Traditional medicine can reduce heavy-metal contamination: Phichit Governor

[noahvail]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

so what are those magical thai herbs ?

give at least the name

I can think of several, depending on which heavy metals/toxins you are trying to 'detox'.

There are the classic 'detox' herbs such as garlic ('Kratiam'), ginger ('Khing'), turmeric ('Kamin'), coriander ('Pak Chee') and Triphala. Spirulina, chlorella and detox shakes with Psyllium and activated charcoal are common in detox centres.

Tamarind has been shown to increase excretion of fluoride... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11840184

'Luk Tai Bai' (Phyllanthus Niruri) is a well known liver detox herb, with a number of other benefits. Thai Herbal Steam baths generally use a mixture of Thai herbs.

Chernobyl victims had good results using pectins/seaweeds.

I know it vexes you but those who do not believe detoxing is necessary or beneficial, please get out of the way of those who do. alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Cilantro and Chlorella can remove 80% of Heavy Metals from the Body.

It is not a quack, I have used this combination and it works wonders.

Read more: http://naturalsociet.../#ixzz3PMwA9EKL

Really? You're using some pseudoscience from Anthony Gucciardi's newsletter to defend your position? Google his name followed by the word pseudoscience, or the word skeptic. If anyone thinks Dr. Oz is bad, try reading what some call the number one anti-science website on the net, the one founded by Anthony Gucciardi. Sigh...never mind. Enjoy the placebo effect.

[connda]

My wife claims that I still listen to too much Led Zeppelin.

Does this mean there is still hope for me?

Yeah - eat lots of cilantro and start listening to Unlocking the Truth

[Valentine]

Once again traditional medicine comes out number 1 That is why Thais are very heartley and live into the ninties and hundreds.

The West has so much to learn

millions of people in the west live into their ninety's , da gov that is spewing this detox rubbish seems to retarded . the level of edu is maybe the reason he can get away with it . and you harry are as dumb as a box of rocks .

Sarcasm.

[joemisko36]

So he admits that the environment and the occupants have been poisoned. and this will continue all that you have to do is follow his diet. Ground and water contamination not to mention the birds and animals are irrelevant. I cant beleive his solution.

[Choctastic]

I'm always struck by the perverse logic of defending a system which CANNOT cure anyone, by attacking centuries-old healing systems which CAN. Taking away people's hope with smears and ridicule seems a rather cruel way to live one's life. The WHO fully support traditional medicine since many countries cannot afford modern western medicine. I tend to use modern medicine for 'acute' and 'emergency' conditions (which save lives) and natural methods for 'chronic' and 'degenerative' disorders (for which modern medicine only provides 'relief').

Ayurveda cured my arthritis many years ago but I had to go to Kerala, India to find it. One of the primary treatments I received was called 'Panchakarma'... a detoxification protocol. I then went on to study natural methods of healing and have seen them curing people that hospitals had been unable to help.

Is 'detoxing' necessary or worthwhile?

The CDC's 'Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals' identified, on average, 212 chemicals present in blood, serum and urine... http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/fourthreport.pdf

The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) conducted its own two-year study to detect levels of chemicals in women... http://www.ewg.org/research/exposing-cosmetics-cover/toxic-chemicals-threaten-healthy-births

'According to an EWG survey, an average woman uses about twelve personal care products each day, exposing herself to about 168 unique chemicals. These products don’t always remain on the skin’s surface. Many cosmetics ingredients penetrate the skin. Scientists have found ingredients such as phthalates and fragrance components in human tissues.'

Numerous studies have identified hundreds of chemicals in breast milk... http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/chems.asp

'Despite the shortcomings of research on pollution in breast milk, scientists have detected many different pesticides in breast milk throughout the world. The organochlorine class of pesticides poses the most significant threat. It includes DDT and nearly a dozen other chemicals similar to it'

The fact that these chemicals are found in breast milk at all, does not inspire confidence that the liver is 'detoxifying' them or that they are quickly being excreted out of the body.

[Harveyg]

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) also known in most parts of the World as "quackery"[/quote

Right. Go Big Pharma Go!!

[Alwyn]

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) also known in most parts of the World as "quackery"[/quote

Right. Go Big Pharma Go!!

well.. thanks to "big pharma" I'm benefiting from the most up to date treatment for my prostate cancer, without it I would be dead within 5 to 10 years, only an 80% chance of passing the 5 year mark. Thanks to "big pharma" (a company called Vaxil) a treatment called Imucin, which is still under trial periods and will be ready for 2017, is being successful at a 90% rate of treating (and not just managing, as in my case) all cancers in all individuals, including a certain blood cancer that has previously been totally untouchable. Thanks to "big pharma" for developing "casodex" which offers an alternative to the previously only successful hormone manipulation treatment for prostate cancer... Thanks to "big pharma" for developing the anaesthetics used in operations, thanks to "big pharma" for all the work in developing the first batch of vaccines that left the UK last week for to help with the fight against Ebola. And so on.

