November 23, 2007 14:50
The Medical Industry is
psychopathic, has been for 200 years or so at a rough guess. Allopathy must
turn over trillions every year, and nutritional medicine would just about
destroy 98% of that, so supplements are the thin edge of the wedge as far as
they are concerned. For example Vitamin C will cure most, probably all
infections, prevent cot-death and reverse heart disease, among other
benefits. That would destroy the vaccination and heart disease industry
(bypass was $12 Billion USA years ago) at a stroke, and cause a dominoe
effect taking down the rest of the pharma hoax
Known with infections for 50 years, would have saved half a million
babies roughly, worldwide.
Secondly at the top of the medical cartel the covert agenda is to harm,
that creates more business if you can stop anyone seeing the connection, and
serves the depopulation agenda as well, and also keeps Africa for the
whites, as most of our industry relies on African minerals.
"At the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority
because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard
to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not
out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them."
Vaccines - Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher (2001)
"My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless
retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an
emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover
for other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of
WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily
reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to
remain and fester and expand."  Depopulation and HIV by Jon
My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business [medicine]
is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organization and the
unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' and ... [other vaccine
promoting] organizations is one of murder and genocide. . . . I cannot see
any other possible explanation. . . . You cannot immunize sick children,
malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more
children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos
(International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)
I can- you're a fool.
Sorry, but you have to expect that sort of criticism if you come out with
such grand claims with no evidence.
I'm not interested in your anit-phrma rant. You have no evidence for it
and even if it was or wasn't the case, you will beleive it nomatter what.
Its an ideal that appeals to you, alike a lifestyle choice of a world view
that fits with what you see yourself to be. Evidence doesn't come into it.
Ok, but back in the real worls, lets look at the more tangible claims you
make. Vitamin C will cure possible all infections. Right then, so all
infection can be treated by simply eating oranges fast enough? Cholera,
diptheria, small pox, ebola, MRSA, meningitis, HIV, Hepatitis? These are
all illness that can be cured by eating oranges very quickly? Is that what
you are saying.
Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis. Now here the had part (don't be
afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this? Any research that
supports this? Or do we just trust you on it?
Ok, how about the vitamin C reversing heart disease claim. Ho many
oranges do you have to eat to reverse heart diease? What it is is very
advanced? Do we hav to eat lemons then? How many? What have the researfh
studies into this told us?
You know what I am going to ask for next- that's right, evidence! Go on,
some peer-reviewed studies would be ideal really, but any evidence at all.
We can all look at it then, judge it for ourselves and take nothing on
faith or face value.
No. I guess you haven't even
heard of nutritional or orthomolecular medicine.
"Although we were able to cure many cases of polio with massive doses of
ascorbic acid, one single instance demonstrates the value of vitamin C. Two
brothers were sick with poliomyelitis. These two boys were given 10 and 12
grams of ascorbic acid, according to weight, intravenously with a 50 c.c.
syringe, every eight hours for 4 times and then every 12 hours for 4 times.
They also were given one gram every two hours by mouth around the clock.
They made complete recovery and both were athletic stars in high school and
college. A third child, a neighbour, under the care of another physician
received no ascorbic acid. This child also lived. The young lady is still
wearing braces."---Dr Klenner The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus
Diseases with Vitamin C Fred R. Klenner, M.D. 1949
"Ok, fair enough, its a hypothesis. Now here the hard part (don't be
afraid) Any chance of some evidence to support this? Any research that
supports this? Or do we just trust you on it? "
LOL. Dr Levy has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?)
to back it up the infections and poisons use, I suggest you read his book
http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and
Toxins: Curing the Incurable---Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D.
or read some of Klenners papers
and given that has been suppressed for 57 years it makes it odds on the
other vitamin C research is true also, also Vitamin E eg for Heart Disease
and Cayenne is full of vitamin C--that works well also
I'm, sorry whale but
it just screams that you don't know what evidence is. look, this isn't a
criticism, the default position is that when people tell you something works
you say, great, it works! But around 500 years of scientific progress have
taught us that is is false, that controlled experiments are the way to do
"has collected 1,200 scientific references (is that enough?) to back it
up the infections and poisons use"
Have you read them? What do you make of them? Any of them better than
others? Some good some bad? Of does the fact you have read a book with
someone who has 1200 scientific references enough for you to out your full
faith behind that? I don' trust anyone that well. I would really have to
critically analyse each and every one of these publications to decide if I
agreed with this author or not.
Wouldn't you? Or do you just agree with what he says and 1200
uncriticised (by you) references enough?
Like I say, with all due respect, you're struggle to understand what I
mean by evidence. A good read that makes you think "wow!" is not it!!!
Do you feel unde personal attack? Is there a need to be so
aggressive ? You criticize Whale's 12 000 references... ("Have you read
them? What do you make of them?..."). So ok, he doesn't know what evdence
is. Do you? It's really ironic to hear you talk about 500 years of
scientific progress... what do you mean by that exactly? You don't believe
Whale and we should believe you.. you hasn't even lived a 100 years??? Don't
you think you are being a bit presumptuous?
Only Allopathy says anecdotes
don't count, unless an MD sticks one into a journal and calls it a case
How else could they get us to ignore the 5,000 plus parent observations
of vaccine autism? See how it works?
Vitamin C just by its lonesome would destroy Allopathy, and he would have
to get a real job over marketing poisons that don't cure, kill 120,000
people every year (USA), addict millions every year (way way worse than
heroin addiction) and give vaccine disease to 1 in 5 children, autism being
So can you see why no amount of evdience is going to be enough for him?
I think this comment sums it up:
"Nancy Hokkanen came up with one of the greatest analogies ever to
describe the autism and vaccine controversy and how it feels to us parents
of kids with autism. She compared it to the Catholic Church's cover up of
decades of sexual abuse."
57 years they have suppressed vitamin C cure for infections and
cot-death, letting at least 500,000 babies die from cot-death, plus millions
from infections. Not exactly a great thing to have on your CV is it?
"10,000 infants die every year--needlessly--from cot-death".---Linus
Harradine, the people here on this blog have made up their minds after
having done some research at least and/or experienced the conventional side.
Just as maybe you have made up your mind with a little research or whatever
it takes to convince you.
The point is that attempts are being made to deny alternative medicines
to people who want them. Why is this freedom being taken away? We should all
have the choice.
Like I say, I have no problem at all with people using
homeopathy amd feeling mucb better for it. I think there is a lot to be
learned from how this happens. But I would like to see it studies honestly
When I mention 500 years of scientific progress I of course refer to the
method as well as the results. Over those 500 years, experimental methods
have been developed that are far and away the best approach to determining
cause and effect, to progress knowledge. That's why all the calls for
evidence. Without that, you are back in pre-enlightenment thinking.
Case reports are evidence. Just on their own do not rule out other
possibile explanations and so cannot demonstrate causal associations. Just
that two thing are associated.
As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide
some decent evidence that homepathy works. How can that possibly be a
biased request? How could anything be more neutral? That's what scientists
ask each other all the time, part of their job- providing evidence.
that is the usual modus
operandi of trolls (covert allopaths). I collected a few newsgroup ones
Most people who read forums or newsgroups are pretty unaware of medical
Prett silly isn't it, an Allopath asking for proof homeopathy or
nutritional medicine works? And giving the impression he is actually
looking for something that would put him out of business. Daft really, but
it fills people with doubt, and stops them asking the real questions, such
as the effectiveness of Allopathy.
That 500 years of scientific progress can't be to do with Allopathy, as
they have still to cure any disease apart from bacterial infections, and are
responsible for 780,000 deaths every year in the USA alone, quite apart from
the Allopathic suppression of non-Allopathic med
http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html like the Vitamin C I mentioned.
That suppression of cancer med causes the premature death of 500,000 people
with chemo, and the use of AZT has killed 400,000 at least.
