Question for those who are anti-pharma
Posted: 09 Sep 2012, 02:18I 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?
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?