Is modern medicine based on flawed scientific premises?

[JAVO]

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 think there are bits of useful truth in some of this which are being ignored and dismissed without serious consideration. If someone can be cured of cancer or pneumonia using tools of modern medicine, then that's likely the tool which should be used. But, medications also have their side-effects and consequences. Other things can be cured or prevented using a more natural approach more effectively and efficiently. Even modern medicine acknowledges this to some extent, such as nutrition being important in prevention of cancer and heart disease, and that antibiotics are over-prescribed and often unnecessary.

Also, there are plenty of morally reprehensible practitioners of modern medicine. Sometimes the facts are twisted or presented in a deceptive way. If risks to procedures or vaccinations are given a spin which hides important facts, then that's a violation of the core principle of informed consent as articulated in the Nuremburg code. A patient can't be informed if they don't fully understand or aren't aware of things. One example is the hype to promote influenza vaccination in the US, something Western medical practitioners in other countries perceive with more skepticism.

For example:

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

People who question the safety and value of vaccines are labeled as "antivax nutcases," yet there are also PhDs in immunology who do the same. I haven't read that book yet, but I intend to. [edit:] Here is part of an interesting inverview with the author:

Vaccinated children are coming down with the same infectious diseases for which they have been fully vaccinated. Why do you think vaccine ‘immunity’—if we can call it that—is so short lived and not adequate?

We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases.

I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response—that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically “want” to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete.

source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...r-tetyana-obukhanych-by-catherine-frompovich/

The dogmatic stance on many medical and scientific issues is simply not warranted [edit: by the evidence]. Things are not as black and white as they first appear.

 

[Evo]

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.

So you're saying that stubbing your toe is not a stress to the body? That is odd lol

There are protiens in the blood, aren't there?

But, like I said. I'm not really interested in discussing much of this.

So if I believe in "quackery," then I believe in quackery It works for me. Doesn't have to work for you.

And I'm not going to just believe what has been put out there on the basis that someone else said so. So I will take your critique into consideration, just like everything else.

 

[Mole]

So if I believe in "quackery," then I believe in quackery It works for me. Doesn't have to work for you.

This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.

 

[Evo]

This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.

I'm not sure what you're saying...cause I never really know what you're saying...

Nor do I understand your intentions...

If you're saying that I'm not upholding proper evidence to my opinion, I have already said like 3 times, that I don't want to discuss much about this. I think I even stated that it's because I'm not especially adept at explaining things. So why bother?

 

[two cents]

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?

No, it wouldn't. All evidence we have that something "worked for thousands of years" is hearsay. It MAY, in fact be effective, or it may not, and might even be dangerous to boot. Personally, I feel safer when someone gives me some actual numbers on how many people are helped and how many are hurt by a remedy.

Let's take everyone's favorite hobby-horse, Aspirin. It's derived from a compound in willow bark. Native peoples with access to the right plants have known of its effectiveness in reducing fever for thousands of years. Well, thanks to modern medicine not only do you not have to go harvest your own willow bark, boil it, and drink nasty-tasting stuff, all the while having NO clue just how much active ingredient you are ingesting... you can take a nice convenient little pill. Oh, and Aspirin IS dangerous, it can and does cause stomach bleeding that can be fatal (and sometimes is). The danger of Aspirin is dose-dependent, and circumstance-dependent. Thanks to regulatory agencies like FDA, you get your pills with a label that tells you what a safe dose would be and when to avoid taking them altogether because you are at an increased risk of bleeding or of dying from it.

I don't know about you, but I want to know about all those important things. And we are talking about something that reduces fever, which is usually not a fatal condition in itself. The more serious and life-threatening a condition, the more I want to be sure of safety and effectiveness of the agent I use to treat it, and yes, I do want more tangible evidence and more information than some hand-waving about it working for thousands of years.

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?

Assumptions ARE funny things! When you talk about "dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia" all that makes me think is that you are being paranoid, and inherently suspicious of established authority, no matter what it is or how it operates.

I have no interest in defending academia or any other institution that is involved in medical research. All I am saying is that you (and everyone else defending quackery) have failed to offer up an alternative that can stand up to the same level of scrutiny that you are imposing on the existing institutions. Criticism is fine (and frequently productive) as long as the same standards are applied across the board.