As well as never curing or being anywhere near curing mental illness, but
addicting 10 million or so to benzos, 25,000 prozac suicides, 4 million kids
on Kiddy Coke (Ritalin).
Progress? In Satan's eye, maybe.
The Modus Operandi of you, Whale, is to promite untested and
ineffective therapies not based on evidence, but from the back of a system
of spreadinf fear of genuine health benefits. Statements like Allopathy has
not cured a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is
depressing. Their are millions of people alive today who would not be were
it not due to modern medicine.
No one is saying it is perfect (although no doubt you will think that I
am), it has massive areas of ignorance, plenty of reasons to be skeptical of
drug companies and they ways they operate, plenty of work to do in providing
people with better treatment options. There is a great deal of work to do.
But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would all
be much better off using water is dangerous.
Whale, I will say it again- my call for evidence is a universal appeal-
to anyway. Always ask for the evidence. Don't trust pharma companies, GPS,
homeopaths, politicians, without evidence. If they cannot provide it, do
not beleive what they say. If they can, look at it for yourself to see if
it supports what they are saying. Not all evidence is good evidence.
Now, how is that a biased view? I'm not picking on anyone at all, or
representing anyone. Just trying to ensure that evidence is high on the
agenda for anyone who makes a medical claim. Surely you would agree with
"Statements like Allopathy has not cured
a single diease other than infection is so ignorant it is depressing."
Depressing is the word, but tell me what disease you have cured? Not
cancer, most folk still fear that, not alzheimer's, heart disease,
"At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge
everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people of
an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything, stop
whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart
"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively
obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two
percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in
diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case
(Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a
few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease,
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and
Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning
Life extending is not a cure. And then they live in fear that it will
come back again, and then chemo actually causes cancer
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly
strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie.
Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia
and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft
tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy."—John Diamond
And your only decent therapy for cancer is surgery. Calling it a therapy
and medicine is stretching the word, it is draw dropping when you think
I think that covers your success rate with drugs and surgery, and
radiation therapy, please.
"But telling people that the whole system is at fault and that we would
all be much better off using water is dangerous."
Dangerous to Allopathy, for sure. We would sure be better off without
drugs (apart from 1% of them), they kill 120,000 every year just in the USA,
I am sure they would have gone with plain water. And so would the 660,000
who died under Allopathy (USA), plus the 400,000 or so done in afore their
time by chemotherapy.
Then the 500,000 with ASD here (UK) would have opted for the water over
the vaccinations that gave most of them that condition.
So the homeopaths are 780,000 ahead of you guys. And I'd go to a
homeopath if I had cancer, first call, last call would be Allopathy.
And, we don't need to pass anything by you anyway, we can make up our own
minds, but if you want to play Judge and Jury over non-Allopathic medicine
then go ahead, if anyone is silly enough to give you jurisdiction. I know
you have gotten away with that game for 200 years+, but your medical
monopoly isn't going to live forever.
Nice try though.
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live
up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts
to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he
undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in
immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. 1956
Of course you have the choice to use homeopathy instead of any medical
treatment when you fall ill. Mostly this is what people do when modern
medicine has utterly failed them (as it does, it does not claim to be
infallable- that's why medical science exists, to improve it).
That is your choice. Based on the sots of evidence you rely on, I am not
surprised that you would choose Homeopathy. Good luck to you should you!
My gripe is that you base this decision on poor evidence, yet portry it
as fact. You argue very angrily about the downsides of Pharm (of which
there are many) all as a means to avoid actually questioning what homeopathy
is all about.
You certainyl don't have to ask for anyone's permission to reject
treatment and accept water. But you will have to expect people (who have
nothing to do with Pharm, do not benefit from this industry, are not
affiliated to it) to ask you for evidence. Nothing will get you over that
hurdle except for scientific, experimental evidence of which there is none.
People reject medical treatments for all sorts of reasons. Relgious,
ethical, suicidal. Its best to avoid pharmaceutical treatment unless it is
absolutely necessary (that is a very obvious thing to say, but worth saying-
drugs should only be used as a last resort). But when they are necessary,
they can be life savers, life prolongers, and increase the quality of life.
Of course you don't have to run it past me or anyone else before choosing
any treatment you like. Vitamin C, diet, homeopathy, parying, anything.
But people who make claims that their treatments are effective and can be
used to treat illness should definitely NOT be allowed to practise without
some evidence to support this. Whether you are selling homeopathy,
pharmaceutical drugs, lifestyle changes, anything. You need evidence.
You are an Allopath or Pharmaboy,
defending Allopathy pretending to be unbiased. It always looks better if
they can hide the fact they are an allopath pharma person. Most folk are
sleepwalking and your comments are usually just enough to stop them waking
up, and thinking, God forbid.
"ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an
IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to
pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage.
SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS
CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth."
Pharma trolls inhabit discussion arenas and attack/flame non-allopathic
medicine, and defend allopathy.
P.Utz is a classic newsgroup one
I think the classic lie that underpins the game is: "If it can be show
to work it will be integrated into conventional medicine."
There is overwhelming
evidence vaccination is ineffective and dangerous but you still use that 150
years after that fact was well known
Heart bypass, hysterectomy, cholestrol hoax, etc
Still waiting for an aids cure
Psychiatric drugs etc
Ypur best defence of these unpalatable horrors is to attack
I do not support pharmaceutical
companies at all. I am just as critical of their methods and the claims of
other scientists(which I do that professionally). I apply that criticism to
all who make healthy advice claims. I am not baised againt one group or
another. Well, that's not true. I judge groups that are unable to produce
good evidence as suspicious and even those that do (such as pharma
companies) i take their evidence with a massive pinch of salt and analyse it
for errors and misleading data (whcih it sometimes has).
This isn't trolling whale, its an invitation to discuss evidence. The
same request I make of scientists, so how can it be biased.
So, this evidence that vitamin C can be used to cure polio. Would you
like to start with that?
overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection and death. It
has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern times!!
Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely).
Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that
mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there
are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do
you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in
threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence.
Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but my
God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with
major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is
overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they
are. But they have turned people lives around from the days when there wer
no treatment options at all. Again, what are you suggesting, that Vit C or
homeopathy are more effective in treatment psychiatric illness? For that
you would need evidence which so far says the opposite.
My defence of these treatments is the evidence that they work.
Publically avaiable, open access, reems and reems or corroborating
evidence. If you disagree with it, or interpret the evidence in a different
way, then say so. Provide example. Evidence is the only defense.
"If treatments are evidence based (and especially if they are
cheaper!) they will very quickly find themselves being used in the
conventional way. Thast is not a lie at all, it is just inconsistent with
your clearly very extreme and cynical view of what medicine is."
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have
not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Absolute nonsense. The Cancer conspiracy is probably the best example of
Of course, that is why Allopathy is a non-word, as it becomes glaringly
obvious when you look at 40 or so non-allopathic cancer therapies, along
with chemo, and then realise only Allopathic ones get used, even though they
are the worst by a long street, as well as being the only ones highly toxic
(surgery isn't too toxic, but there are/were exceptions like the Wipple
"There is overwhelming evidence that vaccination has reduced infection
and death. It has been one of the single most succesful advanced of modern
That just shows your troll behaviour as vaccination is easy to shred
purely on statistics, smallpox vaccine the easiest
In 1880, for example, it was killing 25,000 infants (directly and
indirectly) at the height of compulsory vaccination. As the Leicester
statistics show easily--they lost 2,000 LESS babies in their non-vaccinating
Measles is the other simple vaccine shredder
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html Deaths declined by 99.4%
before vaccination. Now MMR kills way more than measles would be doing, and
they still say it is safe and doesn't kill.
"Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but
my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with
major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is
overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they
You sound more and more like an Allopath songster. Still waiting for
your cure list.
tell that to the benzo addicts, benzo addiction is way worse than heroin,
you can get effects 10 years afetr withdrawl. Over 12 million benzo addicts
http://www.whale.to/a/benzodiazepines_h.html, 3.6 million children on
ADHD drugs in the United States, 1.6 million of those are taking more than
one psychiatric drug in 2005. http://www.whale.to/a/adhd_drugs_h.html
You need to read Robert Whitaker
http://www.whale.to/a/whitaker_h.html to get the REAL facts.
I think the level or criminality here exceptional.
Bearing in mind nutritional medicine actually helps and cures people with
For example heroin withdrawal, criminal they still use methadone
"I tell patients that tranquilizers alone never cure anyone. They merely
reduce the intensity of the symptoms and make life slightly more endurable.
They create a better behaved, chronic dependent person. Only with
orthomolecular treatment can the majority of schizophrenic patients hope to
become well and normally independent."---Abram Hoffer, M.D.
and the AP knowledge that would also blow it clean out of the water
"Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely).
Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that
mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there
are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do
you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in
threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence."
I worked out that racket
http://www.whale.to/aids.html but Rappoport hits the nail
You sound like you know what you are talking about, pity I spent 13 years
investigating vaccination, so I know you are actually talking right out of
“We have not been able to discover any good reason why most of the people
on earth believe that AIDS is ...caused by..HIV. There us simply no
scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true (or) why doctors
prescribe a toxic drug called AZT...we cannot understand why humans would
take that drug for any reason.”---Kary B. Mullis (Inventing the AIDS virus
by Peter Duesberg)
"He was one of my most dramatic recoveries with AIDS, and the reason I
say that is that he was the most far gone. He was in the absolute, end stage
-- they have that wing in the hospital where they have given up on you. You
can smoke pot and do anything you want. They had given up on him."—Dr
Shulze, who cured 16 from last stage full-blown AIDS.
I see you
don't beleive that AIDS is caused by HIV. Ok, that's a view. But you weill
need some research evidence to support that. Do you have any, or maybe just
some more quotes? This is a scientific problem, so will need some knowledge
of virology and the research that they do specifically into HIV. Shall we
discuss the research evidence that your 13 years of investigating has come
That's really all I am trying to do here. Apllying the same criticism to
alternative health claims as real ones. Ask for evidence. I'm not
interesting in reading your quotes, they are not evidence of any sort. Case
reports are, but on tiehr own not enough to provide causal evidence. If
quotes and cae reports are the total of your evidence, then obviously your
research (ofr 13 years) was a waste of time.
Lets look at the proper data. Do that and we don't need to get into
personal attacks at all. The data will speak for itself. Can we see some?
Then we can look at it impartially.
Anyway, as I say, I am happy for alternative treatments to be used by
anyome thjat wants them, provided they do not make claims that they have no
evidence to support. I don't beleive anyone should get away with that,
pharma company, anyone.
Asking for a cures list shows a
great deal of ignorance of basic biology and disease. Medicine does not
"cure" a heart attack or a stroke. It can help prevent them and it can
reduce damage, prlonge life and releive suffering. Are you saying the world
would be a better place without these treatments? Without analgesics?
Anti-clotting drugs? Drugs for hypertension? Insulin?
Vaccines. So, just to be absolutely clear, you believe vaccination is a
bad thing on the whole? After 13 years of investigation, your studies have
lead you to conclude that, with respect to human and animal health,
vaccination has not been of medical benefit?
Yes, vaccination is a complete hoax, and plenty of evidence
as I pointed out
Quotes are great, to the point in one sentence.
"Whether we examine the long-continued records of London mortality, or
those of modern registration for England, Scotland, and Ireland; whether we
consider the "control experiment" or crucial test afforded by unvaccinated
Leicester, or the still more rigid test in the other direction, of the
absolutely revaccinated Army and Navy, the conclusion is in every case the
same: that vaccination is a gigantic delusion; that it has never saved a
single life; but that it has been the cause of so much disease, so many
deaths, such a vast amount of utterly needless and altogether undeserved
suffering, that it will be classed by the coming generation among the
greatest errors of an ignorant and prejudiced age, and its penal enforcement
the foulest blot on the generally beneficent course of legislation during
our century."-----ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE [Book 1898] VACCINATION A DELUSION
you can read the whole book
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/1.html but I save anyone the
trouble, and get the conclusion in one sentence.
Your job is to obfuscate, not bad at it, but it is a pretty impossible
job, defending Allopathy.
"Whale, medicines are not cures. They are treatments. Some highly
efficacious, others less so. Some with mild side effects, some with very
serious and dangerous side effects."
You said it. Highly efficacious --antibiotics only. Leading cause of
death and disease in the western world today.
"The pharmaceutical "business with disease" is the largest deception and
fraud business in human history. The product "health" promised by drug
companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the "products"
most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death.
While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the
pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of
diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or
even obstructed by this industry. The survival of the pharmaceutical
industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural
health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the
treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic,
political and media opposition of the world's largest investment industry."
--Dr Rath MD
What disproves this link?
No, a lack of "cures" as you call them come from a misunderstand of what
disease and medicine are. The goal of all medical science is to find a cure
or an effective treatment. Obviously the easier way to do this is to remove
the agent causing the disease, but this cannot always be done, in the case
of genetic disorders or ones with unknwon cause, such as Alzheimers Disease.
It provides treatments that can either so so effective that they remove the
problem, or are no ideal and not as effective and simply are the best (or
only) treatment available at the time. That's why medical science exists-
to improve treatments and find new ones.
Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat someone
opinion, and we don't know what sources of evidence they are relying on, or
whether these are any good.
Thats why I prefer to stick to the actual research data. It means one
can study a claim impartially. Get the ball rolling by providing references
to some studies and we can remove personal attack and look at the fact and
apprais them. So much more wothwhile that jibing at one another.
"How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the Earth- A Short History of Modern
Delusions"- Francis Wheen.
"Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations" - Jon Diamond
"How We Know What Isn't So: Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life
" Thomas Gilovich.
Add these to your research.
and I know what the REAL snake oil is
My on line collection of 30 smallpox books
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox14.html is probably
the best document of the biggest snake oil killer of all time:
smallpox vax which killed millions. Leprosy into Hawaii for example.
Poor old Diamond, not exactly a poster boy for allopathy was he, the
surgery butchers tried to stop him talking bull**** but they still failed.
A classic case of making the wrong decision, big time, and then denial
big time, which led him to attack the very people who could have cured
classic psychology, and of course, if you sing from the Pharma song sheet
you get massive publicity, which is good for the ego.
Incidently, snake oil was echinacea. A guy used to sell it by getting a
snake to bite
him on stage, and then he took it to deal with the poison. Not bad for
"Quotes are ok, but they are not evidence since they simply repeat
See if you can get this from the second telling, at least
The quote offered was one from Wallace who looked at the stats and found
to be snake oil . Now you can read his book to get the stats
or look at my other extracted stats
or you can carry on saying there is no evidence, like a dead canary
But that is the best
defence of real snake oil peddlars
the King of Snake Oil was smallpox vaccine
25,000 babies in 1880, 6,000 in 1921
Herod would have been proud of that one
Introduced Leprosy into Hawaii
just for starters
AZT is a classic, failed chemo drug used to kill a harmless virus
http://www.whale.to/a/azt_h.html 400,000 killed with that years ago
Then the following poisons
Spanish Flu was one of the first vaccine bioweapons
Swine Flu vax was a classic poison
Then DPT --main cause of Cot death running at 10,000 (1984) http://www.whale.to/vaccines/dpt.html
Along with main cause of autism
helped a lot by MMR
hep B vax is another killer
One of those quotes you love so much:
"The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31,
1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room
visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.........The hep B adverse
event cover-up is way bigger then the AHP diet-drug cover up."--Michael
to help with the URL fatigue
The early TB vaccines (Koch no less) were a nice line in snake oil
"Shortly after it was announced, test experiments were carried out in
Berlin, but, unfortunately for both the discovery and the discoverer, from
November, 1890, to February, 1891, the deaths of no fewer than 123
selected cases were reported in the "Zoophilist," of 1st May, 1891 (page
18). After this, both Koch and his tuberculin fell under a cloud."
and the later BCG http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bcg4.html
Early Diptheria vaccines, great snake oil! http://www.whale.to/a/diptheria.html
good old Chemo, given to 50%, slight use to 7%, go figure
OPV Africa, 600 dead kids in one swoop
"At the main hospital in Mbarara during that month of 1977 more than 600
children had died following polio vaccination. 600 children!"
