<p>Thank you for so beautifully illustrating my points! Classic.</p>
<p>Uh...huh. I'm closed-minded because I demand proof?</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>No, because all the points I made in my last post went completely over your head. You didn't get any of them. You act as though there has been a scientific study on every conceivable issue in the world.</p>
<p>You completely ignore the fact that many issues are NEVER ADDRESSED by scientists AT ALL because SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COSTS $$. SCIENTISTS MUST RECEIVE FUNDING. FUNDING USUALLY COMES FROM DRUG COMPANIES. </p>
<p>DO THE MATH.</p>
<p>EVEN SO, you are ignoring the research THAT DOES EXIST.</p>
<p>Here is but one of MANY studies linking attitude to health:</p>
<p>from <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=4009%5B/url%5D">http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=4009</a></p>
<p>People who are energetic, happy and relaxed are less likely to catch colds, research has found.</p>
<p>Conversely, those who are depressed, nervous or angry are more likely to complain about cold symptoms - whether or not they get bitten by the cold bug.</p>
<p>A team from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, found people who had a positive emotional attitude were not infected as often and experienced fewer symptoms than people with a negative emotional style.</p>
<p>The researchers interviewed 334 healthy volunteers three evenings a week for two weeks to assess their emotional states.</p>
<p>After their assessment, each volunteer got a squirt in the nose of a rhinovirus - the germ that causes colds.</p>
<p>The researchers kept the subjects under observation for five days to see whether or not they became infected and how they manifested symptoms.</p>
<p>Tests showed that positive people were no less likely to be infected with the virus.</p>
<p>However, infection seemed to produce fewer signs and symptoms of illness.</p>
<p>Lead researcher Dr Sheldon Cohen said: 'We found that experiencing positive emotions was associated with greater resistance to developing a common cold.</p>
<p>'But a negative emotional style had no effect on whether or not people got sick.'</p>
<p>Immune system</p>
<p>Dr Cohen believes the findings suggest that a positive outlook may impact on how effective the immune system is at fighting disease.</p>
<p>He said that a more upbeat attitude may also help to reduce the risk of other infectious diseases.</p>
<p>Dr Cohen told BBC News Online: 'The symptoms of a cold are caused by the release of chemicals such as cytokines, histamines and bradykinins.</p>
<p>'The release of these chemicals is to some extent under the control of hormones that are produced when we experience various emotions.</p>
<p>'We think that the levels of these hormones in happy people may partly protect them from developing symptoms of cold when infected by a cold virus.'</p>
<p>Dr Nigel Higson, a GP and chairman of the Primary Care Virology Group, said there was a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that stress had an impact on the immune system.</p>
<p>He said: 'It seems that the immune system is affected by your wellbeing, and if you are free from stress it is able to fight disease more rapidly.'</p>
<p>Dr Higson said it was possible that chemicals in the brain may have a direct impact on the functioning of immune system chemicals.</p>
<p>However, he said: 'There are a lot of interactions going on in the body which we just don't fully understand.'</p>
<p>The research is published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine.</p>
<p>The Politics of Cancer Revisited by Samuel S. Epstein </p>
<hr>
<p>The Cancer Industry, New Updated Edition by Ralph W. Moss </p>
<p>from a review:</p>
<p>"...Moss has written a provocative book about how various factions in the cancer industry have become corrupted by the old, familiar struggle for money and power.
One of the more interesting chapters deals with the battle between a brilliant researcher in Houston named Stanislaw Burzynski and the cancer industry establishment. Members of the establishment are portrayed as favoring the use of patentable chemicals or synthetic drugs over any natural methods of treatment , such as that pioneered by Burzynski.
In discussing the cancer establishment Moss explains the make-up and activities of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, The American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institute and The Food and Drug Administration...."</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>"...Ralph Moss does an excellent job documenting the fraud and deception that has been going on in healthcare for years. This is a must read for cancer patients and anyone looking to educate themselves about the truth concerning the "business with disease"! Millions of people are dying needlessly due to the war on information going on the this country.