[partington]

Thanks to "big pharma" (a company called Vaxil) a treatment called Imucin, which is still under trial periods and will be ready for 2017, is being successful at a 90% rate of treating (and not just managing, as in my case) all cancers in all individuals, including a certain blood cancer that has previously been totally untouchable.

Although I do agree that science based-medicine is the only trustable kind, because it means that evidence to show it works has been obtained, these claims about Imucin are enormously exaggerated, and unlikely to ever be true. Just as a minor point, "big pharma" means giant multi-national drug companies: the company that developed Imucin is a very small Israeli biotech-the very definition of "small pharma"

It is just as misleading and damaging to make unrealistic claims about science-based medicine as faith-based medicine, however well-intentioned.

Firstly, no efficacy studies of any kind have been done with this vaccine, so there is no evidence at all that it is effective for any kind of cancer. There is no 90% rate of success because there is no success measurement at all yet in existence.

The only 90% figure associated with this vaccine is that it is targetting a molecule that 90% of tumour cells express. This does not indicate in any way that it is likely to work on 90% of cancers (vaccines are made all the time to molecules that 100% of the disease organisms express, and still fail to work effectively, for example current AIDS vaccines, current dengue vaccines).

In short, Imucin has never been tested for effectiveness against any cancer, it may not work at all, and most cancer experts agree that because of the very different origins of different kinds of cancers, the idea of a vaccine that will cure all or most of them is extremely unlikely.

Edited January 28, 2015 by partington

[partington]

Just as a follow up that I was too late to edit above post with.

In fact the results of one study with Immucin, on an extremely small number of patients (15) with multiple myeloma ( a white cell cancer) HAVE just been published (Dec 2014). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25496030

They found that 11/15 patients had "at least disease stabilisation". Not bad but not a miracle yet.

[dickyknee]

"Do you know what they call "alternative medicine"

That's been proved to work?

Medicine."

http://www.altairiv.net/Storm.html

[Alwyn]

Thanks to "big pharma" (a company called Vaxil) a treatment called Imucin, which is still under trial periods and will be ready for 2017, is being successful at a 90% rate of treating (and not just managing, as in my case) all cancers in all individuals, including a certain blood cancer that has previously been totally untouchable.

Although I do agree that science based-medicine is the only trustable kind, because it means that evidence to show it works has been obtained, these claims about Imucin are enormously exaggerated, and unlikely to ever be true. Just as a minor point, "big pharma" means giant multi-national drug companies: the company that developed Imucin is a very small Israeli biotech-the very definition of "small pharma"

It is just as misleading and damaging to make unrealistic claims about science-based medicine as faith-based medicine, however well-intentioned.

Firstly, no efficacy studies of any kind have been done with this vaccine, so there is no evidence at all that it is effective for any kind of cancer. There is no 90% rate of success because there is no success measurement at all yet in existence.

The only 90% figure associated with this vaccine is that it is targetting a molecule that 90% of tumour cells express. This does not indicate in any way that it is likely to work on 90% of cancers (vaccines are made all the time to molecules that 100% of the disease organisms express, and still fail to work effectively, for example current AIDS vaccines, current dengue vaccines).

In short, Imucin has never been tested for effectiveness against any cancer, it may not work at all, and most cancer experts agree that because of the very different origins of different kinds of cancers, the idea of a vaccine that will cure all or most of them is extremely unlikely.

Thanks for the input. It sounds like you are far more educated in the medical area than myself. I can only quote to you what Vaxil state in their releases and that is what they say.. I was looking for the piece I had that mentioned percentage etc but cannot find it, this is what they say about it on their site though http://www.vaxilbio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=27 I understand about vaccines but how about this... Last Friday I met my oncologist (by accident!) and we were talking about the possibility of my coming off the hormone treatment (30 months to go) as the side effects are debilitating. So we talked about Casodex among other things, we also talked about Vaxil and he told me they're working with a company in Prague. They send cancerous cells from the patient to Prague and this company builds a vaccine around the cells so each person is getting their own personal vaccine (which makes sense to me). He reckons they're getting great results on the test patients. Anyway, I appreciate the informed word from you!

[heybruce]

so what are those magical thai herbs ?

give at least the name

I can think of several, depending on which heavy metals/toxins you are trying to 'detox'.

There are the classic 'detox' herbs such as garlic ('Kratiam'), ginger ('Khing'), turmeric ('Kamin'), coriander ('Pak Chee') and Triphala. Spirulina, chlorella and detox shakes with Psyllium and activated charcoal are common in detox centres.

Tamarind has been shown to increase excretion of fluoride... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11840184

'Luk Tai Bai' (Phyllanthus Niruri) is a well known liver detox herb, with a number of other benefits. Thai Herbal Steam baths generally use a mixture of Thai herbs.

Chernobyl victims had good results using pectins/seaweeds.

I know it vexes you but those who do not believe detoxing is necessary or beneficial, please get out of the way of those who do.

Traditional medicines can also cause heavy metal contamination, along with other problems http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/26/6/128/30/.

There's no denying the potential of some traditional medicines, many modern medicines are the result of research into natural remedies. However I'll stick to remedies with effectiveness demonstrated by science, not anecdotes.