And not one single life saved by any vaccine, amazing, but true.
Then the 10 million addicted to Benzos, you should try that, million
benzo babies, and million brain damaged by things like Thorazine
Nice of you to give 4 million kids Kiddy Coke (Ritalin), keeps them off
http://www.whale.to/a/vioxx_h.html not sure of the death rate there,
Wouldn't want to forget your little line in 'preventive' snake oil, eg
Or some surgery 'highlights' like hysterectomy
"Today, three quarters of a million hysterectomies are performed annually
in North America. Yet a huge majority are unnecessary. .....After the
surgery, almost half of the women suffer from digestive problems,
incontinence, loss of maternal feelings, depression, memory loss and absence
of sexual drive or pleasure."
Well over 98% are unecessary.
Heart bypass hoax
and so on and on.
Don't even mention snake oil again or I'll expand the list to its true
Some of the claims made are
also just wrong and unreferenced, they present only very poor cross
references to other books and authors and don't even mention all of the data
and studied that provide contrary evidence.
In your world this is probably enough to be convinced, and for many other
people too. But your views can hardly be said to be balanced. You
repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I don't
trust pharmaceutical data at face value either. But your bias is extreme!
Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly biased
and unreliable sources!
Why not lets pick one thing at a time, one claim you would like to
support and we can explore that impartially. If they data supports you, I
promise (my professional intergirty stands on it) I will agree with you.
But if it doesn't I wont.
rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy
evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at
any of them impartially.
Pick one, choose your supporting evidence and I will take a look at it
and tell you what I make of it. I keep an open mind at all times as I hope
you do to (otherwise let me know right now so I can stop wasting my time).
Open minded, or mind made up?
That isn't an argument, just an appeal to
majority or authority. A logical fallacy.
"You repeatedly accuse me of biased thinking, even when I exlain that I
don't trust pharmaceutical data at face value either. But your bias is
extreme! Every call for evidence met with the same links to the same highly
biased and unreliable sources!"
You are obviously biased as you are an Allopath (end of story), whereas I
aint, as I don't belong to any medical outfit, I am only interested in the
truth, and the truth shuns groups.
As to bias, any medical thought not allopathic would be biased in your
view, naturopathy, natural hygiene, homeopathy, nutritional med, herbalism,
chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy, diet therapy, macrobiotic,
ayurvedic etc. That is quite a large area of medical knowledge outside your
blinnkers, isn't it? You represent at a rough guess 10% of medical
thinking, even though it is 90% in numbers. Whereas I have investigated
most medical thinking, so bias doesn't come into it in its generally
accepted definition---as something that sways you away from truth.
"you just keep posting links to wesbites"
Only one website, a database essentially. And we all know you haven't
looked at it.
Here is a bit of 'lousy' evidence you missed, re measles and measles
Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before
vaccination in 1968.
http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html Ref: Gov' very own stat CD
Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles
deaths decline? Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from
As Clifford G Miller - trained scientist (physicist) & commercial
attorney (not vaccine damage litigation) points out, measles deaths would
have declined to one or two a year with or without the vaccine
If you follow the death graph line to today deaths would be 1-3 with or
without the vaccine, see graphs
FOIA shows in 1990 in the UK there were approximately 70 deaths
associated with triple vaccines (DTP and MMR) Ref:
media report 26 deaths
http://www.whale.to/v/mmr101.html and the UK gov has paid out for
deaths, as has the USA gov.
It is admitted even by gov only 10% of vaccine reactions are reported
(more like 1-3%), so if you cut the 70 deaths in half, but say 20 as DPT is
more toxic, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 20 are killed by MMR.
Whatever, it is certainly way more than would be killed by measles.
2. Q. What is the point of using a vaccine that kills more kids than
the disease? Even assuming it eliminated deaths, which it didn't as the
And that is before the autism.
I am still waiting for what sort of evidence you want if 1,200 citations,
40 years clinical evidence, and the top 2 nutritional scientists opinion,
isn't enough? Re Vit C and infections.
"rather that bringing up a great list of topics with the same lousy
evidence behind all of them so that there is no real chance of looking at
any of them impartially."
I have a huge amount of evidence, and I am not trying to convince you am
I? I am just exposing the game of medical politics you are playing, for my
own amusement and education. And anyone who can think for themselves can
see the links are to well documented resources.
What do you mean I am an allopath?
By that do you mean that I beleive pharmaceutical treatments have thier
place? Yes, I do. But also I beleive they are often overpresrcibed, they
often do damge and they often shouldn't even be on the market.
Youre wrong in certain assumptions. I do beleive that natural hygiene
and diet therapy definitely have a front line place in all medical
treatment. And herbalism. They all have evidence behind them and I fully
accept them or parts of them, to be valid, acceptable treatment that I
endorese here and advise others to use.
As for "naturopathy, homeopathy, chinese energy medicine, oxygen therapy,
macrobiotic, ayurvedic etc"- I just don't know, they may be of benefit and
they may not be. I don't think there is sufficent evidence yet to say one
way or the other. So I don't. But you do. Based on what?
Ok, my mistake, you link to one website. Not your own by any chance.
That wouldn't be biased, would it?
1200 reference may very well be excellent, conclusive and downright
perfect evidence. But I haven't seen these references yet. All I am doing
is asking you for the actual references. If they support what you say then
I will support what you say. But how can I know unless I read them for
Lets pick one claim, look at some of the papers that support it and we
are there. I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what
the data says. Not what you or I say. Lets try (not that website again
though, I mean the original studies.)
I don't know what you are but you walk, talk and
sing like an Allopath.
An Allopath is an MD who only uses pharma drugs essentially
You could be a pharma boy, one who works in Allopathy Inc
Not much difference.
being a mild critic of pharma drugs doesn't mean much, Brain Deer, who is
on Wakefields back took apart Septrin.
I was just pointing out you don't know anything much about non-Allopathic
medicine, so are biased. I doubt you know anything about Natural Hygiene.
If you knew anything about Tilden or Trall you wouldn't be using drugs.
"Ok, my mistake, you link to one website. Not your own by any chance.
That wouldn't be biased, would it?"
Just shows you never follow the links, and if you did you would know
Whale is a resource of information, not a political party. For example if I
link to the measles statistics that I extracted from the Governments CD,
then that isn't bias is it?
Everything on whale will be biased to you as you are by definition
biased, so anything that doesn't sign the song of allopathy will be bised to
and it doesn't take long afore an allopath will try any excuse to avoid
whale, must be an allergy to the truth.
Another example, Klenner's original papers
http://www.whale.to/m/klenner.html 5 of them, go to it.
Notice how the Allopaths deleted his page from Wikipedia
Full time job keeping the truth at bay with you Allopaths. I list just
the ones of mine they deleted or attempted to delete
"I might agree with you, I might not, it really depends on what the data
says. Not what you or I say."
Ok, well by your own definition,
I am not an allopath. I do beleive pharmaceutical treatment have their
place, often this they are the best treatment. But often they are not and I
do not agree with anyone who says that medical treatment should be reduced
to simply prescribing drugs.
