• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is modern medicine based on flawed scientific premises?

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
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.
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/Universal_White_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


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.


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.

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.

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 [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]) 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.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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. :mellow: I think we're both from the same cult :devil: Except you can articulate better than moi! :D
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Chinese medicine saved my tonsils -- so I'm all for alternative medicine!
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Whoa....man. :mellow: I think we're both from the same cult :devil: Except you can articulate better than moi! :D
:laugh:

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. :newwink:

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



Chinese medicine saved my tonsils -- so I'm all for alternative medicine!
Awesome! I'm interested in what specific method/treatment worked?
 
W

WALMART

Guest
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.
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
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.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
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/)
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=71]JAVO[/MENTION]

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 [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]) 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.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
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.

If you try to quote many sentences of your so-called "Dr Suzanne Humphries" (check -> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries ) and track most of her sources, you will be sent to the infamous "Centre de Sèvres" and especially Olivier Clerc. And this guy is actually the great guru (master) of the dangerous cult called the "Universal White Brotherhood".
These people have been accused of brainwashing people to extort money, and they have been charged for false medical allegations that have caused the deterioration of their followers's health.

She's also extensively quoting Robert O. Young, and she calls him a "doctor" [Dr Robert Young], a diploma this impostor never really had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Young

"Legal issues

In 1995, Young allegedly drew blood from two women, told them they were ill, and then sold them herbal products to treat these illnesses. He was charged with two third-degree felony counts of practicing medicine without a license, but pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge.[11][21] Young argued that he had never claimed to be a medical doctor, that the women had entrapped him by asking to be part of his research, and that he "looked at the women's blood and simply gave them some nutritional advice."[11]
In 2001, Young was again charged with a felony in Utah, after a cancer patient alleged that Young told her to stop chemotherapy and to substitute one of his products to treat her cancer. Subsequently, when an undercover agent visited Young, he allegedly analyzed her blood and prescribed a liquid diet. The case was taken to preliminary trial, but charges were dropped after the prosecutor stated that he could not find enough people who felt cheated by Young.[21] Young dismissed the arrests as "harassment" and stated that he moved to California because the legal climate there was more tolerant.[21] On May 12, 2011 Quackwatch published a critical analysis of Young's qualifications and practices.[25]

Kim Tinkham

In 2007, Kim Tinkham, diagnosed with stage three breast cancer, adopted Young's protocols before appearing on The Oprah Winfrey Show. She enthusiastically promoted them on her website "cancerangel.org". A 2008 press release from Young contained her assertion that she was "cancer free by all medical terms" as diagnosed by her own doctors.[26] Young was criticized following Tinkham's death from cancer on December 7, 2010."


And about the strange ideas promoted by this quack doctor, let me recommend you this critical link:

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/young3.html



------------


On typo-c, a forum dedicated to psychology, you have a lot of vulnerable people who should be easy to trick. I can only wonder why you're making obvious advertisements for such dangerous pseudo-new-age cults.
Of course, you're a grown-up and as such, you're free to do so. But what will happen when Raelians, Scientologist, or the next David Koresh will appear here?
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

I'm not the best person to articulate ideas, nor do I care to discuss much about this with other people. But I don't think I'm wrong in saying that when blood protiens are not where they're supposed to be it causes stress to the system. Stress is a pretty general word, but either way it causes damage to our bodies. If you close ur finger in a door, it will hurt. If you hold your finger in that exact spot until the pain goes away...you are stopping more blood protiens from entering the cells. Which this stops more damage...If you hold your finger long enough...you wont even get a black and blue mark.

Source: experience

I obviously think that when there's an emergency modern medicine is awesome sauce. But I don't think that we need pills and shit for everything.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm not the best person to articulate ideas, nor do I care to discuss much about this with other people. But I don't think I'm wrong in saying that when blood protiens are not where they're supposed to be it causes stress to the system. Stress is a pretty general word, but either way it causes damage to our bodies. If you close ur finger in a door, it will hurt. If you hold your finger in that exact spot until the pain goes away...you are stopping more blood protiens from entering the cells. Which this stops more damage...If you hold your finger long enough...you wont even get a black and blue mark.

Source: experience

I obviously think that when there's an emergency modern medicine is awesome sauce. But I don't think that we need pills and shit for everything.

Bruises are formed from blood leaking out into the tissues when your blood vessels rupture. Holding the spot long enough for the blood to clot and seal the blood vessels will prevent a bruise, since it'll prevent the blood from leaking out of the injured vessels.