Edited January 28, 2015 by heybruce

[Choctastic]

I can only quote to you what Vaxil state in their releases

Which is the just about the worst way to judge any health product. Medical Marketing has little to do with science.

Read Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma', I doubt you will trust any medical claims ever again. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007350740/ref=nosim?tag=bs0b-21

'Bad Science’ hilariously exposed the tricks that quacks and journalists use to distort science, becoming a 400,000 copy best-seller. Now Ben Goldacre puts the $600bn global pharmaceutical industry under the microscope. What he reveals is a fascinating, terrifying mess.

Doctors and patients need good scientific evidence to make informed decisions. But instead, companies run bad trials on their own drugs, which distort and exaggerate the benefits by design. When these trials produce unflattering results, the data is simply buried. All of this is perfectly legal. In fact, even government regulators withhold vitally important data from the people who need it most. Doctors and patient groups have stood by too, and failed to protect us. Instead, they take money and favours, in a world so fractured that medics and nurses are now educated by the drugs industry.

Patients are harmed in huge numbers.'

[Choctastic]

Traditional medicines can also cause heavy metal contamination, along with other problems http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/26/6/128/30/.

There's no denying the potential of some traditional medicines, many modern medicines are the result of research into natural remedies. However I'll stick to remedies with effectiveness demonstrated by science, not anecdotes.

That is your choice, which, with respect, I find irrational. I don't see that denying yourself the possibility of a cure, is in any way sensible. The idea that Doctors do not lie, that studies are not rigged, that pharmaceutical drugs are safe, that 'scientific' medicine is backed up by evidence and that countries which cannot afford expensive western medicine have no way to assist or cure the sick, is illogical and absolutely 'blind faith', as a previous poster has just demonstrated. I have yet to find a 'scientific' preparation which says 'Cure' on the bottle. Only 'Relief'.

One thing western medicine is good at is pointing to the splinter in others eyes, while ignoring the plank in its own. This is classic misdirection.

The US FDA state that 100,000 people per year DIE from taking the properly-prescribed dose of pharmaceutical medicines. That is only those that are honestly reported and excludes those that are seriously injured. If you extrapolate that across the world, you are talking millions dead and injured. Vioxx alone is said to have killed up to 140,000 people in the U.S.

There are certainly issues with 'alternative' medicine. I wouldn't trust 95% of the over-the-counter remedies on offer and an hour's aromatherapy might make you smell nice but it isn't going to cure you. Which means you need to do a little work to seek out authentic methods and practitioners. I was prepared to do that and found success. It opened my eyes about alternatives and exposed the decades of propaganda I had been exposed to as a sham. The same propaganda you are espousing. Do you think I didn't used to feel the same way as you? I am not proud of my previous stance towards alternatives. In fact I feel a fool.

While science has done some good things, it is not a panacea. A misplaced faith in science denies people the possibility of a cure. Millions die as a result. That is not just a tragedy. It is criminal.

[heybruce]

Traditional medicines can also cause heavy metal contamination, along with other problems http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/26/6/128/30/.

There's no denying the potential of some traditional medicines, many modern medicines are the result of research into natural remedies. However I'll stick to remedies with effectiveness demonstrated by science, not anecdotes.

That is your choice, which, with respect, I find irrational. I don't see that denying yourself the possibility of a cure, is in any way sensible. The idea that Doctors do not lie, that studies are not rigged, that pharmaceutical drugs are safe, that 'scientific' medicine is backed up by evidence and that countries which cannot afford expensive western medicine have no way to assist or cure the sick, is illogical and absolutely 'blind faith', as a previous poster has just demonstrated. I have yet to find a 'scientific' preparation which says 'Cure' on the bottle. Only 'Relief'.

One thing western medicine is good at is pointing to the splinter in others eyes, while ignoring the plank in its own. This is classic misdirection.

The US FDA state that 100,000 people per year DIE from taking the properly-prescribed dose of pharmaceutical medicines. That is only those that are honestly reported and excludes those that are seriously injured. If you extrapolate that across the world, you are talking millions dead and injured. Vioxx alone is said to have killed up to 140,000 people in the U.S.

There are certainly issues with 'alternative' medicine. I wouldn't trust 95% of the over-the-counter remedies on offer and an hour's aromatherapy might make you smell nice but it isn't going to cure you. Which means you need to do a little work to seek out authentic methods and practitioners. I was prepared to do that and found success. It opened my eyes about alternatives and exposed the decades of propaganda I had been exposed to as a sham. The same propaganda you are espousing. Do you think I didn't used to feel the same way as you? I am not proud of my previous stance towards alternatives. In fact I feel a fool.

While science has done some good things, it is not a panacea. A misplaced faith in science denies people the possibility of a cure. Millions die as a result. That is not just a tragedy. It is criminal.

"That is your choice, which, with respect, I find irrational. I don't see that denying yourself the possibility of a cure, is in any way sensible. The idea that Doctors do not lie, that studies are not rigged, that pharmaceutical drugs are safe, that 'scientific' medicine is backed up by evidence and that countries which cannot afford expensive western medicine have no way to assist or cure the sick, is illogical and absolutely 'blind faith', as a previous poster has just demonstrated. I have yet to find a 'scientific' preparation which says 'Cure' on the bottle. Only 'Relief'."

