# Classic Western Medicine

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by wanneszinnig, Nov 15, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### trucetheekerRegistered Member

Messages:
52
Ways of knowing: Observation, experience, learning and reasoning.

State of health of unvaccinated children - survey results
Given these types of anecdotes, how would you assess their validity. I suppose, if you were the authority for vaccine efficacy and safety, you'd convene in-depth studies. For some reason, all of the studies that get done (at least the ones which I've read) seem to admit that there is room for concern but in the end recommend that vaccination continue as before.

It's like, there may be people on the tracks ahead but we'll keep the train running full speed anyway!

3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,840
They're not. Science is the basis for evidence based medicine but it is not the same as medicine.

You have just stated a tautology. Yes, if it is not approved, it is outside the approved forms of medicine.

You posted the paper that called modern medicine "fascist." Why did you do so?

5. ### trucetheekerRegistered Member

Messages:
52
I was digging up other references on this subject when I stumbled across this paper and decided to post it as the first bit of evidence.

Perhaps you'd appreciate this quote from Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.'s The Devil’s Priests:

You'll notice the key words/phrases:
• "fraud",
• "scientific research",
• "fabrication of records",
• "experimental drug trials",
• "producing results that will convince the FDA to approve the drug",
• "competition for grant money"
and last but not least
• "great tolerance for sloppy experiments, unconfirmable results, and carelessness in interpreting results"

Hopefully you can see how this would fly in the face of "evidence based medicine" unless you add the word "flawed" before "evidence."

Dr (medical doctor) Mendelsohn is an outspoken critic of his colleagues and the medical profession so, of course, his opinion will have to be discounted. Certainly, he's just a disgruntled wannabe who didn't get picked for the team!

In the same reference, Mendelsohn quotes Dr. Richard W. Roberts, director of the National Bureau of Standards as saying: “half or more of the numerical data published by scientists in their journal articles is unusable because there is no evidence that the researcher accurately measured what he thought he was measuring or no evidence that possible sources of error [were] eliminated or accounted for.”

I could quote Mendelsohn all day but won't. I'll come back with other evidence contradicting the "evidence based medicine" myth later.

7. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Just because people violate the scientific method does not mean that the scientific method is flawed. Duh?

By now everyone knows that in the current American business/political climate, corporations hire more scientists than universities. (And many university laboratories are funded by "magnanimous" corporations and staffed by students who hope to get jobs working for those corporations.) The goal of science is to find evidence that uncovers the truth, whereas the goal of a corporation is to find only evidence that makes their own product look good, and, in extreme cases, to suppress evidence that makes it look bad. This is not science, and to equate it with science is just as fraudulent as the work of the so-called "corporate scientists" themselves.

Your arguments continue to be disingenuous--the worst possible violation of the rule against trolling on a website that is supposed to be dedicated to science and scholarship. I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm getting really tired of your nonsense.

8. ### trucetheekerRegistered Member

Messages:
52
1. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked the scientific method. I have been specifically attacking the myth of "evidence based medicine." I'm a fairly patient person but I'm having difficulty understanding your inability to focus.

2. All of my posts in this thread stem from spidergoat's assertion -
which to the best of my knowledge is complete BS. As far as I'm concerned, it's legitimate to argue the case against this "nonsense" even though the crowd is hostile to the idea. You're inference that I'm trolling is out of order but also of no consequence to me.

3. The level of discourse on this website refutes your claim that the website is dedicated to science and scholarship. It's more like a boys/girls science club and others can play as long as they agree with you.

Take your first words to me:

Obviously if I had attended the same brainwashing institution that you did, I wouldn't consider raising such unacceptable "nonsense." That's why a university education is so damned important - it stops you from thinking outside the box. A really good education stops you from even realising that there is a box!

4. As you keep mentioning it, let me point out that IMO the scientific method is only a tool and, as is true of all tools, it is only as good as the person using it. The two are inseparable. Hence, the flaw in the scientific method is the human element.