This has nothing to do with "blood proteins", blood pH, pain, or stress. It also can't be generalized to injuries that don't involve bleeding, for what should be obvious reasons.
 

two cents

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
125
MBTI Type
INFJ
Did you notice that the article is hosted on the site of someone who has done exactly that?
Nope. Going through all that schooling doesn't guarantee you can't be a crackpot, it just makes it less likely.

Are you aware that the FDA approves drugs and vaccines which sometimes turn out not to be so safe and effective?

Yes, I am. The trouble is usually safety rather than effectiveness. The reason we find out that something is either harmful or isn't living up to its promise is because clinical outcomes are reported and continuously evaluated. And then people are told "oops, new evidence just came in, don't do that anymore (or don't do it if you have this other condition)". Is there a similar system in operation with alternative medicine remedies? Do the people who peddle them gather safety and effectiveness data and, if they find problems, stop peddling the remedies, and tell other people not to sell them or take them? The fact that the FDA can admit and correct its errors should give you more confidence in it: no system works perfectly and it's better to stick with one that can make course corrections, rather than one that doubles down and tells you things like "this worked for thousands of years, if it's not working for you you are doing it wrong!"

I think that's fairly clear.
No, actually, it isn't. Divergent from what?

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?
Are you saying you do medical research? I hope not. I hope people doing medical research can manage their way around a piece of obvious woo like germ theory denialism.

Yes, I AM aware of how much personal, professional, and financial bias affects medical research. Are you suggesting that there are NO personal, professional, or financial biases and inscentives for people who work in "alternative medicine"? (I could ask whether you think those biases affect their research... except they aren'd doing research)

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.

Why is "trying to win an online debate" automatically make me impervious to considering evidence? If you have evidence that "alternative medicine" is being done exclusively by ego-less saints with perfect objectivity (unlike EVERY OTHER field of human endeavor, no less), go ahead and amaze me. Just be aware that this qualifies as an extraordinary claim, that, therefore, requires extraordinary evidence. If you have it, bring it.

I don't see any ad hominem against Pasteur himself. His work is criticized.

Oh, right, saying that a scientist plagiarised his work and that it is totally unscientific (I guess that means he made up all the experiments or something) is not ad hominem against a scientist. I think there's room for disagreement, but you know what? It's unimportant. Do you know the sheer numbers of people that have investigated various bacteria, viruses, amoeba, and fungi, and the exact mechanisms by which they cause disease? Pasteur may have come up with germ theory (and we now have things like pasteruzation thanks to it), but it no longer matters, and whatever flaws were in his work have long become irrelevant. The science of germs has moved on lightyears since then. Experiments have been replicated all over the world by people who never had a reason to give a flying fuck about each other. There are scientists in labs doing it right this second, and they are not all cribbing from each other or making it up out of thin air.

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.

Are you suggesting you possess tastebuds that can sense the presence of Listeria? Or any other pathogens that can be transmitted by raw milk, like tuberculosis? Or that you can smell it? (BTW, you might get Listeria and not even notice, but if you are a pregnant woman it can damage or kill your fetus.) None of these pathogens are what makes milk go sour, and bacterial toxins aren't necessarily released by all bacteria or in all stages of bacterial lifecycles.

And yes, pasteurized milk is free of Listeria.

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

Perhaps. Perhaps that's a good thing: at some point you have to accept that something is real, stop wasting your time verifying the obvious, and move on to a more productive activity. If every time you think you might have enough evidence that the sky is blue you have to double check, that's a problem. Do you also disbelieve absolutely everything you see and absolutely everything anyone else tells you? Or does any certainty cause a knee-jerk suspicion?

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?

What preconceived notions? They aren't that "pre" conceived -- they are fairly new, and they were rigorously tested when they were new, and there's overwhelming evidence that they are correct, and NO EVIDENCE they aren't. There AREN'T any competing theories that explain clinical findings better. The clinical findings are already sufficiently explained.

Do you think the medical doctor and holistic practitioner hosting the article is delusional? (http://drsuzanne.net/)

Yes, I do. However, I have a competing/parallel theory: he could be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
I think it's pretty keen that an entire field based on a mistaken premise has been so effective.

That's really what it boils down to. Much of what we have discovered has been through experimentation and accidental discoveries. That doesn't really invalidate them though.

As far as the OP.. Our bodies are ticking time bombs. We all know from birth that every single living thing will expire. I suppose you could think of the 'terrain' of our bodies as being flawed and that causing disease--since many of our diseases are auto-immune, or things that outside sources have absolutely not caused (or, more commonly, been only an indirect cause) and such.