Also, if something smells like bullshit, and looks like bullshit on cursory examination, please forgive me for not "taking the time to understand" and dissect it in detail in order to verify it's bullshit. If the world had to come to a grinding halt so we could all sit down and carefully consider the arguments offered up by every crackpot (which are not original, btw), and to refute for 101st time what has already been refuted and disproved, well, nothing would ever get done.

Oh, and two can play this game. If you really had an open mind, you'd take the time to consider the thorough debunkings of germ-theory denialism that can be had with a quick trip to google. There's apparently even a site devoted to debunking scientific denialism of all sorts: http://debunkingdenialism.com (clever name, that)

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

Yes, normal pasteurized milk does. There's ultra-pasteurized milk which has less (or none?). The bacteria left in regular pasteurized milk (like Acidophilus) are either neutral (don't cause disease) or beneficial, both for keeping milk fresh longer and for the bacterial communities in our bodies. And even the quote you provided states that the levels of Listeria, if present, are not sufficient to cause harm.

What exactly is your point? That pasteurized milk is no safer than raw? Well, the raw milk might happen to be clean, but it isn't always and that's why we pasteurize it. In fact, we could opt for testing it instead, but that is more expensive and takes time, while milk is a perishable product. I personally happen to really love the taste of raw milk, and sometimes indulge myself. That doesn't mean I want to pay $10 for a gallon of raw milk that's been tested, or take on the risk of always drinking only raw milk that hasn't. It's a matter of risk benefit analysis, rather than dogma.

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

Yeah, I already mentioned that. Listeria is not that bad unless you are a pregnant woman or an immunocompromised individual. But that's just the most common pathogen. How do you feel about diphtheria, nasty streptococcal strains, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis? You can get all of those from raw milk too, although, admittedly, those are less common.

She actually.

Oh, hey, I made an (unconsciously) sexist assumption. My bad. Glad to know quackery is also an equal-opportunity occupation. That totally invalidates my point, because she could not POSSIBLY be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible (or delusional, or both).

 

[Randomnity]

I think there are bits of useful truth in some of this which are being ignored and dismissed without serious consideration. If someone can be cured of cancer or pneumonia using tools of modern medicine, then that's likely the tool which should be used. But, medications also have their side-effects and consequences. Other things can be cured or prevented using a more natural approach more effectively and efficiently. Even modern medicine acknowledges this to some extent, such as nutrition being important in prevention of cancer and heart disease, and that antibiotics are over-prescribed and often unnecessary.

Also, there are plenty of morally reprehensible practitioners of modern medicine. Sometimes the facts are twisted or presented in a deceptive way. If risks to procedures or vaccinations are given a spin which hides important facts, then that's a violation of the core principle of informed consent as articulated in the Nuremburg code. A patient can't be informed if they don't fully understand or aren't aware of things. One example is the hype to promote influenza vaccination in the US, something Western medical practitioners in other countries perceive with more skepticism.

For example:


Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

People who question the safety and value of vaccines are labeled as "antivax nutcases," yet there are also PhDs in immunology who do the same. I haven't read that book yet, but I intend to. [edit:] Here is part of an interesting inverview with the author:


source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...r-tetyana-obukhanych-by-catherine-frompovich/

The dogmatic stance on many medical and scientific issues is simply not warranted [edit: by the evidence]. Things are not as black and white as they first appear.

Ahh, ok. I understand a lot better where you're coming from, now. I totally agree that medicine has all sorts of ethical (and sometimes functional) problems and that it isn't black and white. However, muddying the waters with sketchy nonsense like "body acidity" doesn't address those problems at all. I think things like the anti-vax movement and "alternative" cancer cures, far from pointing out the flaws in modern medicine, have actually made it more difficult to challenge medicine, because you're then lumped in with a bunch of nutjobs.

Medicine has come a long way from its early days, but is nowhere near perfect, either functionally or on an ethical level. I have to say it beats the alternatives by a loooong shot, though.

Don't get me wrong - some "alternative medicine" seems to work, often for reasons we don't yet understand. But I guarantee there is a reason that makes biological sense and is not related to "energy flow" or whatnot, even if we haven't found it yet. For example, over-use of antibiotics causing resistance is a real problem which is caused by the way bacteria react to antibiotics, not by any mythical effects. Nutrition is really important because it allows the body to keep up its defenses against diseases (in a measurable, known, scientific way!). The placebo effect is also very powerful of course, which is another interesting thing.