There are a number of alternative healing therapies that work so well and cost so little when compared to conventional treatment, that Organized Medicine, the Food & Drug Administration, and their overlords in the Pharmaceutical Industry (The Big Three) would rather the public not know about them. The reason is obvious: alternative, non-toxic therapies represent a potential loss of billions of dollars to allopathic medicine and drug companies. The Big Three have collectively engaged in a medical collusion for over 70 years to influence legislative bodies at both the federal and state levels. The ultimate objective of which has been, and still is, to produce regulations that encourage the use of drug medicine while simultaneously creating restrictive, controlling mechanisms (licensing, government approval, etc) designed to limit and stifle the availability of non-drug, alternative modalities..."</p>
<p>Now, before you accuse me of believing in another 'conspiracy theory' (which I don't, in this case. It's far simpler than that.) read this from another review:</p>
<p>"...Moss does not suggest that there is a formal conspiracy to suppress alternate treatments, but he does suggest that the organizations that control the direction of cancer treatment, whether government agencies, private companies, or research and treatment centers, have interlocking personnel and the agendas that matter are those that keep the funds flowing. He also shows that big egos and personal rivalries play a large part.</p>
<p>The cancer establishment has consistently downplayed prevention and ignored evidence that environmental factors or poor nutrition can be a cause or contributing factor in cancer. The big money interests that support the large charities like the American Cancer Society are not likely to approve of programs that suggest their products contribute to cancer. Moss examines the controversy over asbestos as a case study and shows how little interest there was among government or charities to warn the public about known dangers. While the entrenched players in the cancer war do little to inform the public about how to avoid the disease, they go out of their way to scare people about the likelihood that they will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. Scare tactics bring in donations.</p>
<p>The book is well-researched and full of details (names, dates, test results), but I would have liked more information about the efficacy of screening tests, which is another big money-maker for the medical establishment. Is it really worthwhile to have mammograms and colonoscopies? Moss suggests that the "find it early" philosophy often makes no difference in the ultimate outcome. Given the high price and potential dangers of some of these screening tests, do they really serve the public or only the pocketbooks of those who provide the tests? It seems to me that screening tests are pushed on the public as a substitute for a cure, which these organizations have failed to provide, despite the billions of dollars they have spent since America declared a war on cancer more than 30 years ago.</p>
<p>It also seems to me that money is the primary motivator in all things medical in the US. Moss does not say there is a conspiracy and repeats the old mantra that a cure for cancer "would be worth a fortune." But wouldn't a cure ruin a perfectly good business, the cancer business? Moss shows just how many vested interests are involved in cancer, and I doubt any of them want to lose their market.</p>
<p>I'm betting that if we ever have a cure, or even better treatments, that the innovation needed will not come from the bloated and greedy US health care system, but rather from some country that has government-funded health care... somewhere where the incentives are for bringing down the costs by finding a cure for a deadly and expensive scourge. If you continue to believe the claptrap about America having the best medical research, then consider that it was two Australians who discovered that ulcers are caused, not by stress, but by bacteria and can be quickly and cheaply cured. What American drug company would have had the incentive to make such a discovery? Dr. Barry Marshall, one of the Australians whose persistence resulted in the breakthrough, was quoted as follows:</p>
<p>"The idea of stress and things like that was just so entrenched nobody could really believe that it was bacteria. It had to come from some weird place like Perth, Western Australia because I think nobody else would have even considered it."</p>
<p>Precisely the point of this book..."</p>
<p>And that's precisely MY point. You can't isolate all the variables if you aren't interested in researching all the issues. Alternative treatments don't get the same interest and funding from the drug companies. And, alternative treatments are WHOLISTIC. That means they work TOGETHER. It's a completely different principle from the drugs-and-surgery approach.</p>
<p>Colds ≠ cancer.</p>