Last edited: Aug 25, 2011
9. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
i find it funny you would say something like this after posting the link in post 81.

what was that you were just saying about the scientific method and the people that use it?

clicking on the "about" tab on the mentioned link the author states he is a "homeopath".
what is a homeopath?

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

why does "eye of newt" keep running through my mind?

Last edited: Sep 3, 2011
10. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
The shorthand, easily remembered definition of a "homeopath" is: a person who believes that the best way to relieve an ailment is to find out what caused it and then give the patient more of that.

They refer to modern scientific (and wildly successful) medicine, using contrasting Greek terminology, as "allopathy." They sneer at the idea that giving the patient something other than what caused the ailment in the first place could possibly do him any good.

In their defense, this idea probably arose when the technology of vaccination was first invented. They saw doctors giving people minute doses of pathogens to trigger their immune system into building specific antibodies for them, so that when and if they attacked in force, the body would be ready.

Obviously they were neither paying close attention nor thinking very carefully. No one gives a vaccine to a patient who already has a major infection of the pathogen. That would be, at least, stupid and, at worst, dangerous.

11. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
FR strictly speaking your last statement is dead wrong, both the tetnis vacine and the rabies vacine are given AFTER infection. i belive what you ment to say is it would be stupid to give a live vacine once infection has occured to which i would say maybe because i dont know if they are live, dead or antibodies

12. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Yes, sorry. I should have been more specific and limited that to live vaccine.

In addition, it's my understanding that some infections progress very slowly. If you start treatment immediately you may still have a chance at training the immune system to recognize them and do battle with them before they become rampant.

13. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
isn't that how vaccines work?
i can see how homeopathy is successful
vaccinations do not have any "sick patients" data, it's being prevented by the vaccinations.
homeopathy has this data and since it's basically the same process as vaccinations they can count "a cure".

14. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
No. You apparently didn't read the last two posts in which Asgard and I clarified this. Vaccines are administered before the infection, or at least before the infection spreads to the point that it's dire. In addition, many vaccines are not live organisms, and in other cases they're not even exactly the same organism. Sometimes the immune system can generate the correct antibody without taking the risk of introducing the illness you want to prevent.

Once the patient is truly ill from an infection, the last thing you would ever do is put more of the same organisms that made him ill in his body.

The comparison with homeopathy is not valid. As I noted earlier, it's likely that the early advocates of homeopathy didn't understand this distinction, and simply saw doctors injecting cells of pathogen XYZ in order to prevent an infection of the XYZ microbes. Nowadays schools explain how vaccination works to schoolchildren, so there's no excuse for anyone behaving this stupidly.
Sure. There are two mechanisms. One is called "coincidence" and the other is called "placebo." Both are powerful, well-documented forces.

15. ### trucetheekerRegistered Member

Messages:
52
Interesting that you should mention tetanus and rabies vaccines (at least that seems to be what you were trying to spell!) Here's a few points on the subject from Hans Ruesch (Slaughter of the Innocent):

So no real proof that the Russians had rabies or that the vaccine did anything other than kill 3 of them.

Those bloody Germans. They've obviously been given the wrong song sheet to sing from. Thinking they can prevent/cure rabies with an anti-tetanus shot? How lucky that only 5 allegedly died of rabies in 20 years!!!

Yes, I know! This was the dark ages (1970's) and you wouldn't expect such primitive people to be able to identify rabies properly and no doubt incorrectly diagnosed them as tetanus.

When is rabies not rabies? Apparently no-one can really tell.

WHO evidence indicating that the doctor did it with the syringe in the treatment room!

So soap and water is the best treatment but wait, you can't sell soap and water treatments at $2000 -$7000 per series. That will never do.

Would WHO deliberately mislead the public if the truth threatened their livelihood? You be the judge because I'm washing my hands of this mess.