 

[JAVO]

No, it wouldn't. All evidence we have that something "worked for thousands of years" is hearsay. It MAY, in fact be effective, or it may not, and might even be dangerous to boot. Personally, I feel safer when someone gives me some actual numbers on how many people are helped and how many are hurt by a remedy.

Let's take everyone's favorite hobby-horse, Aspirin. It's derived from a compound in willow bark. Native peoples with access to the right plants have known of its effectiveness in reducing fever for thousands of years. Well, thanks to modern medicine not only do you not have to go harvest your own willow bark, boil it, and drink nasty-tasting stuff, all the while having NO clue just how much active ingredient you are ingesting... you can take a nice convenient little pill. Oh, and Aspirin IS dangerous, it can and does cause stomach bleeding that can be fatal (and sometimes is). The danger of Aspirin is dose-dependent, and circumstance-dependent. Thanks to regulatory agencies like FDA, you get your pills with a label that tells you what a safe dose would be and when to avoid taking them altogether because you are at an increased risk of bleeding or of dying from it.

I don't know about you, but I want to know about all those important things. And we are talking about something that reduces fever, which is usually not a fatal condition in itself. The more serious and life-threatening a condition, the more I want to be sure of safety and effectiveness of the agent I use to treat it, and yes, I do want more tangible evidence and more information than some hand-waving about it working for thousands of years.

This statement itself is biased. Harvesting a small piece of bark takes about 10 seconds, and there's no need to boil it. If I grew up in a culture where my parents and all of my relatives cure a headache by chewing let's randomly say a quarter-sized piece of willow bark for 15 minutes, and it works every time with no side effects, then that's not hearsay. It's simply a fact of life and a way of life. It's also free, much easier to obtain, and doesn't require a vast array of facilities and organizations and supervision. Some people prefer dependence, and others prefer independence. I'm glad everyone has their choice, at least in most places.

Assumptions ARE funny things! When you talk about "dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia" all that makes me think is that you are being paranoid, and inherently suspicious of established authority, no matter what it is or how it operates.

It sounds like you're saying that anyone who questions or challenges authority is paranoid?

I have no interest in defending academia or any other institution that is involved in medical research. All I am saying is that you (and everyone else defending quackery) have failed to offer up an alternative that can stand up to the same level of scrutiny that you are imposing on the existing institutions. Criticism is fine (and frequently productive) as long as the same standards are applied across the board.

It's interesting that I don't find the need to frequently use loaded words like "quackery" and "crackpot" which presuppose the issue under discussion.

Also, if something smells like bullshit, and looks like bullshit on cursory examination, please forgive me for not "taking the time to understand" and dissect it in detail in order to verify it's bullshit.

Well, be careful with your fecal assumptions. I brought a fake rubber pile of cat poop into Spanish class in high school and surreptitiously put it under the desk of someone prone to making the same assumptions. I simply asked him, "Hey! What's that under your desk?" He looked at it, even poked it, smelled it (the mind is a funny thing when it wants to confirm what it thinks it already knows), and then freaked out and ran to the teacher complaining that there was a pile of crap under his desk. (All of this was just a spontaneous side prank. I had actually brought it in for a show and tell presentation in speech class.) The guilty party was of course obvious: the person who was laughing the hardest. The teacher obviously had cats at home, because she unhesitatingly attempted to dissect the scat with her bare hands, and then confiscated it into a ziploc bag. When I asked for it back at the end of class, she told me that she was turning it into the principal's office, and that I would have to go to him and ask for it back. I found this hilarious, and I enthusiastically went to the principal's office a week later when I thought about it again. When I went to his secretary and demanded "my cat shit" back, she stifled a smile and reported that she didn't have it. I had lost my shit. And worse, the principal was probably playing my trademarked gag on all of the teachers.

Oh, and two can play this game. If you really had an open mind, you'd take the time to consider the thorough debunkings of germ-theory denialism that can be had with a quick trip to google. There's apparently even a site devoted to debunking scientific denialism of all sorts: http://debunkingdenialism.com (clever name, that)

If I assert something isn't true, it's denialism. If you assert something isn't true, it's debunking. Your rules are fecal too.

Yes, normal pasteurized milk does. There's ultra-pasteurized milk which has less (or none?). The bacteria left in regular pasteurized milk (like Acidophilus) are either neutral (don't cause disease) or beneficial, both for keeping milk fresh longer and for the bacterial communities in our bodies. And even the quote you provided states that the levels of Listeria, if present, are not sufficient to cause harm.

