Yeah, I know, I'm probably not the most popular kind of guy around here. Which is why I posted this thread.
I am a (relatively fresh) physician. A lot of followers of alternative medicine hate people like me, some think I'm part of a bigger conspiracy along with big pharma, and some just don't care. And a lot of people on my side of the camp hate alternative medicine.
I wanted to post this thread in case there are any things you want to ask a doctor but never could, I want some dialogue between the two sides. I won't lie, for the most part I am sceptical to alternative treatments, with a few exceptions. But I will try my best to not let my predispositions cloud my judgment. So if you have any questions, anything at all, fire at will! I'll try to answer as best I can
At the top of my head, I've warmed up to acupuncture and chiropractics. While I dont't believe their basic teachings at all ( and I'm pretty sure a lot of chiropractors don't take that too seriously either), acupuncture has been proven effective. Chiropractics is more tricky, since there are good ones and bad ones. I know some of them are capable of doing effective manipulations, but others have done plain damage.
I am skeptical about all treatments, but I do not hate anyone as a result of that. I see fraudulent treatments on both sides of medicine.
One of the biggest in conventional medicine is Flu vaccination, which the unbiased studies demonstrate little to no benefit, with some risk. Plus the fact that no one ever compares the unvaccinated populations to the vaccinated to see if any benefit is actually experienced.
I would be happy to have a doctor to bounce stuff of of. I may or may not believe you, but I can be convinced with solid evidence.
Happy to have you here. I hope you are thick skinned, as most of us have been misled by doctors more than once in the past. It is nothing personal, as there are good an bad doctors, like anything else.
This'll be a quick reply before bedtime. I'm from Norway, and it's getting pretty late.
I'm not sure if you're thinking of the regular flu vaccine or the swine flu vaccine that has been all the rage lately. As for the first one I'll have to look through some proper studies, but here's what a quick check on pubmed got me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167134
It shows benefit from vaccination, even against the mutated virus.
As for the swine flu, I can say that given the circumstances, they tried their best. The thing is, the swine flu is H1N1. H and N denotes two proteins the virus uses to attack the host, and the number denotes varieations of these proteins. That 1918 flu epidemic was also H1N1, and it killed a LOT of people. Now there was good reasons to expect this one to become as aggressive as the 1918 one, so they tried to make a vaccine ASAP. Now luckily, the flu outbreak didn't turn out to be so bad, and we can now discuss whether or not that vaccine was really necessary given the risk/benefit ratio.
I was thinking of any Flu vaccine. I will check out your link. I would like to get to the bottom of this, but I can find no convincing evidence that they do much at all. It is not like I have not looked, but possibly you have access to more studies than I have at hand.
It would be a simple matter to prove it one way or another, but it is never done. That makes it rather suspicious since this is not exactly a hard measure to make.
I don't have access to the full article at the moment, but they way I see it they didn't use antibodies to determine immunity, but rather as an indicator of whether a person had gotten the disease or not. They also used a few other methods, like isolating the virus in cultures (most likely from swab samples of the throat) and test their RNA.
It shows that the flu vaccine has an effect, but a minimal one. For that reason it shouldn't be used for mass vaccination, but considered for higher risk individuals. And that's how it's generally done in Norway, at least. Please also take note that it addresses the issue of pharma-funded studies being less reliable. I want to mention this because some peole seem to think we're just the puppets of the pharma industry.
1: Big pharma is certainly evil, but I'd like to hear some more specifics about what drugs you approve/disapprove of.
2: Statins lower cholesterol, and yeah, the role of cholesterol in heart disease is somewhat debated. While high cholesterol IS correlated with high risk of cardiovascular disease, one can argue whether it truly is causetive or not. But statins do something else as well, it turns out. They appear to stabilize the insides of the arterial wall, reducuing the risk of a atherosclerotic plaque rupturing and causing myocardial infarction, stroke, or clots elsewhere.
3: Agreed about overprescription. Dunno why it's evil, though, after all it saves lots of lives when used correctly.
4: Chemo is nasty. But it is nastier to cancer cells than the rest of the body, and can potentially rid cancer completely, depending on the type. Most often though, it only serves to prolong life. Thing is, chemo kills cancer cells very effectively, something like 99,99%. But cancer is not like bacteria, where the remainder can be taken out by the immune system. All it takes is one single cancer cell to be left behind, and it will multiply and the cancer will return.
More or less the same applies to radiation.
I do have an important question to ask you, and I am glad to have you here to comment on it.
My wife has some kind of problem with her left ovary. She has had this for years, and it pops up now and then when I treat her for Lyme Disease using an unapproved frequency treatment. When I run a certain frequency, she can feel it in her ovary, and it will bleed after the treatment. This can also happen without any intervention from me, but she does not always mention it to me.
It is likely some kind of infection that has been there for longer than ten years. I am going to try again to get her to a doctor to have it diagnosed, but she an be stubborn about things like that.
What infections can affect the ovary, as far as what is most likely and what is not so likely. I do not believe it is cancer, as she would likely be dead already, if it was. I also made her take a pregnancy test, as that will sometimes give an indication of cancer. It was negative.
Thank you for any insight you can provide, or from anyone else for that matter.
5) ALL of us are also upset about legislation to remove vitamins/herbs/control what we can grow and give away etc.
5: I am unfamiliar with this, care to explain?
These are laws that would effectively ban the sale of all vitamins, herbs, etc. that are used in natural medicine.
This is done supposedly to insure public safety, which of course sounds good, but the effect is that gives the drug companies a monopoly on the sale of all drugs.
You can check out Liverock’s post for a little more info.
Regarding the use of chemo and radiation to cure cancer, well yes they will definitely kill cancer cells. But they are also known to cause cancerous cells. So how do we determine if they are killing more cancer cells then they are creating?
It is my understanding that we all have cancer cells sloshing around in our bodies all the time. However our immune system is "hopefully" busily at work searching them out and destroying them. It is only when the immune system becomes overwhelmed that we say a person has cancer. But here is were I have a problem it would seem to me that if a person has cancer the very last thing that should be done for them is to kill off what is left of their immune system, which is what chemo apparently does. So the patient is left with the prospect of seeing if the chemo will kill his cancer cells before it kills him.
Oh yes by the way to the forum. I’m sure your insight will be appreciated.
My understanding of Cancer comes from what once was researched regarding Cancer, but no longer is in fashion.
Cancer is often, but possibly not always, caused by a pleomorphic pathogen that can have characteristics of a virus, and a bacteria. Cryptococcus neoformans could be the actualfungus, or at least it closely resembles what has been described by researchers that have actually seen it under a microscope. I am not going by my own research. but past and present researchers that delve in this stuff.
What I do know is that there are people treating cancer with specific frequencies that greatly reduce the amount of cancer, and previous work indicate it is a pathogen on some kind that causes at least some types.
Once a person has Cancer, they are likely to have it reoccur as this pathogen is common, and only when it enters a certain stage is it a cancer causing agent. It likely is a metabolic problem that causes it to enter this stage, and as long as that metabolic problem exists, the Cancer will reform, even if it is all eliminated by whatever means, at one time.
That is where I am at on this, but I am not an expert.
Most of this work was done by Gruner, Glover, Rife, and Livingston quite some time ago. It is still being investigated by one person in Germany, who has the ability to observe the pathogen under a microscope.
Drack, I have seen an alternative form of therapy called macrobiotics work in cancer. I have heard from highly educated people about something called Hoxsey therapy work also. Chemo is actually useless against many types of cancers, it works great on testicular cancer and a few other rare cancers, but for lung, colon, pancreatic, it has little effect.
Unfortunately most Doctors dispensing drugs appear to rely on what Pharma reps tell them and dont bother to check studies themselves. Blood pressure drugs are a case in point.
The ALLHAT Study testing various types of BP drugs, had to withdraw Doxazosin, an Alpha Blocker blood pressure drug. The organisers quoted, " It increased CHF by 200% and cardiovascular disease by 25% and was no more effective than a diuretic." Ace Inhibitors where also found to be no more effective than diuretics as well in the same study.
Other studies have also shown that Calcium Blockers can increase heart failure.
What bothers me is doctors still merrily prescribe these drugs that are meant to prolong life, and in most instances are shortening patients lives by causing heart failure. Thats a pretty serious side effect.
The BMJ did an article on all this including an interview with the Doxazosin publicity chief who agreed the drug can increase heart failure but laughed it off saying, "Doctors will still prescribe it, they never prescribe diruretics these days!"