You read a great deal into what I wrote, most of it incorrect. I could do the same with your post, but won't waste my time.

Modern medicine has eliminated smallpox, almost eliminated polio (it's being held up by paranoid conspiracy theorists), reduced deaths during childbirth by orders of magnitude, added many years to the lives of people with heart disease, cancer, AIDS, and many other problems, etc. Has alternative medicine done that?

A few weeks before Christmas my younger brother survived a twelve hour surgery to remove a golf ball sized cancer from his mouth that was killing him. He's now recovering and initial indications are that he is cancer free. I'm glad he didn't try to treat his cancer with alternative medicine.

Obviously there are some incompetent or crooked people involved in modern medicine, as there are in the alternative medicine industry. However it's worth noting that poor countries that currently rely on alternative medicine strive for modern health care.

[Alwyn]

I can only quote to you what Vaxil state in their releases

Which is the just about the worst way to judge any health product. Medical Marketing has little to do with science.

Read Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma', I doubt you will trust any medical claims ever again. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007350740/ref=nosim?tag=bs0b-21

'Bad Science’ hilariously exposed the tricks that quacks and journalists use to distort science, becoming a 400,000 copy best-seller. Now Ben Goldacre puts the $600bn global pharmaceutical industry under the microscope. What he reveals is a fascinating, terrifying mess.

Doctors and patients need good scientific evidence to make informed decisions. But instead, companies run bad trials on their own drugs, which distort and exaggerate the benefits by design. When these trials produce unflattering results, the data is simply buried. All of this is perfectly legal. In fact, even government regulators withhold vitally important data from the people who need it most. Doctors and patient groups have stood by too, and failed to protect us. Instead, they take money and favours, in a world so fractured that medics and nurses are now educated by the drugs industry.

Patients are harmed in huge numbers.'

while I'm aware that some 'illnesses' were seemingly just invented - such as ADHD - and have resulted in millions of kids being needlessly fed medicines, I don't don't buy into the whole "big pharma = bad pharma" I have no idea who Ben Goldacre is, is he qualified medical scientist for example? Your statement that companies run bad trials on their own drugs to sistort findings I'm sure has been done in the past and I'm sure drugs are not 'completely' tested, thalidomide springs to mind However, one bone of contention is that "alternative" medicines don't seem to have any regulated trials and seem to be based on "old Charlie cures cancer with a glass of carrot juice" type of stories, with a few neighbours backing him up. Having been diagnosed with prostate cancer I then discovered EVERYTHING (according to everybody who all of a sudden became an expert - with good intentions I quickly add) is a cure for cancer. From cannabis to cooked to tomatoes, from circumin & honey drinks to horsetail tea. Whilst I doubt any of these things are harmful I think they probably won't impact serious illnesses but on the other hand, make people feel like they're in control and actually doing something positive about their situations themselves. I've heard how 'big pharma' quosh trials of alternatives through avarice etc and that would seem very probable if there is merit in these choices. "Patients are harmed in huge numbers" maybe but I think people who put their lives in the hands of some "alternative" quacks can harmed even more. Such as the guy in Phuket (RIP) who was treating a guy with a massive tumour in his neck (RIP) with some black crap that was basically peroxide and was burning the thing out! BTW, I'm not against too much, I believe in good nutrition and I am aware of some medical values of foods. When you get diagnosed with something like I have it's a tough call to put your life in the hands of turmeric though as if nothing happens, you're dead.

Anyway, it's time for me to get to hospital for my daily radiation treatment, only 5 to go! I'll google Ben Goldacre and go to amazon when I get back.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Alwyn

[partington]

Traditional medicines can also cause heavy metal contamination, along with other problems http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/26/6/128/30/.

There's no denying the potential of some traditional medicines, many modern medicines are the result of research into natural remedies. However I'll stick to remedies with effectiveness demonstrated by science, not anecdotes.

That is your choice, which, with respect, I find irrational. I don't see that denying yourself the possibility of a cure, is in any way sensible. The idea that Doctors do not lie, that studies are not rigged, that pharmaceutical drugs are safe, that 'scientific' medicine is backed up by evidence and that countries which cannot afford expensive western medicine have no way to assist or cure the sick, is illogical and absolutely 'blind faith', as a previous poster has just demonstrated. I have yet to find a 'scientific' preparation which says 'Cure' on the bottle. Only 'Relief'.

One thing western medicine is good at is pointing to the splinter in others eyes, while ignoring the plank in its own. This is classic misdirection.

The US FDA state that 100,000 people per year DIE from taking the properly-prescribed dose of pharmaceutical medicines. That is only those that are honestly reported and excludes those that are seriously injured. If you extrapolate that across the world, you are talking millions dead and injured. Vioxx alone is said to have killed up to 140,000 people in the U.S.