I don't beleive in childish name calling to make a point. There is a
certain profile that you would like me to fit so you can reduce these issues
to black and white, polarised name calling. I just don't like inaccurate,
misleading or incorrect information.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by natural hygiene. Is that
different from hygiene?
You really don't know much about basic biology or scientific methods, so
of course (by your own definition again) you are biased.
Ok, I'll have a look for those papers. Have you read them?
I did but you ignored it. See measles deaths above.
natural hygiene knowledge is enough to destroy drug medicine, as Trall
said 100 years ago +
"The Drug Medical System cannot bear examination. To explain it would be
to destroy it, and to defend it even is to damage it."---R.T. Trall M.D.
"I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms
and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and
dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet
and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given."----Dr Trall, 1862.
I can see why you don't like quotes ;0)
Why are you both so worked up about whether or not certain medicines
and/or homeopathy work? Let people believe what they want to believe and
experience methods themselves. People will make the right decision for
themselves as it's basic human instinct. They listen to both parties and
make up their own minds. This discussion will never end......like in history
whether the Evolution or the Creationism Theory is correct...let people
believe what they want to believe.
Be nice to each other...
Here is a graph similar to the one your
posted, but as well as showing measles deaths, it also shows the number of
measles infections. This provides important information since after all, in
a developed country like the UK, deaths from measles are thankfully rare,
but measles can have other serious effects in children other than death.
Looking at the graph one can clearly see the value of vaccination.
Ok, that's in the UK. What about the rest of the world. Vaccination has
been even more effective there since measles is one of the developing
world's greatest causes of vaccine preventable infant mortality. Its is a
more serious disease in children for many reasons, But just look at the
data to see how many lives vaccination has saved.
Here is a story from the Guardian outlining the success globally of
measles immunisation programmes.
Between 1999 and 2005, there was a 60% reduction in annual measles deaths
worldwide, from 873,000 to 345,000, according to United Nations figures
reported in the medical journal the Lancet. Africa, where children are most
prone to die when they catch measles because of poor nutrition and other
infections including HIV, has led the way, with a 75% drop in deaths. In
1999, 506,000 African children died - 90% aged under five. By 2005, the
figure had fallen to 126,000.
"What clearer proof could there be of the value of investing in
immunisation?" Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of Unicef
Some more on the story here:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10987.html
An international vaccination programme to combat measles has exceeded
targets, reducing child deaths from the disease by 60% between 1999 and
The international Measles Initiative launched in 2000 by the World Health
Organization and UNICEF had aimed for a 50% reduction in 45 target
“Deaths have fallen from 873,000 during 1999 to 345,000 by the end of
2005,” said WHO director-general Margaret Chan, on Thursday. “This is a 60%
reduction.” And the news is even better in Africa, Chan said. “Deaths there
declined by 75%, so Africa is leading the way.”
Measles deaths in children under five fell from 791,000 to 311,000 over
the same period, globally.
The new figures estimate that, altogether, measles vaccinations have
prevented 7.5 million deaths between 1999 and 2005, and 2.3 million of these
were attributable to the intensified programme. “This is tremendous news for
the world’s children,” said Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF.
For some UNICEF propaganda
in the third world
No surprise there. Called a distraction.
That link doesn't work.
You intepret the success of
the global vaccination programme as "UNICEF progaganda", a distraction. And
you claim not to be biased.
Re:- MMR, which the Government
assures me does not cause Autism. My grandson had his MMR ayear late because
he had been premature and the Doctor wanted him to grow a bit before having
the jab. Then he had a run of colds and virus problems. All through this he
was a happy, cuddly baby, and knew several words and was dry day and night.
He screamed like a trapped animal for 3 days after the jab and had high
fevers, sleeping fitfully from exhaustion. I was told to give him Calpol. To
get his fever down we had to wrap him in damp sheets and have a fan on him.
A week later we noticed he made no eye contact. We feared he was losing his
sight. He forgot how to speak and went back into nappies. Then we were told
he was autistic "and always had been"! No he hadn't. Now, at 20, he has
never worked and maybe never will, because he can't travel on a bus or train
on his own.
It seems to me obvious
that the ammount of time spent on this site by such people is unrealistic if
they have proper jobs. You seem to have chosen to do the same but speaking
for the other side and I applaud you in this as I am sure it is not funded
by any major pharma companies etc.
I would also like to thank you for the many useful weblinks which I shall
look at instead of wasting too much more time on these sorts of discussions.
@ Harradine - do you call the Guardian newspaper scientific? Surely you
must have stronger arguements than that?
You also said that it was up to whale ot choose homeopathy over allopathy
and you wished him luck, but from where I am standing it seems that you
would rather homeopathy was not available until it can be proved
scientifically -according to allopathic criteria. SO much for CHOICE.
One thing - maybe for harradine since you are probably permanently online
watching I thought we were supposed to be talking about vitamins? Harradine
maybe you could let me know why is Codex trying to reduce the levels so that
they are so low they will be pretty much ineffectual - what is the arguement
in that when there is really no danger in taking too much when we can pee it
out if we do?
Infections is just a red
herring. Here is the question again:
Your UNICEF stats were just a distraction from my UK death stats. A
completely different time and continent, for one. And secondly, we know the
UK death stats are correct as they have to be kept by law, whereas African
stats are dubious as I can easy show.
"the Drug Companies did bogus tests using oral vitamin C"
Yes, most folk don't have the slightest idea about how evil these people
Look at 2 fraudulent Mayo studies on Vit C and Laetrile
No doubt MMR causes autism, and they know it alright.
"I was told to give him Calpol."
Sorry to hear about your grandson. You can see how they usually treat
http://www.whale.to/a/vaxvictims.html tip of iceberg
"Could the increase in all forms of meningitis and other infectious
disease complications and deaths be because for the last 40+ years, the
first thing parents do at the slightest sign of temperature is push
paracetamol? I believe so."--Hilary Butler
"Guardian newspaper scientific?"
Thanks for your comments. Guardian is home of most Pharma advertising
masquerading as Editorial, like the Allopath know as Goldacre given free
rein (his article also in mail today, and the opposing view was put by a,
get this, a NOVELIST!)
Homeopaths don't have the time or resources of Allopathy whose funding is
unlimited, and who aren't going to give up their monopoly through not
playing politics, witness Harriden.
Monopolists tend also to be psychopaths (1 in 100 people walking the
street are one), and they go straight for the throat.
And homeopaths have to avoid upsetting the top dog as it also is the Gov,
and Gov' Health Dept, all of which are staffed and run by Allopaths like
Salisbury. And Allopathy has control of the media, see Goldacre.
"Codex trying to reduce the levels so that they are so low they will be
pretty much ineffectual"
Codex is just the name for the drug monopolists plan to kil the
competition, known as Nutritional medicine, which they have known for 50
years is the replacement for Allopathy
“Not a single one of the scores of middle-aged-to-elderly people who have
consulted me since 1981 for memory-loss or early Alzheimer's dementia - and
who stayed on my program - has ever gone on to develop the full-blown
"Viral hepatitis of all types is one of the easiest diseases for ascorbic
acid to cure."---Dr Cathcart, M.D.
In a nutshell:
"For every drug that benefits a patient, there is a natural substance
that can achieve the same effect." — Pfeiffer's Law
The magnitude of evil done under the banner of Allopathy over 200 years,
and now (Eg MMR/vaccine- autism suppression) is hard to imagine for most
people, which is it's greatest defence.
“It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the evil to
suspect good.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Statesman, orator, writer (106-43
Whale...Is there anything to do about
this whole Codex regulations thing??? I've looked for petitions to no avail.
I've written to my local and EU MP's, councillors,also with no response on
this scary agenda...What can we do? Start stocking up the pantry before Dec
'08??? It's making my blood boil. Any advise would be great. All the best.