What exactly is your point? That pasteurized milk is no safer than raw? Well, the raw milk might happen to be clean, but it isn't always and that's why we pasteurize it. In fact, we could opt for testing it instead, but that is more expensive and takes time, while milk is a perishable product. I personally happen to really love the taste of raw milk, and sometimes indulge myself. That doesn't mean I want to pay $10 for a gallon of raw milk that's been tested, or take on the risk of always drinking only raw milk that hasn't. It's a matter of risk benefit analysis, rather than dogma.

Yeah, I already mentioned that. Listeria is not that bad unless you are a pregnant woman or an immunocompromised individual. But that's just the most common pathogen. How do you feel about diphtheria, nasty streptococcal strains, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis? You can get all of those from raw milk too, although, admittedly, those are less common.

There are bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too. Pasteurization is a mere modern convenience, not a necessity or miracle of science.

Oh, hey, I made an (unconsciously) sexist assumption. My bad. Glad to know quackery is also an equal-opportunity occupation. That totally invalidates my point, because she could not POSSIBLY be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible (or delusional, or both).

I was just surprised that you hadn't checked out the site at all, because her gender is obvious to anyone who did.

 

[JAVO]

If germ theory and vaccines are useless, then how do you explain the total eradication of smallpox?

It seems pretty effective to me.

I'm coming back to this because smallpox is a fun discussion. Remembering that one cannot infer causation from correlation, the official explanation is funny because it doesn't even match the data on a correlative level, yet it's claimed that vaccination is the cause of the eradication. Look at a graph of smallpox mortality vs. year. It's not clear what caused smallpox to decline, but I think a better explanation is probably improved health and sanitation practices.

This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.

Or maybe labeling something as quackery is an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit it?

 

[two cents]

This statement itself is biased. Harvesting a small piece of bark takes about 10 seconds, and there's no need to boil it. If I grew up in a culture where my parents and all of my relatives cure a headache by chewing let's randomly say a quarter-sized piece of willow bark for 15 minutes, and it works every time with no side effects, then that's not hearsay. It's simply a fact of life and a way of life. It's also free, much easier to obtain, and doesn't require a vast array of facilities and organizations and supervision. Some people prefer dependence, and others prefer independence. I'm glad everyone has their choice, at least in most places.

If the conditions you have presupposed are true, sure, it's easy to just follow your family's example. It still doesn't give you any understanding of what risks you are taking (nothing wrong with taking risks, but it's reasonable to want to know how "risky" they really are, no?). Suppose the conditions are different. I don't know where to go find a suitable willow around where I live, what species of willow will do (weeping willow? others?), how much bark to take, how to take it without hurting the tree, and how to consume it. Chewing a piece of bark doesn't sound very inviting either.

If I knew of an herbal remedy that I have personally observed to be effective, and had easy access to it, I might use it (though I might also look it up, just to make sure I was aware of any known risks). If someone I don't know and whose credentials I have no reason to trust tells me they know of a remedy that they've seen help other people, well, why should I trust the anecdotal evidence they provide me? You seem to want to trust absolutely anyone who isn't the established authority and is against the established authority. I know the established authority has problems and what they are, that doesn't mean some other person or institution that paints themselves as a better alternative actually IS a better alternative and doesn't have their own problems which could be much worse. I would want evidence that they are free of the problems they are pointing out in others, AND ALSO free of other serious problems I could think of.

And since anecdotal evidence apparently holds such sway for you, what about all the people you know who are helped by "modern medicine"? It's not just effective for the anonymous "millions of people out there", but for you and the people you know.

I have some anecdotal evidence of my own, too. As an adolescent, I almost died of an easily treatable infection which my mother mis-identified as a cold and treated me with various "alternative medicine" remedies for, all the while ignoring that I was getting progressively worse. If my older sister didn't come for a visit, seen me in horrible pain and barely able to breathe (severely dehydrated too, though she couldn't have known by looking) and taken me to the emergency room I might have died that night. Intravenous fluids and a course of antibiotics and voila, I was right as rain in a week. But I guess that's evidence of nothing, certainly not germ theory, and antibiotics work by some magic or another.

It sounds like you're saying that anyone who questions or challenges authority is paranoid?

Nope. Anyone who throws around terms like "dogmatic boxes" and "pedantic machinations" probably is though.

It's interesting that I don't find the need to frequently use loaded words like "quackery" and "crackpot" which presuppose the issue under discussion.

No, clearly words like "dogmatic boxes" and "pedantic machinations" presuppose nothing.