Hans Ruesch - Wikipedia

16. ### trucetheekerRegistered Member

Messages:
52
Having located a copy of the WHO Expert Committee on Rabies, Sixth Report, 1973 as mentioned in my previous post, I found it to be typically lacking in important detail while untypically hinting at failings in the vaccination program.

These two paragraphs struck me as salient: the recommendation that Fermi-type vaccines be discontinued and the mention of "paralytic factors".

I went searching to see how the world reacted to the recommendation on Fermi-type vaccines and immediately came up with this study,Immunogenicity and efficacy of Fermi-type nerve... [Ethiop Med J. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI and a related document Situation of Rabies in Ethiopia: A retrospective
study 1990-2000
. What we find is that, far from discontinuing the Fermi-type vaccines, they've continued to be in use and now there's at least one study proving that WHO were wrong to worry about them.

Yet if we go back to the WHO document, para 6.3, there's obviously been a history of fatalities:

I point this out only because it's a rare occurence for the medical fraternity to admit that a vaccine might actually be dangerous in itself!

Turning to the report Situation of Rabies in Ethiopia: A retrospective study 1990-2000, the authors made much of the 2172 animals that were killed, brain tested and declared positive for rabies in that decade as well as the 322 fatal human rabies cases during the same period. However, nowhere in the report do they actually match up a positive-tested animal with a fatal (or even non-fatal) human case. My inquiring mind thinks that this information is important.

Another important detail missing from this report is whether or not the fatal human cases had been inoculated prior to the animal attack. Certainly it's important to know how effective the vaccine is (or isn't) as well as highlighting any trends emerging (such as higher or lower fatality rates in the previously-vaccinated population.) The WHO report above includes the "previous rabies vaccination/serum treatment" question in their suggested case record form in Annex 4 so they must agree that this information is worthwhile knowing.

And finally, in the WHO report, they go into great detail discussing measurement of titre levels to confirm adequate protection as well as proving the potency of the vaccine/serum. As long as the desired titre level is seen post inoculation, the vaccination is deemed successful. However, without testing prior to the inoculation, they have no real proof that the vaccine made any change.

IMO, it's all very unscientific.

17. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
You may think vaccines work this way but they actually dont, what you are effectivily doing is giving the immune system a trigger so that rather than waiting till the second infection it already knows the invading infection.

If you want to understand this look an anaphalaxis pts, its not the first exposure which kills (except in very specific cirumstances relating to asprin and ibphrophin), but the first causes the B cells to turn into memory B cells (i may be wrong on the exact cells involved, im trying to a) rember a lecture from 2 years ago and b) resurch as i go) sensitive to penuts. When your exposed the second time the run away reaction (degranulation of mast cells relacing histime which causes other mast cells to degranulate until your whole immune system is fighting an inhert substance which it CANT kill because its not alive).

Now maybe you concider vacination to be "homopathic", personally i think of it as a guy standing on a street courner yelling at all the cops "HEY, JACK THE RIPPER RAN THAT WAY"

but that doesnt prove homopathics work in all cases.

For instance a pt suffering hypoxia, if i follow homopathic principles i wouldnt provide O2 and bag the pt, i would put a plastic bag over there head to "produce hypoxia" and i would be charged with murder.

A pt with a anaphalaxis, insted of giving them adrenilin which stabilises that run away mast cell responce, causes there pereferial vessals to constrict to where they are surposed to be and stops the constriction of of the small airways and the production of mucus which is blocking them. Insted I would either a) give them more penuts (and be charged with murder) or b) give them GTN to cause even MORE vasodilation which would drop Blood Pressure, while intra cranial pressure remained constant there by reducing prefusion to the brain, which would cause brain hypoxia leading to nero cell death, which would cause intercranial pressure to rise, causing a further drop in neroprefusion which would cause FURTHER hypoxia and so on and so on until either the pt was a vegitible or they were dead.