There are certainly issues with 'alternative' medicine. I wouldn't trust 95% of the over-the-counter remedies on offer and an hour's aromatherapy might make you smell nice but it isn't going to cure you. Which means you need to do a little work to seek out authentic methods and practitioners. I was prepared to do that and found success. It opened my eyes about alternatives and exposed the decades of propaganda I had been exposed to as a sham. The same propaganda you are espousing. Do you think I didn't used to feel the same way as you? I am not proud of my previous stance towards alternatives. In fact I feel a fool.

While science has done some good things, it is not a panacea. A misplaced faith in science denies people the possibility of a cure. Millions die as a result. That is not just a tragedy. It is criminal.

You are not doing yourself any favours with these kinds of arguments.

All institutions run by human beings will be open to corruption and bad practices: those run as capitalist enterprises by people with vast amounts of money and influence will be more prone to such malpractices. Big pharma, like big cosmetics, big food, and big tobacco will do whatever wrongdoing they can get away with to get more cash. The solution is rigourous, scrupulous and constant examination, enforcement of regulations, and punishment. Big pharma needs reform and much more control.

However big pharma does not equal science. Big pharma, when it does wrong, is as much a corrupter and misuser of science as is faith-based "alternative" medicine.

Science is a method. It is not a belief system. It is a way of getting to the truth that tries, as much as is humanly possible, to eliminate the natural tendency of humans to follow wishful thinking, prejudice and disregarding facts that oppose strongly held faith. At its core science says " X is true because evidence A, B, and C suggests there is no other explanation. Here is how I found evidence A, B and C: do you think these methods withstand scrutiny?"

If a pharma company has made up evidence A, B and C, or deliberately left out evidence D that opposes the theory, this is not science, but corruption. If people are honest, then science is the only way to get to the truth. There is no other method than the honest presentation of evidence that what you are saying is true, together with complete disclosure of any evidence that opposes your explanation.

Alternative medicine presents its claims with no proof, or evidence. This is not somehow "better" than science. It is nothing, a non-method, it is the medicinal equivalent of gossip and rumour. These aren't two opposing systems: they are a non-system and a system.

If you think about "alternative medicine" and its sibling "traditional medicine", they have been around for hundreds, some would say thousands, of years. During all that time infant mortality was gigantic; epidemic illnesses - black death , smallpox, whooping cough, polio, TB - swept populations and decimated them. People died of cuts, people died of bad teeth, people died of asthma. The average lifespan was decades lower than today.

Traditional and alternative medicine was lamentably ineffective for all those years in dealing with any of this.

Yet in the last 100-150 years, with the advent of scientifically grounded, evidence-based medicine, history making changes have occurred in human health. In developed countries where this type of medicine is applied systematically to the whole population infant mortality has fallen massively and average lifespan increased. epidemics are rare to non-existent, some kinds of cancers can be completely cured. When new diseases arise like AIDs, that were a certain death sentence in the early years, drugs have been developed that have allowed infected people to have normal life spans.

No " alternative" medicine advances have been made that deal with any of these problems, because alternative medicine isn't based on anything. It can't "advance" because there are no scientific foundations to base hypotheses on, and so design experiments to test new treatments. Acupuncture, homeopathy, and so on don't advance, they just exist, the same now as they always were- for all those hundreds of years when they proved inadequate to make significant improvements to human health and well being.

Edited January 29, 2015 by partington

[harryfrompattaya]

Once again traditional medicine comes out number 1 That is why Thais are very heartley and live into the ninties and hundreds.

The West has so much to learn

You are trying to be funny, right?!

RIGHT?!

No I know great Medicine and such smart people when I heard or see them

We have so much to learn and be thankful for

[harryfrompattaya]

Once again traditional medicine comes out number 1 That is why Thais are very heartley and live into the ninties and hundreds.

The West has so much to learn

millions of people in the west live into their ninety's , da gov that is spewing this detox rubbish seems to retarded . the level of edu is maybe the reason he can get away with it . and you harry are as dumb as a box of rocks .

I guess you are brainwash about western medicine

[Choctastic]

Alternative medicine presents its claims with no proof, or evidence. This is not somehow "better" than science. It is nothing, a non-method, it is the medicinal equivalent of gossip and rumour. These aren't two opposing systems: they are a non-system and a system.

If you think about "alternative medicine" and its sibling "traditional medicine", they have been around for hundreds, some would say thousands, of years. During all that time infant mortality was gigantic; epidemic illnesses - black death , smallpox, whooping cough, polio, TB - swept populations and decimated them. People died of cuts, people died of bad teeth, people died of asthma. The average lifespan was decades lower than today.

Traditional and alternative medicine was lamentably ineffective for all those years in dealing with any of this.

Yet in the last 100-150 years, with the advent of scientifically grounded, evidence-based medicine, history making changes have occurred in human health. In developed countries where this type of medicine is applied systematically to the whole population infant mortality has fallen massively and average lifespan increased. epidemics are rare to non-existent, some kinds of cancers can be completely cured. When new diseases arise like AIDs, that were a certain death sentence in the early years, drugs have been developed that have allowed infected people to have normal life spans.