If I assert something isn't true, it's denialism. If you assert something isn't true, it's debunking. Your rules are fecal too.

Yeah, that's the thing, you can only assert something and expect to be believed if you back it up by direct evidence or authority (or both), either your own or someone else's. You are not a biologist or a medical doctor and neither am I. You cite one of a small number of doctors who believe something that the overwhelming majority of doctors (which I cite) believe is untrue and contradicted by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. But the sheer number of trained specialists that support germ theory is precisely what makes you suspicious of anything they might say, because they are the ESTABLISHMENT (shock horror), and must be conspiring to silence dissenting voices of brave heroes that just want to open our eyes to the TRUTH.

There are bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too. Pasteurization is a mere modern convenience, not a necessity or miracle of science.

No one says pasteurization is a miracle. You could do the same at home, by boiling your milk. Yes, I would say it's really convenient to be able to buy milk and drink it, rather than worrying about boiling it first.

Where is your assertion that there's "bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too" coming from? Why is this the first time I'm hearing that pasteurized milk is in any way dangerous? We are constantly bombarded by warnings and news of mass illness from things like beef, tomatoes, lettuce, etc, but there's a deathly silence on milk...

Also, I thought bacteria didn't cause disease? Isn't that what we've been arguing about?

I was just surprised that you hadn't checked out the site at all, because her gender is obvious to anyone who did.

Why would I? Your teacher might not mind taking an interest in what looks like crap to the extent of risking the unpleasantness of handling said crap, but I generally try to avoid noxious stimuli. You've quoted enough of her writing to give me a good idea of what the rest is like. She's not actually original, and she isn't saying anything I haven't read (lots of) before, and read point-by-point refutations of (written by credentialed scientists, btw).

But hey, if you want to see what someone who paid attention specifically to her and taken time to address her points, here you go:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/16/dr-suzanne-humphries-and-the-internation/

 

[Blackmail!]

It's not clear what caused smallpox to decline, but I think a better explanation is probably improved health and sanitation practices.

No, it is rather clear, and this total eradication is more related to two facts which have nothing to do with "improved health and sanitation practices":

1/ The smallpox virus is transmitted only through humans, it cannot survive in other animals, other places or other kind of bodies like most other virus. It's not a zoonosis.

2/ In that case, the vaccine was so powerful that many considered that the immunity would last for decades, or even for life.

Thus, in this specific case, it was possible to eradicate it.

You seem to see grey areas even when there is none. Clearly, "you want to believe". If it's a matter of personal faith (like what your sources and article seem to imply), then be honest with it.

 

[skylights]

I like the idea of questioning the status quo paradigm, and I like the integration of tactics from other methodologies of healing than Western medicine.

Though, I am not sure works like this article are really the best way to go about that.

We do need to be careful that economic drives aren't leading medicine in certain areas. It's not a system that can be run on supply and demand.

Additionally, certainly there are mistakes in modern medicine, and I think part of that is being realized in the shift to more "natural" childbirth settings in obstetrics - more comfort, more soothing lighting, more quiet, less harsh light and cold metal and machinery. Some exposure to germs is good, and I am in favor of moderate immunization for the same reason.

I like the idea of "holistic" healing, in the sense of treating the whole person in its context. I think environmental health is an important part of personal health; we need to take care of the planet for its own sake, and for biodiversity's sake, but also for our health's sake. We need to attend to our stress levels and our intrapersonal wellbeing. We need to attend to the health of our relationships with our family and friends. We need to maintain positive, safe spousal relationships. We need to educate ourselves on how to take care of ourselves and our surroundings and live accordingly. And so on.

There are times, like in cardio surgery, when there needs to be bright harsh light and artificially-induced sterility and strange chemicals and metal and plastic implements and all sorts of bizarre, removed technologies. Left to its natural devices, the body would otherwise die; we need the artificial to preserve it "unnaturally". But as others have pointed out, the body is a self-cleaning and self-sustaining mechanism for the most part, and encouraging overall wellbeing will do the most to preserve health.

But unfortunately for scientific progress, we cannot see the beyond the bounds of time, so we do the best we can.

 

[Ginkgo]

Astrology, homeopathy, alternative medicine and mbti are all of a piece.

Lol I thought you were going to say "all of a piece of shit".