If any homeopathy fans wish to vollenteer to try this go ahead, all you need is a prepaid funeral plan, a penut allergy and your dad (or mum's) angina medication, of course dying by your brain being squeased through your spinal collum doesnt sound to pleasent does it?

We could also look at respitory failure, now there are 2 types but lets look at narc induced respitory failure. This is where the pts drive to breath in is supressed so rather than not being able to move air (like in asthma), they just wont breath at all. Standed treatment is manual ventilation (Bag mask ventilation) so your breathing for the pt, increasing there pain level a bit (if they have been overdosed slightly for pain relief) to counter act the narcotic (pain and narcotics are direct antaginsts for eachother, as pain increases so does narcotic tollerance) or if a narc overdose (for instance a herion OD) a drug called narloxone which blocks the opiate pathways in the brain and there for reverses inhabition on the drive to breath.

If homeopathy is correct what i should really be doing is giving them another shot of a narcotic. What will this really do, well ask any drug adict who has had an OD (if they are still alive), oviously its going to further inhibit the pts desire to breath and further sedate the pt leading to full respitory failure, hypoxia of the brain and death by coning , which is what i discribed above where the brain becomes so hypoxic and so swollen that it forces itself down through the spinal collum (which is the only place it can go)

18. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
that's the point i was trying to make.
homeopathy does that, waits until the patient is sick then administers "the cure". since "the cure" in this case is essentially "cowpox" or some other illness the patient usually gets better and homeopathy scores "a cure".
vaccinations on the other hand prevent the disease in the first place therefor there is no way to know how many were "cured".

19. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
In the USA our doctors try diligently to make sure we're all up to date on our tetanus shots, which we only need about once every ten years. Of course some people manage to avoid them and ERs may just give one to everybody who comes in with a puncture wound to be on the safe side. (Read: to avoid malpractice suits in a country with way too many predatory lawyers.) If you're bitten by a cat it shortens your immunity by several years, and if you're bitten by a human you will need a booster shot fairly soon.

If you're bitten by a dog in the USA they simply check the dog's vaccination records. If he's not current they will kill him and test for rabies. Even though they could just take a blood titer and test for the presence of the vaccine itself, which almost always lasts far longer than the official three-year booster schedule.

My dog has seizures which have not yet been diagnosed, and we try to avoid giving him vaccinations. But if he bit someone, I've been assured that the chances are about 90% that the authorities will not accept a titer report from a laboratory proving that his last vaccination is still effective. So he has to get his shot every three years. Fortunately that has never yet induced a seizure.

20. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
FR ever notice that when homopaths are challanged on the logic of there answers they ignore them?

21. ### Crunchy CatF-in' *meow* baby!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,423
If your asthma is mostly psychological then the alternative medicine doctor's treatment will provide improvement (it will not provide a cure).

If your asthma is mostly physical then the alternative doctor's treatment won't work (his theory is really stupid consequently).

If your asthma is due to allergies (as you implied) then there is presently no cure for it. You can manage the symptoms quite well and if you are worried about the long term effects of drugs in your system then that is a valid concern. There is a treatment for airborn allergens in the United States that is called desensitization. The idea is that a doctor regularly injects you with a liquid coctail of the allergens that affect you and over time your body becomes desensitized to the allergens and has a drastically reduced (or no) reaction to them. It works on about 80% of the people who try it and the only drugs in the injection are simply preservatives. Be warned though, this treatment is very "western" and comes with the risk of anaphylactic shock after each treatment (you will no doubt be carrying around an epi pen on treatment days).

22. ### chimpkinC'mon, get happy!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
4,416
I unfortunately ran out of money while doing this...and no they did not issue me an epi-pen, although I don't quite have anaphylaxis...so that may be why.
In fact I may try again as I have word of a clinic that lets you shoot up serum at home.

Probably best to keep a bottle of children's benadryl handy.

If I had a really bad reaction, I could keep chugging shots.

23. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
phenergan, best anti histimine on the market, first generation so yes it causes drowsness but compared to death its brillant