No " alternative" medicine advances have been made that deal with any of these problems, because alternative medicine isn't based on anything. It can't "advance" because there are no scientific foundations to base hypotheses on, and so design experiments to test new treatments. Acupuncture, homeopathy, and so on don't advance, they just exist, the same now as they always were- for all those hundreds of years when they proved inadequate to make significant improvements to human health and well being.

Are you working for a pharmaceutical company because there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

Hundreds of years of trial and error IS scientific. Where do you think modern surgery came from?

Synthetic chemicals, derived from crude oil, attempt to copy NATURAL compounds.

The idea that you can take an alternative formulation which may have 20 different herbs, each with multiple actions on the body and/or mind, then include detoxification (cleansing), diet, exercise, stress reduction, bodywork and whatever else the practitioner feels may help and apply that to someone who has a unique set of symptoms, constitution and medical history, THEN test that lot using the one symptom = one drug clinical trial model, that costs millions of dollars only wealthy drug companies can afford, is ridiculous. There is a good reason why 'no studies support' this or that natural approach or remedy. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDUCT THEM. You are either priced out of the market or the trial model demanded, excludes you.

Standardized medicine may help with a few disorders but it is an abject failure for a myriad of chronic and degenerative disorders the medical profession pronounce as 'incurable'. Millions are voting with their feet. Because they know instinctively 'it ain't so'.

'Scientific' medicine is a massive expensive FAILURE. Not because there is no science behind it but because the application of mostly pseudo-science is corrupt.

Do you not think there isn't a vast library of medical text and evidence recorded in India and China, over centuries, which hasn't been translated into English or released? Remember, most of the practitioners weren't trained in Medical schools but by 'masters'. Why would allopathy want you to know about the competition, when they have worked so hard to destroy it?

Citing Acupuncture or homeopathy is a red herring. These are minor aspects of complete healing systems that work only if you are extremely lucky. Homeopathy is fully supported in India, for instance. Why is that if it doesn't work? And if you say the 'placebo' effect, then leave it be, if it's working.

If you want to be cured, sometimes you need the WHOLE system. Not just weak herbal capsules 2x per day, which are almost certainly useless.

The greatest advances in human health came about with improved hygiene, less accidents at work, better nutrition and improved living standards. How may decades did it take for surgeons to start washing their hands? To ascribe increased longevity solely to advances in medical care is misleading. Try having one bath per year and defecating in the streets and stay healthy.

Where modern medicine gets applause is in acute and emergency care. But for chronic and degenerative disorders it is hopeless. 'Scientific' medicine will never cure a damn thing until it starts to address underlying cause, instead of sticking with the more lucrative 'disease management'. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to do that in an industrialized, standardized system, controlled by profit-seekers. They will be struck off or ostracised. Sure, the current model works just fine, thank you very much. For Doctors driving their BMWs.

The best cure is not to get sick in the first place. I have somewhere to go if I suffer an 'incurable' condition? How about you?

[heybruce]

Alternative medicine presents its claims with no proof, or evidence. This is not somehow "better" than science. It is nothing, a non-method, it is the medicinal equivalent of gossip and rumour. These aren't two opposing systems: they are a non-system and a system.

If you think about "alternative medicine" and its sibling "traditional medicine", they have been around for hundreds, some would say thousands, of years. During all that time infant mortality was gigantic; epidemic illnesses - black death , smallpox, whooping cough, polio, TB - swept populations and decimated them. People died of cuts, people died of bad teeth, people died of asthma. The average lifespan was decades lower than today.

Traditional and alternative medicine was lamentably ineffective for all those years in dealing with any of this.

Yet in the last 100-150 years, with the advent of scientifically grounded, evidence-based medicine, history making changes have occurred in human health. In developed countries where this type of medicine is applied systematically to the whole population infant mortality has fallen massively and average lifespan increased. epidemics are rare to non-existent, some kinds of cancers can be completely cured. When new diseases arise like AIDs, that were a certain death sentence in the early years, drugs have been developed that have allowed infected people to have normal life spans.

No " alternative" medicine advances have been made that deal with any of these problems, because alternative medicine isn't based on anything. It can't "advance" because there are no scientific foundations to base hypotheses on, and so design experiments to test new treatments. Acupuncture, homeopathy, and so on don't advance, they just exist, the same now as they always were- for all those hundreds of years when they proved inadequate to make significant improvements to human health and well being.

Are you working for a pharmaceutical company because there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

Hundreds of years of trial and error IS scientific. Where do you think modern surgery came from?

Synthetic chemicals, derived from crude oil, attempt to copy NATURAL compounds.

The idea that you can take an alternative formulation which may have 20 different herbs, each with multiple actions on the body and/or mind, then include detoxification (cleansing), diet, exercise, stress reduction, bodywork and whatever else the practitioner feels may help and apply that to someone who has a unique set of symptoms, constitution and medical history, THEN test that lot using the one symptom = one drug clinical trial model, that costs millions of dollars only wealthy drug companies can afford, is ridiculous. There is a good reason why 'no studies support' this or that natural approach or remedy. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDUCT THEM. You are either priced out of the market or the trial model demanded, excludes you.