<p>Colds are caused by viruses. And while some cancer is caused by viruses, the problem is that it's your own body working against itself. The two are not analogous. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, because all the points I made in my last post went completely over your head. You didn't get any of them. You act as though there has been a scientific study on every conceivable issue in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, there hasn't. But I guess I didn't phrase myself clearly. You ALWAYS remain skeptical. Even more so if something hasn't been tested. For example, I don't discount the fact that acupuncture may work, but we must always err on the side of caution and say that it probably doesn't.</p>
<p>Why? Because we can't test it and verify its efficacy. "But people feel better after it!" That's not enough of a reason to say that it works. At least not if you believe in understanding underlying causes without a shadow of a doubt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You completely ignore the fact that many issues are NEVER ADDRESSED by scientists AT ALL because SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COSTS $$. SCIENTISTS MUST RECEIVE FUNDING. FUNDING USUALLY COMES FROM DRUG COMPANIES.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't know that drug companies were funding research into physics. Or mathematics.</p>
<p>Yes, a good deal of medical research is funded by drug companies. But so what? It doesn't automatically mean that the conclusions are false. I mean, plenty of good medicine has come of those dastardly corporations.</p>
<p>"I didn't know that drug companies were funding research into physics. Or mathematics."</p>
<p>Correction: Most MEDICAL research is funded by drug companies. We were discussing MEDICAL research.</p>
<p>So, why would drug companies fund research on acupuncture? If they proved that it worked, that would be bad for the multi-billion $-a-year drug industry. Do the math.</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>I'm sure that there are enough acupuncture groups who'd be willing to fund research. However, the problem with researching it is setting up a control group.</p>
<p>How do you actually ethically set up a control group for acupuncture research? How do you isolate variables when we don't even know half of what it's supposed to do?</p>
<p>And please please please use quote tags. For legibility's sake.</p>
<p>Sorry, I just never learned how to do the quote thing. Can you tell me please?</p>
<p>
[quote ]
Put your quote here[/ quote]</p>
<p>Then close the brackets.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Put your quote here
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Voila. Easy peasy.</p>
<p>Acupuncture isn't as well organized in this country as it is in China. There, acupuncturists and surgeons treat patients side-by-side in hospitals. I've visited a doctor of acupuncture in Houston who used to be the head doctor at a major hospital in Shanghai.</p>
<p>In England, alternative therapies are more readily accepted. Homeopathic medicines can be purchased at pharmacies. It is common knowledge that the royal family utilizes homeopathy, an 'alternative' therapy not acknowledged by the FDA/AMA, who, incidentally, have a monopoly on health treatment in the US.</p>
<p>That's changing, though. Have you noticed that you can now buy herbs in conventional pharmacies? That was unheard of 20 years ago.</p>
<p>And, there are increasingly more MDs who are getting into complimentary medicine. There is a major clinic here in my city run by several MDs. They refer patients to hospitals and/or dispense drugs when necessary, but they also offer alternative therapies. They present info and allow the patient to decide which treatment is appropriate for them. This is what I would like to see happen more, and it is in fact happening. It just takes awhile for the mainstream to catch up.</p>
<p>Chiropractic used to be considered 'fringe' until about 15 years ago when the American Chiropractic Association took the AMA to court. It was a major lawsuit and the chiropractors won. They proved in court that their methods were more effective in cases of neck, back and spinal injuries. Consequently, many health insurance companies cover chiropractic treatments.</p>
<p>Here is a site that is doing acupuncture research:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/</a></p>
<p>Here is another, incorporating acupuncture into standard medical practice:</p>
<p>So, it IS happening. It's just that alternative practitioners have a long way to go to catch up with the huge disease management $$ machine in this country.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then close the brackets.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(testing)</p>
<p>Ah, thanks. I thought I was doing it right but I see now I was leaving out the space after the /.</p>
<p>Edit: My son said to take off the space. And yes he is laughing. He said that's what you meant by 'close the brackets.'</p>
<p>oops, that didn't work. I need to ask my son what I'm doing wrong. He will laugh.</p>