I agree with Whale about you being a "Pharma Troll". I
wouldn't be surprised if you were sent here by a pharmaceutical company to
find ways to beat down homeopathy, naturapathy, and alternate practioners.
Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?
A 2003 article in the BMJ showed that “systematic bias favours products
which are made by the company funding the research.” One way round this is
to be very sceptical and critical of the research methods and trial results.
Another is to demand a clinical trials register, so that negative results
cannot be buried.
I think this level of scrutiny should apply to everyone. I have nothing
against homeopathy (or any other treatment) per se. If they work, then they
should definitely be available. My gripe is when anyone (big pharma, GPs,
homeopath etc) giving medical advice without evidence. In the case of a
drug company, this can be very dangerous, since people can end up taking
medicine that are not as safe as they believe, or simply don’t do anything.
Likewise any other treatment.
In the case of homeopathy. Although no one can deny that the treatments
are all perfectly safe, they can be dangerous if taken for a serious illness
which they might not help and where another form of treatment can.
My background is not industrial, but academic (pharmacology). If I am
biased, it is strongly towards a universal requirement for evidence.
Pharma companies are guilty of distorting evidence and we have to be wise to
that. But equally, we should not allow anyone to make health claims and say
that their treatments don’t require evidence, as is often the case in
Regarding the Codex regulation of vitamins. I really don’t know. Unless
there is any actual evidence that these supplements do harm, it seems
unnecessary to impose regulation when the same level of vitamin can be
derived from food. Perhaps it’s a mean to standardisation, but from what I
gather, it doesn’t make obvious sense to reduce levels. Surely people can
then take as many tablets as they want to anyway.
And no, apologise, the Guardian is far from scientific! Here is the
reference to the original Lancet article : Wolfon et al, Lancet
Harradine if you are here just to emphasize the fact that people should
question everything, you are extremely antagonistic and are going about it
wrong. Whale has put forth numerous links to articles for you to check out
and you just keep on plowing through. Instead, check out Whale's links and
then come back and preach your pro-medical/pharmaceutical jargon so a new
arguement can be raised.
I think that's right. When patients seek answers, to a large
extent they have to trust what experts are telling them. This should not be
manipulated by congomerates, I completely agree. Nor should health advice
be based on methods that are untested.
I am here becuase I beleive that medicine should be evidence based, yes.
i have no inherent support for pharmacetical methods, although I do beleive
they have their place when needed. I have just as much support for
lifestyle interventions (obviously), herbal treament when they have evidence
of efficacy and safety (e.g St John's Wort) or anything else.
Modern medicine has failed many people and obviously it is understandible
for them to look for help wherever they can get it. Often homeopaths etc
are particularly good at delivery care and making people feel better. I
think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual remedies
they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the patient,
which is obviously their key strength. This is something I think should be
What I object to are dug companies OR anyone else making health claims
they cannot support. Its dangerous.
I do not beleive I have been antagonistic. Bloodyminded and absolutely
unshakeable in my requirment for evidence but not, I hope, antagonistic
(although I am towards anyone who says evidence doesn't matter!).
I have read Whales links. That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil
nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never
be changed. Its up to people to use their common sense and look at whatever
information they can to make their own minds up.
get a zapper
Look into Herbal medicine by Shulze
They can't make herbs illegal and they are better than nutrients!
I am not a great believer in supplements, most are made by them and
contain nasty chemicals as well, maybe Vit C, but if you juice often you
wont need them anyway.
I doubt if they can make Nutritional medicine illegal under an MD.
There is a great book called the Myth of Medicine by a Natural Hygienist,
Great title which gives a clue, but haven't got around to reading it yet.
Natural Hygiene& healing
http://www.whale.to/a/nat4.html is the thing to look into also and
cleansing by Shulze. Also disease theory
They can make all supplements illegal for all I care. I did try Reams
http://www.whale.to/a/reams_h.html supplements for a bit.
Green food is another.
"Why is the medical and pharmaceuticals so afraid of the alternatives?"
Because Pharma med/Allopathy is 98% a hoax
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html, and homeopathy, naturopathy,
herbalism are the REAL medicine. They know that--so there is the fear.
Harradine was sent here by Pharma Central
"herbal treament when they have evidence of efficacy and safety (e.g St
John's Wort) or anything else. "
That isn't herbal medicine by the way, just something mostly MD got into
and pushed. Using a herb like a drug to mask symptoms.
"I have read Whales links. That's the sort of "drugs are ALL evil
nomatter what anyone or anything says to me" belief that I suppose can never
Some are OK, antibiotics seem to keep farmers going, and anaesthetics
But when you know nutrients can do a better job without side effects, and
you know the real side effects reality of vaccines, AIDS drugs, chemo etc,
then the truth is going to sound nasty to a Pharma shill, obviously.
The one physician who is
finding an alternate way to handle a disease and being shut out of funding,
name discredition is wrong also, but done. Being forced to see "X" number
of patients and encouraging the "pop a pill" mentality is wrong also, but
done. There are many ways to cure ailments. Unfortunately, things that
cause these ailments are not explored thoroughly enough (the extent of
causes is large and is another topic not being dealt with here right now)
and the end result is "pop a pill".
Modern medicine failing many people, yes it has. By being unattainable
with high costs. The fact that "all drugs are evil no matter what anyone or
anything says to me belief" is a conclusion jumped to by yourself. You
jumped in and started attacking whale for providing why they believe what
they believe with evidence for which you choose not to recognize. Bud, it's
there, whether you recognize it or not. And yes, people are believing it
also, just like people are blindly following other advice that has been
proven wrong. This is a forum for collecting experiences, information,
statistics - exactly what alternative health care is about. One that the
medical profession refuses to accept. It's their way or the highway!
People always want a quick fix to everything.
"I think the evidence shows that this has less to do with the actual
remedies they use, and more to do with their ability to interact with the
patient, which is obviously their key strength. This is something I think
should be properly studied."
More with their ability to interact with the patient. Yes, it is that
combined with the remedy that works. Caesarean sections have proven to be
widely misused. Why, because they can help a doctor set up their day more
effectively, the hospital can make money on the procedure and aftercare.
They say it is more beneficial because of no complications. Using a
midwife does not employ, in some cases, even a hospital. There are no
ultrasounds ($), no epidural ($), hardly any hospital care, definitely no
need for extra people (nurses, operating staff, etc), no opportunity to
discourage breastfeeding and advise on formula ($), and the list is more.
My point is that why are c-sections highly promoted? ($) Midwives were
and are now making a comeback. But not as exclusive means for birthing, but
as a complement to and acceptance into hospitals.
This is just one example of where alternate care can be beneficial.
Drugs can be offered, but not as the only way, but as an alternative and
Totally agree with you, Whale. There are some who believe in doctors and
pharmaceuticals as Gods, and guess what, there are things that need to be
challenged in religions, too, but again this is a different topic not to be
dealt with here!
The bottom line is people like to live the life and not have to deal with
their health issues and if they have to they will grab anything that fixes
(?) quickly or are willing to believe that the "doctor will make it better
with pills", when it has proven wrong. I guess we should have degrees in
order to make these statements and that will give us credit. LOL!
People are also lazy and do not want to do the footwork, this is why they
will believe or accept anything. But more and more are waking up and taking
their heads out of the sand. They get hired in large companies and find
that they have to be against what is right and it doesn't matter cause they
get the big bucks! LOL!
This is the whole crux of the matter. Why are the strengths being
tampered with - is it as I suspect because they actually work in high
strength doses? Also as fresh food is so lacking in nutrients these days
the average person who wants to stay in good health would need to take extra
supplements just to get what they need. - that is without fighting cancer or
any other disease.
they can't suppress carrot farming,
and that is the better medicine, with juicing--the core of Gerson and Kelly
cancer cures. http://www.whale.to/cancer/kelley.html
"80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel
cleansing program."--Richard Shulze, ND., MH
Dr Shulzew wont work with anyone if they don't buy a juicer.
have looked at Whale's evidence. Its not that I discount is, I just simply
disagree with it. It ignores a much larger body of evidence. Specifically
regarding vaccines, when I presented evidence of the efficacy and value of
measles vaccination, this was dismissed as "Unicef propogana". I disagree
with that and you have to admit, it does beging to sound a little like a
vendetta on Whale's part.
