative medicine" done exclusively by the humblest among us, interested only in healing the sick and not in profit or accolades? Do you have any evidence at all that "alternative medicine" of any stripe is free of this unfortunate phenomenon that can be observed in every other human endeavor, ever?

    The piece of germ-theory denialism that you quote is painfully rife with logical fallacies as well. Classic Ad Hominem against Pasteur to start with, as if his originality and professional integrity has anything to do with whether germ theory has yielded any effective disease treatments (it has, too many to even start listing) or industrial processes (like pasteurization... oh, hey, there's probably some pasteurized milk in your fridge right now. Good thing you won't be getting Listeria or worse!). The rest of the quoted article fares no better with a nice helping of naturalistic/causal fallacies and false analogies. It's made to sound reasonable, mostly by being intentionally imprecise and and making appeals to intuition. It is, however, factually wrong, has been refuted by countless (real) scientists and demonstrated to be wrong by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

    It's one thing to wonder whether an unproven theory is correct. Skepticism is the only responsible position in the absence of evidence. But, in this case, we don't have an absence of evidence. We don't even have a dearth of evidence. The only possible way to be skeptical of germ theory is to postulate that everyone who claims to have seen evidence supporting it or to have uncovered more of this evidence is conspiring to lie to you. You can certainly assume that stance, but don't be surprised when reasonable people dismiss it out of hand as delusional.
    And that's my two cents on the subject.

  8. #28
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by two cents View Post
    First of all, by "modern medicine" I'm assuming you mean the medicine your doctor studied at medical school for 7 years plus residency (on top of 4 year undergad degree).
    Did you notice that the article is hosted on the site of someone who has done exactly that?

    Are you aware of how many pharmaceuticals used in "modern medicine" are based on the "natural herbs and remedies" used in "traditional medicine"? If a compound is proven safe and effective (as demonstrated by experimentation), it's used by "modern medicine". The stuff that ISN'T either unsafe or has been proven not to do anything useful, or hasn't been sufficiently tested yet. And no, my "my grandma said this totally cured her auntie's cancer" doesn't qualify as "sufficiently tested". Neither does "it has been used by ___ native peoples for thousands of years". Have you heard of "birthwort", by any chance? It's been used in Ancient Greece, Rome, and is still used in Traditional Chinese "Medicine" to help in childbirth and, to a lesser extent, with various other "female complaints". It causes severe kidney damage and urinary tract cancer. Lots of people on dialysis or dead thanks to it! And it's not like it's an exception that proves the rule, plenty of traditional remedies of various stripes aren't just ineffective but actively dangerous.
    Are you aware that the FDA approves drugs and vaccines which sometimes turn out not to be so safe and effective?

    Next, what does "divergent branch of science" mean? Divergent from what, exactly?
    I think that's fairly clear.

    The scientific method is based on using empirical and measurable evidence to shape theoretical understanding. Are you aware of the rigor with which medical research is conducted? The sheer number of experiments that go into proving that any given therapy or compound is safe and effective for treating any given condition is staggering, and the standard for demonstrating effectiveness is very high (testing treatments against a placebo, for example, and demonstrating a statistically significant difference in effectiveness).
    I'm quite aware because I'm surrounded by it every day. How about you? And, are you aware of how much personal, professional, and financial bias affects the supposed rigor with which medical research is conducted?

    And what about the "egos and people who used their power to enforce the truth as they see it"? Do only scientists working in the medical fields have egos and misuse the power of their authority? Do you have any evidence of this? Is "alternative medicine" done exclusively by the humblest among us, interested only in healing the sick and not in profit or accolades? Do you have any evidence at all that "alternative medicine" of any stripe is free of this unfortunate phenomenon that can be observed in every other human endeavor, ever?
    I have plenty of evidence, but the most convincing evidence is that which you find yourself in an open-minded inquiry, rather than trying to win what you perceive as an online debate.