<p>Anyway, it is important to understand that there is a huge and very important distinction between the 2 approaches. Conventional medicine tends to focus on the disease, whereas alternative therapies tend to focus on restoring HEALTH. It's like, is the glass of water half empty or half full. It's a completely different mindset.</p>
<p>Alternative Vs. Conventional: Why Don't Doctors Get It</p>
<p>By Dr. Joseph Mercola
with Laina Krisik</p>
<p>If you live in the United States and need medical care or treatment for a disease you can follow one of two paths to better health--conventional or alternative. In making this decision it is important to know the differences between the two practices....</p>
<p>I have no problem with alternative medicines per se, but with the attitude that "alternative is better." Or that alternative is always safe.</p>
<p>I remain skeptical of plenty of traditional Western medicine as well, however.</p>
<p>But you seem to be latching onto the wrong point here:</p>
<p>I believe that we should always expect scrutiny of whatever we put into our bodies or have people do to us. Just because the Chinese have been doing it for ages doesn't mean it's effective or even safe.</p>
<p>Of course. Not all alternative therapies are safe. It is true that there really are some snake oils out there. But, as a whole, they tend to be FAR SAFER than conventional drugs and surgery.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From the Wall Street Journal June 22 2001.<br>
"In 1999,the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported more then 600,000 hospital admissions and 700,000 emergency-room visits resulting from medications that were correctly administered but nonetheless produced side effects - from intestinal bleeding to seizures to even death."<br>
Adverse reactions? Because the elderly take the most drugs, they are at the greatest risk. on average, Americans who are 65 or older take six medications, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, according to a number of studies. For residents of nursing homes and other long term care facilities, that average rises to eight. One man showed up to a Hebrew home who was taking 42."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the FDA comes down much harder on supplements. The Ma Huang herb, which contains Ephedra (which I agree is a nasty natural stimulant), an important ingredient in Chinese herbal preparations for bronchitis, was popular as a weight loss supplement. It should be used with caution and some people should not use it at all. About 10 people died. The FDA took it off the market. </p>
<p>Many more than that have died from drugs and they often don't take them off the market. They just issue guidelines. But they had no interest in proper regulation of Ma Huang.</p>
<p>I know 2 men at work, in my department alone (and my department only has about 15 people!) who almost died from Lipitor. The FDA just doesn't apply the same standards to natural supplements. They would have had a field day if some natural supplement caused the sort of side effects as Lipitor.</p>
<p>It is improving. The natural supplement industry, which has gotten HUGE, has pushed to be able to have some of the benefits, as well as the cautions, of their products listed on the bottle. I realize that one major complaint (that was valid) by the FDA was that supplements weren't regulated. But it's been a battle because they are essentially competitors.</p>
<p>What really astounds me, though, is how people just unquestioningly accept drugs with all their side effects. There was this woman at work who made a big stink about me taking a natural health food (not even an herb, but a FOOD!!!) because she thought it might have some sort of side effect. But she NEVER reads the labels of all the processed crap she puts into her body, and she pops drugs (both prescription and otc) all the time without question. Bizarre.</p>
<p>No, alternative is not always better. Obviously, in ACUTE cases, such as car accidents, broken bones, and gunshot wounds, get thee to a hospital immediately! That is where modern medicine shines beautifully.</p>
<p>I just believe that people should have the choice and a balanced assessment of their options, in the case of chronic/degenerative diseases. The AMA does not do that. The docs running the 'complimentary medicine' clinics are doing that and I think it's wonderful.</p>
<p>Healing oneself of some illness using natural means requires a commitment, a different mindset, and guidance. It is definitely not for everyone. But, many people get educated about such methods after they have exhausted all their options with conventional medicine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, as a whole, they tend to be FAR SAFER than conventional drugs and surgery.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if any good studies have demonstrated this.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there's the question of whether or not they're more effective. Surgery, while dangerous, is highly effective in most cases.</p>