Standardized medicine may help with a few disorders but it is an abject failure for a myriad of chronic and degenerative disorders the medical profession pronounce as 'incurable'. Millions are voting with their feet. Because they know instinctively 'it ain't so'.

'Scientific' medicine is a massive expensive FAILURE. Not because there is no science behind it but because the application of mostly pseudo-science is corrupt.

Do you not think there isn't a vast library of medical text and evidence recorded in India and China, over centuries, which hasn't been translated into English or released? Remember, most of the practitioners weren't trained in Medical schools but by 'masters'. Why would allopathy want you to know about the competition, when they have worked so hard to destroy it?

Citing Acupuncture or homeopathy is a red herring. These are minor aspects of complete healing systems that work only if you are extremely lucky. Homeopathy is fully supported in India, for instance. Why is that if it doesn't work? And if you say the 'placebo' effect, then leave it be, if it's working.

If you want to be cured, sometimes you need the WHOLE system. Not just weak herbal capsules 2x per day, which are almost certainly useless.

The greatest advances in human health came about with improved hygiene, less accidents at work, better nutrition and improved living standards. How may decades did it take for surgeons to start washing their hands? To ascribe increased longevity solely to advances in medical care is misleading. Try having one bath per year and defecating in the streets and stay healthy.

Where modern medicine gets applause is in acute and emergency care. But for chronic and degenerative disorders it is hopeless. 'Scientific' medicine will never cure a damn thing until it starts to address underlying cause, instead of sticking with the more lucrative 'disease management'. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to do that in an industrialized, standardized system, controlled by profit-seekers. They will be struck off or ostracised. Sure, the current model works just fine, thank you very much. For Doctors driving their BMWs.

The best cure is not to get sick in the first place. I have somewhere to go if I suffer an 'incurable' condition? How about you?

So many statements to challenge. I'll just pick a few:

"There is a good reason why 'no studies support' this or that natural approach or remedy. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDUCT THEM."

Does this mean we are to take it on faith that alternative medicine is a good thing?

"'Scientific' medicine is a massive expensive FAILURE. Not because there is no science behind it but because the application of mostly pseudo-science is corrupt."

I consider vaccines for small pox, polio, measles, etc. to be successes of modern medicine, along with cures for leprosy, syphilis, bubonic plague, stuff like that, and of course surgeries for appendicitis, cataracts, hernias, clogged arteries, etc. Do you disagree?

Can you give an example of the corrupt application of pseudo-science in modern medicine? Not a mistake or deliberate fraud caught by practitioners of modern medicine, but something that actually made it into medical application.

"Do you not think there isn't a vast library of medical text and evidence recorded in India and China, over centuries, which hasn't been translated into English or released?"

How well did this library of knowledge do in preventing the plagues and curing the diseases of the day? Did it provide a cure or prevention for appendicitis, or lower the risk death during childbirth to the same level as modern medicine?

"'Scientific' medicine will never cure a damn thing until it starts to address underlying cause, instead of sticking with the more lucrative 'disease management'."

Modern medicine has cured quite a lot, as I've already mentioned. What diseases has alternative medicine cured?

Edited January 29, 2015 by heybruce

[englishoak]

They are still to find a cure for speed metal, although i hear it can be suppressed and countered with religious chanting.

Edited January 29, 2015 by englishoak

[PaPiPuPePo]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

so what are those magical thai herbs ?

give at least the name

I can think of several, depending on which heavy metals/toxins you are trying to 'detox'.

There are the classic 'detox' herbs such as garlic ('Kratiam'), ginger ('Khing'), turmeric ('Kamin'), coriander ('Pak Chee') and Triphala. Spirulina, chlorella and detox shakes with Psyllium and activated charcoal are common in detox centres.

Tamarind has been shown to increase excretion of fluoride... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11840184

'Luk Tai Bai' (Phyllanthus Niruri) is a well known liver detox herb, with a number of other benefits. Thai Herbal Steam baths generally use a mixture of Thai herbs.

Chernobyl victims had good results using pectins/seaweeds.

I know it vexes you but those who do not believe detoxing is necessary or beneficial, please get out of the way of those who do. alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Cilantro and Chlorella can remove 80% of Heavy Metals from the Body.

It is not a quack, I have used this combination and it works wonders.

Read more: http://naturalsociet.../#ixzz3PMwA9EKL

Another thing that works well is zeolite, similar to the more-familiar bentonite, both are very fine clays that ionically leach heavy metals from the body. Zeolite is being used by the megaton (nearly) at Fukushima to cleanse the reactor cooling water of caesium and other radioactive heavy metals, and it will do the same within the body.

None of this is quackery though Big Pharma and Big Medicine would prefer you think that only way to health is via their sharp knives and rocket-fuel pills.

[partington]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

so what are those magical thai herbs ?

give at least the name

I can think of several, depending on which heavy metals/toxins you are trying to 'detox'.