 

[Lexicon]

This thread brings to mind:

Personally I prefer a blend of well-researched natural home remedies for certain things, also well regarded in the medical field, like witch hazel, and turmeric, etc. But overall if it's something serious, I have faith in diagnostic testing (combined with personal research, as even physicians can miss things). It's not like I have access to labs to look at blood or anything else under a microscope, so, works for me.

 

[JAVO]

No, it is rather clear, and this total eradication is more related to two facts which have nothing to do with "improved health and sanitation practices":

1/ The smallpox virus is transmitted only through humans, it cannot survive in other animals, other places or other kind of bodies like most other virus. It's not a zoonosis.

2/ In that case, the vaccine was so powerful that many considered that the immunity would last for decades, or even for life.

Thus, in this specific case, it was possible to eradicate it.

You seem to see grey areas even when there is none. Clearly, "you want to believe". If it's a matter of personal faith (like what your sources and article seem to imply), then be honest with it.

Your assertion isn't supported by the mortality data.

Clearly you want to believe that modern medicine is infallible and Truth. Maybe some of us here can help you deprogram from this cult?

 

[Blackmail!]

Your assertion isn't supported by the mortality data.

Clearly you want to believe that modern medicine is infallible and Truth. Maybe some of us here can help you deprogram from this cult?

Modern science and epistemology aren't a cult, just in case you weren't aware.

But again, if you "want to believe", you have the right to do so, no matter how odd and irrational your beliefs are. If you want to endanger yourself and your loved ones, then so be it: Natural selection is part of evolution anyway, and there is no vaccine against New Age quackery.

 

[Tellenbach]

I'm aware of one major medical theory that's garbage but because it's been around for 90 years, it's hard to topple despite lots of evidence against it. The Food Pyramid is still based on the Cholesterol Theory of Heart Disease, which seemed like a plausible theory when it was first proposed, but today, we know so much more about its limitations.

Why Cholesterol doesn't cause Heart Disease: The Evidence (From Kilmer McCully's "The Heart Revolution")

1. The Eskimos of Greenland and the Masai of Africa both eat tons of meat (laden with saturated fats and cholesterol), but there isn't much heart disease in these two populations.
2. The French Paradox: The French similarly eat lots of meat but they don't seem to be affected either.
3. In one study of heart disease patients, it was found that only 15% of them had high cholesterol.
4. The incidence of heart disease has dropped over 50% since the 1960s, but the blood cholesterol levels have only dropped 5% in that same period.
5. Feeding animals pure cholesterol (as opposed to oxidized cholesterol) does not result in arteriosclerosis.

According to Dr. McCully, the true cause of heart disease is an amino acid called homocysteine. I'd love to present the theory (perhaps in another thread) if anyone is interested.

 

[JAVO]

Your assertion isn't supported by the mortality data.

Clearly you want to believe that modern medicine is infallible and Truth. Maybe some of us here can help you deprogram from this cult?

Modern science and epistemology aren't a cult, just in case you weren't aware.

But again, if you "want to believe", you have the right to do so, no matter how odd and irrational your beliefs are. If you want to endanger yourself and your loved ones, then so be it: Natural selection is part of evolution anyway, and there is no vaccine against New Age quackery.

If my assertions are irrational, then why not show it by providing historical data proving that the smallpox vaccine caused the eradication of smallpox? If true, it seems like a fairly simple thing to prove. At the very least, you should be able to produce some evidence correlating the two, right? And, you're the one who brought up the smallpox vaccine, so this is your home turf.

 

[Redbone]

As someone who is thoroughly familiar with the medical profession, I agree that it's not perfect. But things don't have to be perfect in order to work.

There's been a very big push in the past 15 years or so to focus on the treatment of chronic disease. Chronically ill patients treated with expensive therapies equal very big money. So there's a lot of companies trying to treat multiple diseases with certain classes of drugs and their approach is more along the "it should work!" when older, cheaper agents do just as well, if not better. The biologics are a good example of this.

There is little incentive to do research looking for actual cures because no one wants to kill the goose. One very unfortunate side-effect (no pun intended!) of this is the fact that we have a very serious problem on our hands with antibiotic-resistant bacteria...the biggest being Enterobacteriaceae...and no new antibiotics in the works.

I think doctors and researchers know enough to get good ideas and form good practices on some things...not all. They managed to get hormone-replacement therapy and the cause/treatment for ulcers very wrong and a lot of that was driven by money and egos. I don't think it's all wrong, though...not by far. I can see what JAVO is pointing out and I agree with some of it. But I also see what Blackmail is saying and agree with that, too. I'd never take the kind of risks that I saw outline in those articles but I want to be very sure about the kind of treatments I receive. Just another balancing act, imo.

