On Dec 26, 3:12 pm, Chabon 19
gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 26, 10:36 am, DJhampa
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 7:46 am, Kramerbane
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Dec 25, 11:48 pm, DJhampa
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Dec 25, 8:53 pm, Kramerbane
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Dec 25, 7:57 pm, DJhampa
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Dec 25, 7:17 pm, Kramerbane
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 4:33 pm, DJhampa
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>> Don't believe what I say. Just go and read the book in the link
>>>>>> that was given. It is free. All you need to do is to engage some gray
>>>>>> matter 8-).
>
>>> Jumper, I hate to disillusion you but anyone can write a book. There
>>> was a doctor in Vermont, U.S.A. that observed that cattle that were
>>> feed on clover and honey seemed to be healthier. He wrote a book
>>> touting clover and honey capsule for humans and made quite a bit of
>>> money on his mail order remidy.
>
>> And your point is ?
>
>> Did you read the book I cited ?
>
>> Did you look at the evidences he presented ?
>
>> If not then your casting of aspersion by being similar is a wee
>> bit mischievious. And I think all those people who are dumber than
>> rock here could actually see your mischief.
>
>>>> I presented the book entitled "Alive and Well" which documented
>>>> 18 years clinical cases by a doctor who is retiring and has no vested
>>>> interests. He was hauled up to court a few times, threatened with
>>>> revoking his licence, intimidated by the authorities by sending
>>>> someone to sit in his office etc. And yet he persisted because he
>>>> had good results with his patients, many of whom were still alive at
>>>> the time of his writing.
>
>>> The "authorities" do not intimidate anyone for sitting in an office.
>>> What they do is prosicute someone for selling a "medicine" that is not
>>> FDA approved. Further you are not hauled to court several times and
>>> threatened with loss of license. If they bother to take a doctor to
>>> court they will revoke his license. If they are just harassing him he
>>> will certainly counter sue and probably collect.
>
>> Read the book. He was taken to court and FDA failed to pull
>> wool over the court judge and it was dismissed. All the cases that he
>> had submitted for examination were not found to be false or merely his
>> fabrication. This good doctor knowing what he would face had
>> meticulously documented all his cases.
>
>> Read the book.
>
>>>>> The site about the cough medicine was typical. It mentioned "studies",
>>>>> "peer reviewed studies" and other terms that wold lead one to believe
>>>>> that this was an authentic review. But they left out the bibliography
>>>>> so there is no real information about who/what they are actually
>>>>> quoting. No way to check up on them. Any real study includes all the
>>>>> references quoted, in great detail. In addition I saw mention of a
>>>>> membership fee, I assume to get the "real" facts.
>
>>>> The ban was by FDA and it was on public record. As for the research
>>>> on honey here are some of the references.
>>>> Sources:
>
>>>> * Star Tribune December 3, 2007
>
>>>> * Wired December 4, 2007
>
>>>> * Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine December 2007;
>>>> 161(12):1140-1146
>
>>>> * Organic Consumers Association December 12, 2007
>
>>> Good Lord! You quote "proof" published in a newspaper, Wired magazine
>>> and the Organic consumer Association? Certainly peer reviewed studies.
>>> Really, really impartial sources. Are you really stupid enough to
>>> believe them?
>
>> All these magazines actually published results from peer-
>> reviewed journals. You seem to miss one above. The ban was by FDA
>> and it was on public record.
>
>> Well, again who is the blind and dumb one is obvious to others.
>> Of course the blind and dumb would not be able to see that 8-).
>
>>>> Instead of pouring scorn you would do better if you read up on
>>>> perhaps just Vioxx and Baycol and then provide an alternative view.
>
>>> Lad, get yourself a copy of any medical guide and have a look at the
>>> side effects of most of the medicines listed world wide. Nearly all of
>>> them have side effects of some severity.
>
>> The reason I had cited the two examples above was not so much
>> the adverse drug reaction but the attempts at covering studies that
>> had actually revealed these adverse drug reaction. The makers actually
>> knew these effects but conceal it from FDA and physicians who had to
>> prescribe them.
>
>> Go and look up the cases.
>
>>>Aspirin, for example has a
>>> side effect of causing stomach irritation and sometimes bleeding but
>>> it is also has a blood thinning effect and has prevented stroke in a
>>> large number of people. Do you want to ban aspirin.
>
>> No but you need to update your knowledge a bit.
>
>
>> Dr.Mercola is a modern medicine physician.