There are the classic 'detox' herbs such as garlic ('Kratiam'), ginger ('Khing'), turmeric ('Kamin'), coriander ('Pak Chee') and Triphala. Spirulina, chlorella and detox shakes with Psyllium and activated charcoal are common in detox centres.

Tamarind has been shown to increase excretion of fluoride... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11840184

'Luk Tai Bai' (Phyllanthus Niruri) is a well known liver detox herb, with a number of other benefits. Thai Herbal Steam baths generally use a mixture of Thai herbs.

Chernobyl victims had good results using pectins/seaweeds.

I know it vexes you but those who do not believe detoxing is necessary or beneficial, please get out of the way of those who do. alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Cilantro and Chlorella can remove 80% of Heavy Metals from the Body.

It is not a quack, I have used this combination and it works wonders.

Read more: http://naturalsociet.../#ixzz3PMwA9EKL

Another thing that works well is zeolite, similar to the more-familiar bentonite, both are very fine clays that ionically leach heavy metals from the body. Zeolite is being used by the megaton (nearly) at Fukushima to cleanse the reactor cooling water of caesium and other radioactive heavy metals, and it will do the same within the body.

None of this is quackery though Big Pharma and Big Medicine would prefer you think that only way to health is via their sharp knives and rocket-fuel pills.

If you can provide no independently verified proof of your claims then it IS quackery.

That is the definition of quackery: a fabricated claim for the benefits of treatments for which no evidence is presented.

To put it another way: we all know from experience that any fool can claim anything at all.

How then are we to tell what is true?

If you were in court on trial for murder, would you want the case against you to be based on claims that no evidence is provided for, and that the accusers are proud that there is no evidence for? Why not?

[Choctastic]

If you can provide no independently verified proof of your claims then it IS quackery.

Congratulations. You have just described pharmaceutical medicine. Who provides the proof pharmaceuticals do what it says on the tin? The pharmaceutical companies themselves.

So much for 'independent'.

If I tell you that before I received treatment, my joints were so painful I could hardly walk and that after treatment, the pain was gone, my circulation was restored and I could leap the garden fence, once more, you will dismiss that as 'anecdotal' and call the treatments I received 'quackery'?

I know who the fool is.

[partington]

If you can provide no independently verified proof of your claims then it IS quackery.

Congratulations. You have just described pharmaceutical medicine. Who provides the proof pharmaceuticals do what it says on the tin? The pharmaceutical companies themselves.

So much for 'independent'.

If I tell you that before I received treatment, my joints were so painful I could hardly walk and that after treatment, the pain was gone, my circulation was restored and I could leap the garden fence, once more, you will dismiss that as 'anecdotal' and call the treatments I received 'quackery'?

I know who the fool is.

Simply: how do you know that would not have happened without treatment, or with any random treatment? people get better all the time.

A double blind trial would tell you this. A large number of people are given the treatment or a placebo. Neither the patients nor the clinicians know who gets the real treatment or the placebo because they are coded, and the code is only broken when the trial is finished, usually by statisticians who have not been directly involved in handing out the medications.

Analysis then tells the statisticians whether the treatment was really different from placebo. This is how results are independently verified.

For hundreds of years people thought the plague was transmitted by bad air, and so to ward against it they carried strongly smelling aromatic herbs, or wore masks with herbs in them. They did this for hundreds of years because they thought it worked. Some people who did this got better, and some did not catch the disease: this made people think strong smells might protect against plague.

We now know that plague is caused by bacterial infection, and is passed on by flea bites. Pockets full of posies do not do anything. People thought they did for hundreds of years because they interpreted natural variation in transmission and severity of the disease as resulting from the (useless) treatment.

Double blind studies tell you when false beliefs are false. Anecdotes simply don't.

[Choctastic]

Simply: how do you know that would not have happened without treatment, or with any random treatment? people get better all the time.

Oh. That's your answer. It was a miracle!

[partington]

Simply: how do you know that would not have happened without treatment, or with any random treatment? people get better all the time.

Oh. That's your answer. It was a miracle!

There is no cure for Ebola, yet the news reports that people recover from it. It is not a miracle.

No one yet knows why 50% of Ebola patients die and 50% do not. There is a reason and the method of science will find it eventually. The methods of alternative medicine never find answers or reasons, they are not looking.

I do not believe in miracles. I believe in testing my beliefs and abandoning anything that doesn't prove true.

If you can't say the same you need to ask yourself why.

[BigBadGeordie]

Simply: how do you know that would not have happened without treatment, or with any random treatment? people get better all the time.

Oh. That's your answer. It was a miracle!

There is no cure for Ebola, yet the news reports that people recover from it. It is not a miracle.

No one yet knows why 50% of Ebola patients die and 50% do not. There is a reason and the method of science will find it eventually. The methods of alternative medicine never find answers or reasons, they are not looking.

I do not believe in miracles. I believe in testing my beliefs and abandoning anything that doesn't prove true.

If you can't say the same you need to ask yourself why.

Justified, Karma!

Yeh, and I believe that shit too.

[Paulc01]

And a long list of bitter old guys find something else about Thailand to go off on a rant about.