 

[Evo]

I'm aware of one major medical theory that's garbage but because it's been around for 90 years, it's hard to topple despite lots of evidence against it. The Food Pyramid is still based on the Cholesterol Theory of Heart Disease, which seemed like a plausible theory when it was first proposed, but today, we know so much more about its limitations.

Why Cholesterol doesn't cause Heart Disease: The Evidence (From Kilmer McCully's "The Heart Revolution")

1. The Eskimos of Greenland and the Masai of Africa both eat tons of meat (laden with saturated fats and cholesterol), but there isn't much heart disease in these two populations.
2. The French Paradox: The French similarly eat lots of meat but they don't seem to be affected either.
3. In one study of heart disease patients, it was found that only 15% of them had high cholesterol.
4. The incidence of heart disease has dropped over 50% since the 1960s, but the blood cholesterol levels have only dropped 5% in that same period.
5. Feeding animals pure cholesterol (as opposed to oxidized cholesterol) does not result in arteriosclerosis.

According to Dr. McCully, the true cause of heart disease is an amino acid called Homocysteine. I'd love to present the theory (perhaps in another thread) if anyone is interested.

I wouldn't mind reading about the theory.

Hmm.

May I ask...does this particular doctor/theory say that the amino acid is at a higher concentration because of things such as:

-malabsorption of B12
-suboptimal intake of B vitamins
-reduced kidney function
-medications that reduce the absorption of vitamins
-lifestyle choices such as smoking, coffee consumption, excessive alcohol intake
-and/or lack of exercise, being obese, and having high stress?

Instead of assigning fault to things that are high in amino acids found in meats, seafood, dairy products, etc...?

 

[Tellenbach]

I wouldn't mind reading about the theory.

Thanks for your interest.

Dr McCully first made the connection between homocysteine and arteriosclerosis when he examined two cases of homocystinuria, a newly discovered disease in the 1960s. This condition is marked by high concentrations of homocysteine in the urine or mentally retarded children. Dr McCully discovered that in both cases, the children had the stiff arteries of people afflicted with arteriosclerosis, but without the cholesterol plaques. One case involved a defect in folic acid and vitamin B6 metabolism and the second case involved a defect in vitamin B12 metabolism.

The theory is that elevated homocysteine levels cause heart disease. Vitamin B6, B12, and folic acid all reduce homocysteine levels in the blood.
Dairy products increase the risk of heart disease not because it contains the cholesterol or fats but because dairy proteins contain higher levels of methionine, which is the precursor of homocysteine. The reason why there is a correlation between LDL-cholesterol levels and heart disease is because LDL is the carrier of homocysteine. The reason why the Masai and the Eskimos don't get heart disease (in any great quantity) is because they also eat plenty of folic acid, B6, and B12. These two populations don't eat processed foods, which contain significantly reduced levels of the B vitamins. The French eat lots of organ meats and vegetables which contain high levels of the B vitamins.

The reason for the huge drop in heart disease from the 1960s level is because breakfast cereal companies started fortifying their products with the B vitamins. The homocysteine theory also explains why low thyroid hormone levels correlate with arteriosclerosis. Low thyroid levels result in higher homocysteine levels. Statins work because they reduce LDL levels and LDL is the transport vehicle for homocysteine.

Homocysteine causes arteriosclerosis by causing skeletal muscle cells in the arteries to multiply forming the plaques. Cholesterol and fat then deposit in these plaques. Experiments with animals show that cholesterol deposits only exist in the arteries after they've been fed butter.

May I ask...does this particular doctor/theory say that the amino acid is at a higher concentration because of things such as:

-malabsorption of B12
-suboptimal intake of B vitamins

You are correct about the B vitamins, but Dr. McCully mostly blames this nutrient deficiency on processed foods. He claims that certain processes like heat sterilization, canning, and irradiation all reduce B6 and folic acid levels significantly, up to 80%.

Because I'm going by memory, I'm forgetting some of the studies he mentions that support his theory. He mentions that homocysteine levels correlate well with heart disease. Places with lots of heart disease also have high homocysteine levels. Animals on a low folic acid diet develop heart disease. I'm missing a lot more of the evidence, but you get the gist. If anyone wants actual references to scientific papers, I could check out the book next week and post the sources.