(I've had a look at the rest of Whales website and I don't beleive that
the evidence supports organon energy or astrology either.)
St John's Wort is not a herb? I didn't realise that.
I've said probably 5 or 6 times now that I definitely do not believe that
drugs are the only tool that medicine should use. Heaven forbid, its would
be a pretty poor GP who would practise like that. Although no doubt it
happens, that definitely doesn't get my support at all (since it is not
evidence based). Often drugs are not the best option at all. They are an
option, often vital and life-saving, often misused and overprescribed. But
they have their place and for some coditions there place is as first line
therapy. So let's be clear, I for one do not beleive pharmaceutical
companies or the medical orfoession in general should be seen as Gods and
their advise taken at face value. The very idea is absurd! But nor would I
put blind faith in alternative medicine, many people do.
That's the difference, the evidence suggests homeopaths can make people
feel better, but also that the remedies they use are not part of that. More
accurately, they are a part of the overal treatment, but if swapped with tap
water the effect would be no different. That's not bias, pharma propoganda.
It's what the evidence (not mine) says.
The fact that the
codex is trying very hard to almost obliterate vitamins and minerals is in
itself questionable. The most obvious reaction to this is to question why
and investigate it further. Not whether or not vitamins/minerals work. We
have all agreed on that, except Harradine. Homeopaths treat with herbs and
vitamins and explore what could be causing the problem through non-invasive
procedures which is the whole idea behind homeopathy.
vitamins/minerals work". I am not disagreeing with that, but it depends on
what one claims they are effective in treating. Vitamins and minerals are
essential for good health, but some claims about the benefits of vitamins
and minerals are not supported by any evidence.
homeopaths do spend a lot of time talking to their patients, but this is not
just an empathetic conversation it has a purpose - we are trying to
establish various factors such as what has caused the person's problem in
the first place whether it be an emotional factor, or a physical factor such
as a trauma or toxicity, or possibly an inherited factor. We also look at
other areas of the problem such as how it is expressed - for example eczema
presents in different ways and we look at that individuals symptoms (
unlike medics who often just prescribe steroid cream) We are then able to
look at this information and give an individualised remedy from one of the
3000 + remedies available to us. This is why homeopathy works and this is
how the homeopathic conversation/ consultation helps the treatment.
Whale - someone told me this afternoon that the "success rate" for
medical drugs is 33% is this true? if this is true then that means that
they are happy with a 67% failure rate - I can hardly believe this since if
that were so in the world of homeopathy and other alternative therapies
which are supposedly lacking in evidence we would a) go out of business
because most of our patients come through word of mouth and a poor success
rate would not enable this and b) we would go out of business through sheer
disillusionment with the therapy.
Dgehring - just a small point - whilst homeopaths do advocate a healthy
diet and lifestyle and this is included in Hahnemann's Organon homeopaths do
not treat with herbs and vitamins and this is the problem that a lot of
allopathic doctors have with homeopathy. We make mother tinctures using
sources from accross the animal, mineral and vegetable kingdom and then
dilute them and succuss (shake them vigorously) them to release the energy.
Remedies above 12c potency have no physical molecules left in them and are
based purely on the energy released by the original source. This is why it
is such a safe and non-toxic therapy.
Indeed Dr Samuel Hahnemann devised this method at the end of the 18th
century in reaction to the extreme, dangerous and highly toxic medical
practices he witnessed at the time (remind you of something?). He tested
all his remedies out on himself (not rats or guinea pigs) before introducing
them and was not satisfied until he had erradicated the side effects, aiming
for a "gentle and long lasting cure".
I hope this information helps people to understand the methods of
homeopathy and resort a little less to the myths.
Harmless enough though, so not so bad. But very frustrating to hear so
much nonsense around when we are supposed to live in a post-enlightenment
Bascially, scientists get rattled at anyone making claims based on
nonsense. Met some, ask them. People making claims without evidence
(doctors, advertisers, politicians, homeopaths, pharma folks, etc) are
enemies of reason if they make a claim without evidence. Therefore,
scientists take them to ask (i.e. ask them for evidence).
That is where I am coming from, but have no wish to offend anyone.
Thanks for that info. I do see what you mean about the
homeopathy. I think the example you give of eczema is a very good one.
Many people suffer from allergies which are hard, if not impossible to
treat. Steroid creams can help, but they are not a solution.
I know many people who suffer from eczema and there is obviously an
emotional compnent to that. It is well know that emotion (particualy
anxiety and stress) interact with the immune system.
I see what you mean, but do you understand my point about the actual
remedied? They are water and the evidence (from trials that have been
conducted) that the remedies are not what underlies the therpeutic benefit.
I don't have any problem with that at all. But can I ask, are there any
illnesses or serious symptoms where you would say to a patient "look I am
just not qualified to treat this and I recommend you see a doctor?"
Then I agree with you. You
have my support. We may disagree on the point about how the remedies
themselves work. But you accept that drug therapy has its place so your
methods are nor harmful and I am sure do real good.
My gripe is against those who take it to the point that they would never
recommend seeing a GP, the conspiracy theories and the like. I just find
patient was on medication I would never advise them to stop it straight away
and would rather work with the Doctor to try and reduce this alongside the
All this is exactly why it would work so much better if homeopathy was a
proper part of the NHS.
I can only speak for homeopaths in the SOH but I think you
will find that most homeopaths work as I do. Homeopathy has a very strict
code of ethics and we are continually striving to present a professional
approach. We carry out regular research and many are in fact Doctors and
I would draw the line with Hannemans pinciples and the
memory of water/vital force part though. Honestly, I don't think that has a
place in modern medicine. It comes from a time when modern medicine was a
lot worse that actually doing nothing at all. The evidence just doesn't
support this idea about water. The science just isn't there.
Whale, it makes sense now. I really
didn't mean to offend or upset you. I understand now that you are an
astrology/orgonite/Baal type belief individual.
I'm not. I am a scientist and follow a prerequistise for evidence from
anyone. I did not realise I was offending your faith in the power of
astrology, organite etc. You are free to follow any beleif you choose.
But really, you should be passing on health advise based on that type if
thinking. Or any other sort of advice. Its you personal beleif, just leave
it at that.
You can't offend me, but bless you for thinking you have the
That was a nice try at ad hominem, but BAAL was one of your God's
actually (an Allopathic one), do try and keep up.
Faith, belief and knowledge. I know (knowledge) God exists, orgonite
works and astrolgy has merit, from direct experience. Whereas you have to
believe it is a load of cobblers purely due to your belief in the False god
of Allopathy/Mammon/BAAL, which decrees they are all nonsense, along with
Faith doesn't come into it.
As John Lilly discovered, spiritual psychology 101, you see what you
believe, and then believe what you see.
Anyway, Emoto has completely shredded your belief that water doesn't
retain information, which was one of your main beliefs against Homeopathy.
You are telling me all about baal, organite and
astrology and telling me I beleive in cobblers. Baal, organite. Fairies,
santa and the boogy man. All very well, no wish to change you mind. But
your health advice is like saying "don't receive medical treatment because
Santa says not to. Have a word..
[If there are any seruous homeopaths reading this, is this the sort of
thinking you want on your side? Whale, do you think you are doing them any
At least now we are at the nub of the issue. Now people can read what I
say about heath advice, and then what you say about health advice, baal and
Now I understand your hackles up appraoch to evidence.
I've met people who think the earth if flat (please tell me you don't)
and that ghosts are real. Thankfully not in charge of making decisions
about anyone's health (exceopt their own).
Whale I do hope you are ok in there.
Not everything is evidence
based. When we confide in a friend about a life-changing problem, is that
open to double blind scrutiny? Could we lpnk a stranger in the chair and
ask them to make us feel better? Maybe, but it wouldn't be the same. We
are human after all.
When we feel down and perhaps go to a faimilia place, when we hear kind
words or see good intentions, are these things that make us feel better? Of
course they do, but are they open to clincal trial. Maybe, but not the way
Don't get me wrong. I would not recommend this approach to any illness
that would resond much better to drug (I would not recommend kind words over
medical treatment), but as I said from my very first posts, they are vital.
Even with all the best medical treatment in the world somone surrounded by
a loveing family with best thoughts and wishes is more lielly to get better
in the main than someone with non one, in isolation who is treated only by
This I have said from my first posts here. It is not to deny modern
medicine, and not to accept the memory of water. And certainyl doesn't go
near Whales beleifs in Baal, and other weirdness.
Nor does it acceot many of the premises of this website, which are
irresponsible in advising people away from very real treatments that work
towards those that might, just to suport those who want thm to or make a
living using them.
If this is the view of a Pharma Troll, then I wonder what sort of Pharma
it is I troll for. Anyone can use peronal attack and labelling as a means
to discredit. I only ask you judge me on what I actually say.
As for advising
people away from very real treatments that work towards those that might,
you are very mistaken. Cancer has been beaten by hard work, consistent
effort from the patient and yes, emotional support from family members. All
too often, though, the medical professional is way to quick to put doubt
into the patients minds as well as the people around them. Instead of being
supportive of the choice that has been made and for what? The inability to
make any money from alternative methods.
Check out this "You Can Heal Your Life" by Louise L. Hay
On this website Susan Insole is allowing readers to read about, support,
offer advice and show people it is possible, and I am sure many are
appreciative of this, I know I am. She is also making it known how frowned
upon by the medical profession what she is doing. As though she needs more
battles to fight. Often the medical profession does more harm than good.
I am a Hypnotherapist and work with the mind in healing. Something
people are slow to believe is that the mind is quite capable of making us do
things as well as not do things. Again, something for another forum.
You keep asking for proof and yet, Whale has provided ample proof and
many of the other readers have seen or read about proof and that is why they
are on this website. I am sure some of the people are gullible, but more so
than not they have done the investigation and the questioning and seeking of
proof and are quite well informed, infact a lot are alternate practioners or
very close to them because they are fed up with getting the same answer from
their physician of "pop a pill" and not enough investigation.
Like you, I used to veer towards science and at times still do, but I
also realize science, et al are narrow minded and not willing to be proven
wrong. They are also hired by the conglomerates. Thank goodness for the
information age. It is up to us to investigate until we find what we, the
public, are looking for. And to question the "experts" until we find an
answer we are ok with.
When I came on this forum, it was my belief that the medical
profession obviously has flaws. As I have said many times, non-evidence
based practised such as over prescription of some drugs does take place.
Equally, in medical science, some beliefs held by practitioners are not
supported by the data being produced by scientists. It can take some time
before scientists convince doctors to adapt their practices accordingly.
My views have not changed. My opening posts providing advise for a
family member of a patient with BPD pointed out that the value of family and
support. I believed then and still do that the practise of homeopathy has
retained an element of patient care that many GPs have lost.
The information age is wondering provided you know how to tell the
difference between good evidence and bad 9and on this site there is a great
deal of bad). I have not at all discounted Whales evidence, it is just bad
evidence. A graph with half the data missing, endless lists of quotes and
references to books where the evidence is to be found, name calling then
telling me I serve some strange fictional God called Baal? Contrast this
with the evidence in favour of homeopathy that Rachael provided above. Peer
reviewed studies! Not personal attacks and labels of trolling when asked to
provided evidence, just providing it.
I appreciate that you find this website useful, but much of the
information on it is simply wrong and therefore misleading. Statements
from the main authors on this site such as
“Until recently, doctors operated under the assumption that a fetus, a
baby, even a young child, wasn’t yet human—not in the fully formed sense of
“Astonishingly, doctors often don’t consider the basic fact of scale.
Because a child may not, in their view, react to a drug in the same way an
adult would, they often administer a drug dosage appropriate for a
full-sized adult to a person one-third that size.”
..are simply wrong. This is a deliberate distortion of how any doctor
thinks or practises. This sort of view cannot go unchallenged. Much of
this site seems to be not only about providing impartial alternative health
advice, but also creating a sense of distrust and fear about the medical
profession generally by distorting much of what is does. This no doubt
sells books and provides a living for those involved, but also can cause
people to refuse treatment and advice that might save their lives! All the
while attacking such approaches as purely profit driven.
One of the first posts I read was by a man about to go on a holiday
looking for advice to alternatives to tropical disease vaccination, and
being given homeopathic advice! That is my point, this is dangerous advice.
This is not a useful resource, but a misleading one. Rachael, again, thank
you for some reasonable sense on that matter.
It is saddening to hear someone say that scientists are narrow minded and
not willing to be proved wrong. With the greatest of respect, that just
betrays a real ignorance of what science is. It is a process of generating
hypothesis then testing through repeated experiment and observation, then
peer scrutiny of methods and result. Sciences ability to update its
knowledge in the face of new evidence is its core strength. That is why it
has moved on from the 1800s, unlike homeopathy.
That’s not to say that all scientific claims are correct. That’s why
evidence is important, so it can be scrutinises and its claims tested. Once
more, my underlying principle and objective is to encourage everyone to ask
for evidence, good evidence. Study the evidence, not the claims.
Although you provide quotes of misrepresentation, I beg to differ. I
have experienced first hand with doctors and have found much of what this
site says to be true. Perhaps until you experience some of what they are
talking about, it will still be a disbelief for you.
The bottom line still exists for many and until healthcare is put infront
of the dollar, proper honest trials, neglecting truths, stamping out other
means, using minorities as guinea pigs, etc. I find this site opens up for
questions, where there weren't before and for that it is good.
fact that you keep repeating your request for evidence when I have posted it
makes me wonder whether this is the only arguement that you want people to
read or hear.
As for homeopathy not changing since the 1800s well I would like to just
point a few things out there. While the methodology has not changed,
because the safety and efficacy of that has proved itself, the profession
1. We were left 250 remedies proved by Hahnemann - we have built on this
and now have now over 3000
2. Homeopaths have united and come together into organisations such as
the Society of Homeopaths which are regulated and insist on Continuing
professional development and training.
3. We are now focussing a lot of our efforts into the areas of research
and have learned that in order to be recognised by the public and scientific
community (LOL) we must present our results in concrete form hence the
establishment of large research bodies.
4. Homeopathy is practised world wide and in India where resources are
lower and the population is less accepting of western medicine most Indian
Doctors are practising homoepathy alongside with no terrible outcries by
their patients or President Bush for crimes against humanity!!!!
Here is your evidence - the top article shows that homeopathy is more
than just placebo. The rest may interest other readers.
The reason Scientists continually bay " where is the evidence " is
precisely because they know that homeopathy does not work in the same
biomedical model as their "tested" medicines. We have numerous different
remedies for one single problem - as with the example of eczema - we
prescribe on multiple factors both emotional and physical symptoms so we
cannot produce successful results under the one drug treats all trial.
However although homeopathy doesn't work in this function ie to provide
evidence to scientists, it does work in the function of providing evidence
to patients who as I reiterated before would not come back time and again if
there were no improvement.
AS for Whales website I find it very interesting and it provides an
useful source of information from the other camp.
So once again here is the evidence and a little more:
So let's move on from this arguement
You did not resort of ad hominem attack or criticise the
evidence for other methods. You posted references to orignial studies.
The perfect response.