But germs are still germs. Germs, in general, are not the problem because we have a plethora of them. They're the most common living thing around, and many of them are absolutely harmless and in fact harmlessness is beneficial much of the time. That doesn't mean that germs have nothing to cause damage, or that you shouldn't wash your hands or something like that. Modern medicine allows us to see what those guys couldn't, and to put into actual pictures what those guys could not even begin to understand.

The truth is, we're rotting from the inside out because we're living and living things expire just like non-living things. But that doesn't mean that this is the source of disease and treatment. It is a factor in it at best, but not at all a solution or something to look toward.

Even if all the subjects on Pasteur plagiarizing things is true and he was really just a royal ass, someone invented real techniques to make food and drink safer from germs. And that actually worked in comparison to looking at the human body itself. We live longer, have less poisoning, and give our immune systems less stress and overload overall.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
If germ theory and vaccines are useless, then how do you explain the total eradication of smallpox?

It seems pretty effective to me.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Astrology, homeopathy, alternative medicine and mbti are all of a piece.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
The fact that the FDA can admit and correct its errors should give you more confidence in it: no system works perfectly and it's better to stick with one that can make course corrections, rather than one that doubles down and tells you things like "this worked for thousands of years, if it's not working for you you are doing it wrong!"
But if it really did work for thousands of years, then it would be pretty silly to need an organization like the FDA to tell us what to do with it, wouldn't it?

Are you saying you do medical research? I hope not. I hope people doing medical research can manage their way around a piece of obvious woo like germ theory denialism.
Assumptions are funny, but they get tiresome eventually. Your statements demonstrate to me that you actually haven't taken the time to understand the perspective being presented before rushing to a defense. You've defended things which really weren't threatened, and analyzed when it would've been more productive to integrate. These are some of the same flaws of modern medicine and science. You should hope not. What would happen to modern medicine and science if someone involved with research decided to think outside the dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia?


Are you suggesting you possess tastebuds that can sense the presence of Listeria? Or any other pathogens that can be transmitted by raw milk, like tuberculosis? Or that you can smell it? (BTW, you might get Listeria and not even notice, but if you are a pregnant woman it can damage or kill your fetus.) None of these pathogens are what makes milk go sour, and bacterial toxins aren't necessarily released by all bacteria or in all stages of bacterial lifecycles.

And yes, pasteurized milk is free of Listeria.
Well sure, the milk could have any number of things in it, just like lettuce, melons, and deli meat (all of which often have Listeria). None of those are pasteurized either, yet we still consume them. Taste and smell just prevent exposure to something which is no longer in a consumable state.

Actually, pasteurized milk has plenty of live bacteria still in it, sometimes including Listeria:

After reviewing these studies, a World Health Organization Working Group on foodborne listeriosis recently concluded that "pasteurization is a safe process which reduces the number of L. monocytogenes occurring in raw milk to levels that do not pose an appreciable risk to human health"
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001316.htm

Also, most people do not get sick if they consume something containing Listeria bacteria:

What should you do if you've eaten a food recalled because of Listeria contamination?

The risk of an individual person developing a Listeria infection after
consumption of a contaminated product is small. If you have eaten a
contaminated product and do not have any symptoms, no tests or treatment
are recommended, if you have any questions or are in a high-risk group
contact your primary care physician for guidance. If you are in a high-risk
group, have eaten the contaminated product, and within 2 months of eating it
you become ill with fever or other symptoms of listeriosis, you should contact
your physician immediately and inform him or her that you were exposed to a
product contaminated with Listeria.
Source: http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/vet/Dairy/ListeriaInDairyProducts06_14_2011.pdf

Hmm... sounds similar to the points of the article linked in the OP.

However, I have a competing/parallel theory: he could be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible.
She actually.

Hopefully I can get back with more points, but for now, I'm exhausted and need to take a cult Kool Aid break. :)
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What's your goal with this, [MENTION=71]JAVO[/MENTION]? I know you're a pretty reasonable guy so I'm not sure why you're posting this kind of stuff. Devil's advocate day or something?

I'm trying to rein in my anger at this for the sake of discussion, but it makes me so mad to see people like the guy she talks about in her first paragraph victimizing cancer patients who are desperate to live and don't have the scientific background to understand how much total bullshit this is. It's morally reprehensible if the guy has any idea about biology (because then you're knowingly selling snake oil), and even more reprehensible if he doesn't, since nobody without a strong knowledge of how the damn body works should be directing medical treatment in the first place. Doctors and science aren't perfect by a long shot, but they're also considerably far removed from leeches and tonics. Which this stuff basically is, with the added benefit of interfering with real, proven to work treatments. Or if nothing else, it's false hope.
 
Top