>
>>>I saw a dog fed a
>>> dose of the anti-malaria medicine we took in Vietnam - it killed the
>>> dog. Should we all have stopped taking the medicine?
>
>> Doesn't this demonstrate the uselessness of vivisection ?
>
>> Peacock could, for example, take in certain poison that would be
>> fatal to human.
>
>> False analogy and bringing this up is mischievious.
>
>>>Birth control
>>> pills have caused death in a number of women - this is a proven fact!
>>> Should birth control pills be banned? Well, considering that the
>>> number of deaths attributed to birth control pills is less then the
>>> number of births attributed to child birth most people feel the risk
>>> is justified.
>
>> Go and look at the history of birth control pill. It was a
>> disaster when it started out. Even with the lower dose pill there were
>> a lot of terrible side-effects. Many of which came on in a very short
>> time after taking.
>
>> The way you had rationalised away the death and destruction is
>> really sick. Here's an interesting acronym.
>
>> B enighters
>> I nfesting
>> G auntlets
>
>> P oisionus
>> H armful
>> A larming
>> R idiculous
>> M edication
>> A t any cost
>
>>> Do you know it is medically possible to ingest enough water to kill
>>> yourself? Should we ban water?
>
>> That's silly. Whenever we take drugs that could badly upset the
>> inner balance it is a recipe for a lot of problems. You tweak one
>> element in the body and think you can control the other aspects of the
>> entire system. That's stupidity in any other field of human
>> endeavour. With the complex system that we have this is utter
>> insanity.
>
>>>> I had a friend who had high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
>>>> He was quite large in size and when his blood pressure goes below
>>>> 140/90 he would feel faint. Because of his size he actually needed a
>>>> higher blood pressure but his medication at times brought it too low.
>>>> But that wasn't his problem. On the urging of his doctor he started
>>>> taking slimvastatin to control his cholesterol level and his liver
>>>> failed in just 3 weeks. After 3 weeks he decided to stop the
>>>> medication but he continued to itch like crazy for another 4 weeks.
>>>> His stomach started bloating and he was bleeding internally. At the
>>>> end of it his liver totally failed and he bled to death. There were no
>>>> liver test before or during the taking of this drug.
>
>>>> This is a fact - not some conspiracy theory.
>
>>> No it is not a fact. Your first statement that he needed a blood
>>> pressure of 140/90 is incorrect.
>>> In fact he needed a minimum of bout
>>> 70 - 80 mm mercury to pump blood from his heart to his head when he
>>> was erect. The diastolic pressure of 90 is at least 30mm too high and
>>> is imposing excessive stress on his system.
>
>> You are talking of minimum THEORETICAL value. Everyone is
>> different and the needs are different. Part of the problems with
>> modern medicine is that it failed to recognise this simple truth.
>> With blood pressure lower than 140/90 he was feeling lousy. Wouldn't
>> it be foolish to let some books or researcher somewhere to tell us
>> that we are alright ? When his blood pressure rose a bit more he felt
>> fine.
>
>>> I take simvastatin myself and I can tell you that it is highly
>>> unlikely that taking this medicine would cause a healthy liver to fail
>>> in a matter of weeks.
>
>> That's the point. Before any statin drug is to be given there
>> must be liver test before and even during the early part of the
>> statin consumption. The liver was already unhealthy but simvastatin
>> accelerated its decline.
>
>> I've also found an internal Memo in the FDA website that
>> reported in the year 2000 there were 62 liver failure adverse drug
>> reaction report. In the US ADR is optional and it is believed that
>> only 1%% to 10%% of ADR are reported. If you multiply that by 10 or 100
>> you have quite a large number of cases. One article estimated 1 in
>> 130,000 cases will result in liver failure and this means death if
>> intervention is not early. This was why liver function test MUST be
>> done before starting, during and months after that.
>
>> You can also look at a more comprehensive documentation of stain
>> safety at :
>
>
>>>In addition your stated symptoms of internal
>>> bleeding is not a symptem of liver failure. You do not "bleed to
>>> death" from liver failure.
>
>> It was the doctor who told me that. He said that the liver failed
>> to produce clotting agent and as a result his bleeding could not stop.
>> I did not go and check this up. Perhaps you could educate us a bit on
>> this.
>
>>> In short, Jumper, you have convinced yourself that modern medicine is
>>> some sort of vast conspericy to feed dangerous drugs to the poor
>>> innocent population.
>
> ...
>
> read more В»
Jumper, once you are finished with your home made medical news, can
you go where you came from?
Nobody in SCT NEEDS your mistaken crap you teflon brain