    The piece of germ-theory denialism that you quote is painfully rife with logical fallacies as well. Classic Ad Hominem against Pasteur to start with, as if his originality and professional integrity has anything to do with whether germ theory has yielded any effective disease treatments (it has, too many to even start listing) or industrial processes (like pasteurization... oh, hey, there's probably some pasteurized milk in your fridge right now. Good thing you won't be getting Listeria or worse!). The rest of the quoted article fares no better with a nice helping of naturalistic/causal fallacies and false analogies. It's made to sound reasonable, mostly by being intentionally imprecise and and making appeals to intuition. It is, however, factually wrong, has been refuted by countless (real) scientists and demonstrated to be wrong by an overwhelming amount of evidence.
    I don't see any ad hominem against Pasteur himself. His work is criticized.

    Is pasteurized milk free of all Listeria bacteria? Applying Occam's Razor, one could simply smell and then taste the milk to find out if the bacteria count is high and likely to cause illness to those with weakened immune systems or due to bacterial toxins.

    Perhaps the evidence is so "overwhelming" that no one bothers to question it?

    The only possible way to be skeptical of germ theory is to postulate that everyone who claims to have seen evidence supporting it or to have uncovered more of this evidence is conspiring to lie to you.
    Are you sure that's the only possible way? Maybe we could cast aside preconceived notions and use the scientific method to develop a better theory which more accurately reflects reality and is even more clinically useful than the partially correct germ theory?

    You can certainly assume that stance, but don't be surprised when reasonable people dismiss it out of hand as delusional.
    Do you think the medical doctor and holistic practitioner hosting the article is delusional? (http://drsuzanne.net/)

  9. #29
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    @JAVO

    My beliefs about a lot of things that are of any substance, are sadly very controversial. So I'm not going to spill them all out on here.

    (disclosure: what I'm about to say is not 100% or "always" true, and I'm not here to debate anything) But all I have to say is that: our bodies are free of dis-ease when our blood is at a more alkaline PH.

    Pretty much everything, except fruits and veggies break down into the blood as a more acidic PH. Therefore, yea, I think it's the environment that we keep in our own bodies. I don't have any articles on that...though, I'm sorry. I came across this information when I was heavy into understanding why our bodies have diseases.

    I also know that there are ways that you can heal yourself by engaging the sodium - potassium pumps (which create the energy in each cell @greenfairy) To stop your own blood proteins from spilling into your cells. (which then, is what causes the PH of your blood to become more acidic.)

    I get all of that info from Dr. West, who has sadly passed away.(disclosure: he was also very religious and incorporated his religion into his practices that he taught....so it might not be for everyone...I mostly ignored that information, until I could understand the biology behind it.) So I recommend his son now who is alive. I'm not on my computer right now so I don't have a link. His son is boring to listen to but he teaches holistic medicine. Which is sorta, kinda, along that lines of what I believe I guess.
    This stuff is a brilliant example of learning just enough science to use words that convince people without a science background, but not quite enough science to actually understand how the body works. It's not quite as bad as the anti-vaxxers in terms of the harm caused, but it's in the same ballbark of nonsense masquerading as science.

    The biology you think you're understanding is, well, not biology. It's quackery.

    source: I do biology for a living. Or I will, when I finish grad school.

    I was interested by the OP as well, but I'm not really sure what you want us to take from it. The terrain thing is mostly nonsense, although there is an element of truth to it with regards to the role of the immune system and overall health affecting susceptibility to disease. And cancer is a great example of the body initiating disease. But it doesn't disprove germ theory - you won't magically develop smallpox or whatever without being exposed to the virus causing it.

    I'm not surprised that early scientists were wrong sometimes. Science is ever-changing, and a lot of natural processes were misunderstood back then. Scientists who are right about one thing can be (and almost always are) wrong about others. Darwin was wrong about a number of details about evolution, for example, although he had some very good insights that allowed scientists to build on his foundation to develop the understanding we have today. Scientists being wrong in the past has very little to do with the science done now.
    -end of thread-

  10. #30

    Default

    You're kidding me, you're not interested in my opinion?

Similar Threads

  1. What type is Niccolò Machiavelli - Based on his Portrait
    By Mal12345 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 10:01 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 03:58 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 04:06 PM
  4. What color is your magic - Based on The Black Prism by Brent Weeks.
    By r0wo1 in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 10:14 AM
  5. What is personality based on?
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 10:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO