Discussions about Holistic Health and Alternative Medicine.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
I have a question for those who are anti-pharma and claim that doctors are medicine peddlers. A common reason people go to the doctor is to treat infectious diseases. The doctor then prescribes antibiotics, which are very effective, and the treatment is completed. Simple as that. When it comes to infections, there is no New Age/holistic type of medicine, or energy healing, that get rid of them as well as antibiotics can. How do you explain that? Don't you give big pharma credit for this area?
Even if there were some holistic/alternative remedy for infections, they would be nowhere near as effective as antibiotics are. How does your anti-pharma paradigm explain that?
For example, if you contracted syphilis or gonorrhea and were in a lot of pain, would you take the necessary antibiotics to get rid of it? Or use some New Age healing that will probably not work?
A few additional questions:
- If chemo is so bad and makes cancer worse, then why do they continue using it? It seems too obvious. Are there any studies or evidence that cancer patients who do not use chemo have a higher recovery rate than those who use it?
- The AIDS denialists and revisionists do seem to have many good logical arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. However, none of their books and documentaries addresses one simple question: What about the people with AIDS who do not use AZT yet die anyway?
They say that no one dies from AIDS, and that they die from malnutrition (as in Africa) or from using the toxic drug AZT that was prescribed to them, right? If that's so, then all those Americans who died from AIDS, could have survived by just not taking AZT right? If so, then what about those who died from AIDS yet took no AZT at all, such as Christine Maggiore? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore
How do they explain them? The AIDS revisionist documentaries seem to ignore this point and do not seem to address it.
Also, where are the studies that show that most people diagnosed with AIDS and do not take AZT end up living normal lives?
Furthermore, if the HIV test is unreliable, then why doesn't someone who is HIV positive just test again to get a negative result and then consider themselves not infected?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
No. I give credit to the dedicated people who did the research and development of early antibiotics and other life saving medications.
Penicillin is one of the earliest discovered and widely used antibiotic agents, derived from the Penicillium mold. Antibiotics are natural substances that are released by bacteria and fungi into the their environment, as a means of inhibiting other organisms - it is chemical warfare on a microscopic scale.
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinv ... cillin.htm
I have a problem with doctors and bigpharma pushing all those so called wonder drugs with the deadly side effects BEFORE they suggest an attempt at a lifestyle change that may accomplish the same thing.
Diet pills (dietary change)
Some birth control pills (there are already plenty of effective meds for this with less dangerous side effects)
Cholesterol Lowering pills (dietary change)
Pain pills such as Vioxx (in many cases, resting the affected body part does the same thing as does proper physical exercise)
Of course there are many different medical maladies that can't be effectively treated without some sort of pharmaceutical intervention. What bothers me are the docs who push a pill rather than actually treat the problem. I say it's better to prevent what medical problems you can, rather than treat a problem that could have been avoided.
It's like telling the world, go do whatever you want... we've got a pill for that. When the pills show their adverse reactions, we've got pills for that too!
Since I don't know all doctors some doctors may push pills, but don't blame just doctors and big pharma. We Americans want quick fixes.
Yes, I agree with you that too many Americans want the quick fix. Nobody seems to enjoy reading that piece of paper that is included in the bottle of pills that sometimes requires a magnifying glass and some medical knowledge that tells you about the possible dangers of that medication.
On the good side, pharmaceutical companies are required to provide this information. I sort of get a laugh at some of the prescription TV commercials that voice over the side effects, such as possible death, while you're watching an actress smile her ass off in a perfect world setting.
To quote Fernando-
I look marvelous, but I don't feel marvelous. Which is hokie-dokie for me, because, as you know, my credo is "It is better to look good than to feel good.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests