Stay tuned to see Steve Novella on The Dr. Oz Show on Tuesday!

Such mixed feelings!! I trust Dr. Novella completely to speak clearly, calmly and intelligently. But do I feel the same way about Dr Oz? Absolutely not! I would have to assume that Dr. Novella weighed the pros and cons before deciding to appear on the show. But it is the Dr. Oz show, not the Dr. Novella show, so the deck is stacked. It would take some very creative editing to make Dr. Novella look unreasonable, but I am not naive. Yikes. We'll see.

Maybe, just maybe, some intrepid producer somewhere will see how well-comported and photogenic Dr. Novella is, and give him his own show. Speaking of which, what happened to The Skeptics, that TV show that he was involved with that was in the works? Did it ever air? Is it available online somewhere?

I am not often rendered speechless but that promo was just something else.

I am sure it will be just like what happened to Pam Ronald - Dr. Novella will be edited into a "closed minded" strawman.

A few months ago Dr. Novella, Orac's "friend" and a couple of other skeptical doctors were quoted in the National Enquirer in an article that was headlined on the front page "Dr. Oz is a Fake". This was one time I didn't mind the wait at the Safeway checkout. I suspect the chief purpose of the show will be revenge. On the good side maybe it will lead a few people to find out more about this Steve Novella guy.

How @2 - the show was called The Skeptologists.

I think that Oz needs to be very careful with how he edits the show. He is not dealing with a rube here.

Unless he has control of the editing it wont be a fair discussion when it is aired. Some items Dr.Oz promotes are OK. Like PGX Powder.

Something happened to the promo. I tried both links with both Internet Explorer and Firefox and all I got was the Weight Watchers commercial.

Did they get cold feet or is it just my internet security program protecting my brain???

Something happened to the promo. I tried both links with both Internet Explorer and Firefox and all I got was the Weight Watchers commercial.

Did they get cold feet or is it just my internet security program protecting my brain???

Squirrelelite, the promo is after the weight watchers commercial.

Steve should wear a clock around his neck, to counter the editing magic.

In all seriousness, I'd love to see an unedited broadcast of this, it's unfortunate we'd never see that.

Oh, no! I just listened to the Skepticality Episode where Gary Taubes complained about how the Doctor Oz show treated him (he wrote the recent the New York Times Magazine on "Is Sugar Toxic?").

I can't imagine what editing magic they will do to Dr. Novella!

I don't suppose they would allow it but it would be great to have someone with a video camera in the audience so we could see the unedited reality after the episode airs.

I have followed this blog, and SBM and many other skeptical blogs and have always read that it does not do any good to engage in public debate as it is most often a beauty contest. And especially so, when you have no editorial control. That these encounters often do more harm than good. I hope that is not the case here. Any idea as to why Dr. Novella chose to participate in this?

Unless Dr. Novella is looking for a way to show Oz's distortions and selective editing, I don't see a lot of good coming from this. Even the promo clearly shows selective editing to make Dr. Novella look bad.

This issue should not be framed as alternative versus conventional medicine. Rather the issue is hypothesis versus supportable facts. Or, to put it anohter way--experimental medicine versus evidence based medicine. Both approaches exist so let's encourage people to become educated about which one they are participating in. People need to understand the difference instead of being polarized into the two camps. Keeping an open mind, being willing to listen, not engaging in labeling or dismissive behavior can help the discourse.

Militant Agnostic

I am sure it will be just like what happened to Pam Ronald - Dr. Novella will be edited into a "closed minded" strawman.

I have to join the chorus and say I fear for dishonest editing. We've previously seen Harriet Hall's written articles for O get narrowly funnelled away from the best wooey targets and held up for weeks. And I still remember the interviews with that chemist who was the token skeptic in the What the Bleep Do We Know Anyway? video who was edited beyond recognition to further their agenda.

There's no reason to believe Dr. Oz won't use deceptive editing. He's recently featured faith healer John of God and a reiki guru. Those are signs he's as loony as the Ramtha nuts with the What the Bleep video. And he got his start on Oprah, which ties back to Harriet Hall and O.

I fear this is as futile as arguing in the AOA comments.

I hope Dr. Novella was able to record the dialog in it's entirety. Being able to show how he was edited after the fact would probably do more good than anything he said that makes into the broadcast.

Alternative healthy sounds like the PC term for being sick (differently healthed? Health challenged?).

This should be interesting--but bear in mind what Dr. Novella might say if HE (rather than Dr. Oz) was married to a beautiful Reiki Master!

Let me guess how it'll go. Novella: No scientific evidence. Oz: Bah to your god of science! (Crowd cheers). Novella: Many of these treatments have been studied and they don't work. Oz: NO NO NO! They DO! (Crowd cheers). Novella: When you look at the basics of these theories, they go agaisnt many things we know to be true. Oz: Gah, open your mind a little! (Crowd cheers)

I guess I'll watch, but I have feeling it's going to make me mad and ruin my day.

How cocky is Dr. Steven Novella?

How cocky is Dr. Steven Novella?

He isn't as cocky as you are stupid and dishonest.

DRivebyposterandrun

He isn't as cocky as you are stupid and dishonest.

Really?

I didn't think that would be the first post.

Do you really think he has the ego of a cumquat?

I see our resident troll has weighed in....
Meanwhile, I see nothing good coming from Steven Novella's appearance on that Quack's show. It will be creatively edited to make Novella look bad. That's just what dishonest people like Oz do.

I think Steven knows a thiong or two by now.
Each utterance must be able to stand up on its own. A series of short, sharp sound bites and that's it. They'd have to edit out all his responses and then they're the one that will look stupid.

I was afraid Dr. Oz would do play the "don't be close-minded" or "you're too dismissive" card.

That's exactly what he is. Close minded and too dismissive.

A true skeptic â attacking pseudoscience with pseudoskepticism.

He does seem to know definition of pseudoskepticism (as he reiterates it quite often while calm and seemingly down-to-earth), but then I see him practicing it!

From Mr. Novella:

ââEvidence-based alternative treatmentsâ is an oxymoron. If they are truly evidence-based they are not alternative.â

Wow, nice way to skew things. There are evidence based alternative treatments that are ignored or in some cases violently opposed. And yes, they are still viewed as alternative. With most doctors, if they can't write it on their prescription pad, it's alternative. Perhaps we should conduct a formal survey in order to define what alternative treatments mean to the average physician.

There are evidence based alternative treatments that are ignored or in some cases violently opposed.

OK, I'll bite. Name some of these "evidence-based" alternative treatments. This could be fun.

Orac:

This could be fun.

Especially since he showed his deference to Dr. Novella's expertise by referring to him as "Mr. Novella." While he can claim he does not know that Dr. Novella is a medical doctor, others have used his proper title in earlier comments, and a simple check on SBM would have revealed to The Analyst that he is a neurologist who teaches at Yale's medical school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcobalamin (Yes, this type of B12 is considered alternative. I myself take injections every day for neurological reasons, and doctors often think this is ludicrous since they don't understand why I would need B12 when my serum concentration is >2000. It is hard to get the average doctor to write you a prescription for this form in the states.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophora_flavescens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahcc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingzhi_mushroom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trametes_versicolor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercetin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGCG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deglycyrrhizinated_licorice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginko_biloba

I have to go, but let me know if you want more.

Although I am fully cognisant of the fact that " Pseudo-science never sleeps", do not its supporters *ever* take a day off? Come on, give me a f#@cking break- it's Easter: I'm an *atheist* and I was going to take a day off. But here goes: I shall now peer into my crystal ball** and list what I imagine those EB alt treatments might be - a brief sampling:

Reishi & Shiitake for cancer
CoQ 10 for CV
Black Cohosh for symptoms of menopause
Acidophilis for IBD
Ginger for ulcers
Vitamin C for colds
Vitamin D for everything
Glutathione for everything else
Niacin for serious mental illness
Beta carotene for cervical dysplasia
Chorella & spirulina for radiation poisoning
Bilberry for macular degeneration
Cranberry for UTI
Grapefruit for obesity
Quercitin for arthritis
Ginkgo for Alzheimer's
Green tea for cancer prevention
Chromium for diabetes
Ad infinitum
Ad nauseum
etc., etc., etc.

** Actually, I only said that for effect- I really just close my eyes and a nearly endless stream of so-called "treatments" flows like a mini-Niagara.

I have a comment- currently entangled in moderation- that attempts to answer our esteemed host's question (@26) from a woo-centric point of view. I have heard about so many "'evidence-based' alternative treatments" that have been "ignored" or "opposed" for so long and so frequently that I have inadvertently committed a long list of them to memory. 'Fraid so! Fortunately,I am not harmed by this.

The problem is that the "discoveries" that are being heralded *now* are essentially what were being called "breakthroughs" in the 1950's- 2000. I can cite many instances Q10, vitamin D, glutathione, SOD, etc.

The Analyst has evidenty decided that Wikipedia is his/her friend, without actually reading the articles cited.

For instance, the Wiki article on ginkgo notes the lack of good evidence for ginkgo as a memory enhancer, citing recent research showing it is ineffective in delaying the onset of dementia and in treating Alzheimer's disease.

The artemisia article reports that anti-malarial effects of artemisia have been under study for decades and that artemisinin is currently being used as an (evidence-based) antimalarial.

Resveratrol still has not shown the miraculous anti-aging effects claimed for it in humans.

None of these are examples of "evidence based alternative treatments that are ignored or in some cases violently opposed" by nasty old science/medicine.

To save time, perhaps The Analyst, instead of listing Wikipedia articles for us to labor through, could discuss one or two alleged examples of wonderful, evidence-based alternative treatments that are supposedly being ignored or "violently opposed"* by the medical community.

*what is this "violence" of which you speak? Are there incidents I am unaware of in which white-coated goons are beating up homeopaths and taking their lunch money?

I checked the Wiki article on Deglycyrrhizinated licorice because I was wondering if Deglycyrrhizination eliminated the side effect of hypertension. Although I did not find any explanation of what Deglycyrrhizination did, I did notice that of the 6 footnotes 2 linked to journal articles and 4 linked to websites selling the stuff.

Analyst - have you read John Ioannidis' paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False yet. I recommend that you do so before making further claims based on preliminary studies.

Both the Analyst and the esteemed Denice seem to be citing mostly herbal or chemical remedies which, while they may in fact be useless, are at least scientifically plausible. It's late and I forget the term for pharmaceuticals-derived-from-natural-products but I'm sure someone here can come up with it. It's a well-known, well-respected branch of mainstream medicine. If copious amounts of vitamin B12 did indeed have a demonstrable therapeutic effect on a disease nobody would say or think that alternative medicine has been "vindicated."

Why? Because science worked in demonstrating it, and because the "materialist paradigm" is still intact. Alt med won't be victorious until some sort of magical spiritual component re-enchants the world. Don't hold your breath.

Are there incidents I am unaware of in which white-coated goons are beating up homeopaths and taking their lunch money?

It is homeopathic violence, in which the quizzical raising of one eyebrow inflicts far worse injury than an aggravated beating with cudgels.

Sastra

It's late and I forget the term for pharmaceuticals-derived-from-natural-products but I'm sure someone here can come up with it.

Pharmacognosy is the word you are looking for. David Kroll/Abel Pharmboy of Science Based Medicine and Terra Sigillata specializes in it.

@Dangerus Bacon

You are cherry picking.

But nice try I guess. :)

However, I left out some of my energetic "woo".

I personally love the concept of LLLT and DPLT. And yes, I have tried them both.

Oh, and I did read the DPLT article. In fact, I even read this quote:

However, skeptics doubt that this is a really efficient healing procedure.[6]

Looks like the source is a tiny forum post. Don't worry though, I'm removing the sentence due to the fact that it violates WP:MEDRS since it's an unreliable source.

And remember: It's ok to start at Wikipedia. But not every article is well written, most don't follow WP:MEDRS policies well, and not every article cites the best and most recent journals, so while Wikipedia is a good place to start, it's a good idea to take your research elsewhere and draw your own conclusions.

The Analyst: "You are cherry picking."

You've been provided several examples showing that your thesis of official suppression of evidence-based woo is incorrect. I notice that you have no comeback other than to whine that I didn't take the time to dissect your entire Gish Gallop.

And if you're going to flood us with Wikipedia links, it's kind of lame to then complain about the inadequacies of Wikipedia.

Again, if you'd like to pick out any example from your list and make a comprehensible case for how it represents evidence-based alternative medicine ignored by the Establishment (or violently opposed by same), posters would be happy to have a nice discussion with you.

I went to the Analysts licorice link because I was curious about whether whatever was removed was the compound in licorice that causes hypertension. The article was not informative in that regard, but what was interesting was the footnotes. Of the 6 footnotes, 2 were journal articles and the other 4 were websites selling the stuff.

@ Sastra,OM/COR:
Exactly. There is a chance that there *may* be relevant action from these compounds- woo-meisters get their "street cred" from the numerous "studies" they cite- *in vitro* demonstrations, in arcane or foreign journals, or with 12 subjects- this evanescent link to reality allows them to ensnare "fence-sitters" and others who are *not* totally divorced from reality. If they had to rely *exclusively* on the purist loonies ( who would believe *anything*) their audience would not be as extensive- and that certainly wouldn't be very profittable.

Fear mongering about "unnatural" chemicals and pharma-medico-governmental conspiracies are merely attempts to create a market for products. Additionally, they often masquerade as "scientists" ( see the usual suspects' websites)

Let's also note that The Analyst made no credible attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that said purportedly suppressed treatments are, in fact, evidence-based. Hint: PMIDs, not Wikipedia links.

I hope for the best, but I, too, am afraid he will be deceptively edited with no way to prove it. I hope skeptics will flood the discussion forums.

Denice Walter

Woo-meisters get their "street cred" from the numerous "studies" they cite- *in vitro* demonstrations, in arcane or foreign journals, or with 12 subjects- this evanescent link to reality allows them to ensnare "fence-sitters" and others who are *not* totally divorced from reality.

They sold me some herbs and sleep hormones with pretty nasty unstated side-effects like that. They've earned my enmity.

The Analyst

There are evidence based alternative treatments that are ignored or in some cases violently opposed.

Citation needed.

Lists a dozen Wikipedia articles.

Citation needed.

And remember: It's ok to start at Wikipedia... it's a good idea to take your research elsewhere and draw your own conclusions.

So cite your other sources. Don't toss us Wikipedia articles and tell us not to rest our conclusions on them. What? We're supposed to assume you've done your research but just aren't presenting it?

Citation needed.

So all my claims are disproven because some don't like the research on particular substances, etc.

Denice Walter has a great list of things as well.

Much of what I posted has tons of research behind it, double-blind placebo controlled trials, etc. I just listed what came to my head. In other cases, there isn't as much or any interest to study the alternatives since funding is needed for studies. Unfortunately, that's just how it is.

And to the Citation people: I am writing a comment on a blog. I am not writing an encyclopedic entry or a medical journal.

The Analyst,
Presumably you're trying to present your point of view with the intent of convincing others. So far, not so convincing as you've provided little evidence of effectiveness or suppression.

In particular, your listing of resveratrol as one that's been ignored or violently suppressed surprises me. When I look at ClinicalTrials.gov, I see 30 studies in various stages, though only one that is completed and has results. It appears to me that the science is not complete on this - at least, not enough to make a definite statement about its effectiveness to treat any particular condition. However, it neither appears to be ignored nor suppressed.

You may CLAIM that there's "tons of research," but haven't bothered to even attempt to support that claim. If you want to make the claim, you have to provide the evidence. Yes, even on a blog. You don't get to just make stuff up, no matter the setting.

You also fatally undermine your own argument by claiming that treatments are "ignored or violently oppressed" while also claiming that there's a "tons of research" behind them; by definition if there's tons of research they aren't being ignored.

In order to justify your claims, you would need to either (a) provide evidence of promising avenues which are being ignored by science (make sure to demonstrate that they really ARE promising) or (b) provide evidence that some treatments which are well-supported by science are being "violently" suppressed. You've made no effort whatsoever to do either.

"Analyst", this may be a blog, but we're not just going to take your word on things. Why do you think we're asking for citations?

@ The Analyst: my list cites spurious or exaggerated claims I have heard or read about from *entrepreneurs* who want to convince you of their expertise and other sterling characteristics in order to sell you supplements, books, or simply their *personae* as a _brand_, therby *enriching* themselves. Although they portray themselves as "truth tellers" or "whistle blowers", it's a business: they want your money.

@ Scott Cunningham: Ain't it a b#tch, though? Aren't side effects supposed to be the realm of pharma exclusively? 'Fraid not!

"The Analyst" claims:

"There are evidence based alternative treatments that are ignored or in some cases violently opposed. And yes, they are still viewed as alternative." [emphasis added]

This was a two-part claim: first, that there are "alternative" treatments that are "evidence-based" and, second, that they are "ignored" or "violently opposed".

The second part - "ignored" or "violently opposed" - is pretty much a working definition of "alternative" ideas of any stripe. And while "The Analyst" may have shown some treatments that were "evidence-based" (as well as some that were not), none of those were "ignored" or "violently opposed".

You see, it's not ignoring or opposing something to say "The data do not support the hypothesis that this is a safe and effective treatment." or "There is not yet enough data to support a claim of safety and/or effectiveness."

"The Analyst" is trying to do is make reasoned choices about the safety and/or effectiveness of a treatment seem like irrational prejudice.

Of course, you could make the same argument about bleeding, purging and voodoo dolls - all have been "ignored" and "violently opposed" for the simple reason that they have been shown to not work.

Claims that there are "evidence-based alternative therapies" have to show both the evidence that the therapy is "evidence-based" and the evidence that it is truly "alternative".

"The Analyst" has failed on both counts.

Prometheus

The Analyst: "Much of what I posted has tons of research behind it, double-blind placebo controlled trials, etc. I just listed what came to my head. In other cases, there isn't as much or any interest to study the alternatives since funding is needed for studies."

This sounds like a restatement of a classic wooist conundrum: "There's oodles of research supporting my woo! But no one researches woo because it's too expensive and you can't patent Natural Remedies!"

Um yeah, right.

"Tons of research" is a meaningless term if the research is poor quality, conflicting, disproven by a good clinical trial(s) or not applicable to humans.

So, Analyst, can you give us a single good example, with a relevant citation or two and convincing arguments, of evidence-based alternative medicine which is ignored or suppressed by The Establishment despite demonstrated clinical efficacy? Just one?

Going through TA's laundry list, most of the compounds seem to have been extensively studied and found wanting, be it due to lack of efficacy or side effects. But I guess that makes them "violently opposed", science is such a b*tch when it comes to unfavorable results, and the scientists are so mean to simply discard promising compounds when they don't pan out or turn out to be harmful.

If the Science Based Medicine blog is mentioned at any point I'll consider it a win.

So, Analyst, can you give us a single good example, with a relevant citation or two and convincing arguments, of evidence-based alternative medicine which is ignored or suppressed by The Establishment despite demonstrated clinical efficacy? Just one?

Yes, I definitely could.

And yet you haven't. Why not?

I can't wait to watch two meglomaniacs with some opposing views on the same stage together.

"I can't wait to watch two meglomaniacs with some opposing views on the same stage together."

Thought I hammered that "Don't feed the trolls" sign in pretty well.. Guess not

@The Analyst

So all my claims are disproven because some don't like the research on particular substances, etc.

No, they haven't been proven because you're too lazy or ignorant. It's on you to prove your claims, not us to disprove them.

Interestingly, many of our resident trolls' talking points appear as if they were lifted intact from a NaturalNews article, a Gary Null rant, or an epistle from Andy. I wonder why that is?

In accordance with my recently elaborated trickle-down theory of woo: there are only a few ideas in woo-topia but they are frequently re-cycled and spread incestuously amongst several high-density woo-aggregators. The woo flows down a gradient from higher-concentration ( woo-meisters) to lower (i.e. the woo-susceptible public). Whatever is spouted or dripped from the Sources will eventually reach the lower levels and be spread around indiscriminately. Sometimes we can trace the woo to its sources through the use of common catch-phrases and pet ideas.

This is awesome to hear! I'm just hoping they don't turn him into a bunch of sound bites.

I watched the Dr. Oz Show and Dr. Novella's appearance was limited to the first fifteen minutes. Oz did use the "dismissive of you" comment...just as Orac predicted.

Another (memorable) quote from Dr. Oz, "even I have been taken to task by (traditional) medical doctors". Dr. Novella presented very cogent arguments about the show's lead-in premise "Why are doctors afraid of alternative medicine?" and zinged Oz, "alternative medicine is a misnomer; medicine is science based."

The rest of the show was a dumbed-down carny sideshow.

I watched the segment with Novella too. My least favorite part: when Oz turned to the camera and told his audience that if they found something that worked for them, "don't let anyone try to take it away from you!" Framing Novella and other science-based doctors as bullies trying to "disempower" people. So much for consumer protection and informed consent.

As predicted, Oz and guests kept trying to claim perfectly reasonable therapies and remedies as "alternative medicine." Dr. Novella called them on it, time and again, but they were like broken records.

I also disliked Oz's divisions of alt med into "things you eat; things you do; mind/body" or whatever the hell it was. Better to divide it into "already included in science; jury still out; total nonsense."

But hey! Orac had 3 screen shots from RI! Oz loved the one where it had said he'd "gone to the Dark Side." Bet the concern trolls come in here and scold Orac about that.

Let them.

Glanced over at that link to Dr. Oz's "discussion forum". I was worried before about clicking on it. Apparently, for good reason. Most recent post was this wonderful bit of cluelesness. I got a headache trying to read it.

Dr Oz recently (Tuesday, April26/11), had a doctor on who was against all alternative medicine. He made sweeping statements about all the evidence that disproves everything from acupuncture to meditation to supplements. Apparently the millions of people around the world who have benefitted from acupunture, for example, have all imagined their improvements. Wow. The biggest problem with doctors who are willing to negate these medicines and treatments is what nobody talks about: many doctors work for universities that are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and alternative treatments profoundly infringe on the profits from the drugs that they push. Doctors like this do not deserve to be practising medicine. I would never trust a doctor who told me he/she was against alternative medicine. At the very least, it's close-minded, but the bigger issue is the dishonesty.

Other examples involve doctors who claim that milk is good for them, and then you find out that their university is funded by the milk industry. (This was documented in Harvey Diamond's book "Fit for Life"). Or the doctors who are against bio-identical hormone treatment for menopause. These hormones are natural, and far safer than those produced by pharmaceutical companies. But the problem is that bio-identical hormones cannot be patented because every woman is given a customized combination, according to her individual symptoms, and without being able to patent them, the pharmaceutical companies cannot profit from them. So instead, they wrongfully deny the benefits of these natural and safe products. Disgraceful.

I wonder how much money Yale has received from pharmaceutical companies, which is where this quack is from.

@ Sastra: I was the amanuensis for RI! Reading my scrawl, I see that Oz stated "there are three ways we could think about alternative medicine":

"Oral, the natural herbs and supplements we ingest" (injection by Dr. Novella) "Studies conducted by the NIH show they don't work".

"Body manipulations such as acupuncture" (interjection by Dr. Novella) "The evidence is overwhelming that they don't work; you might as well be poking yourself with toothpicks."

"Mind-Body techniques" No mention of Reiki, but Oz did mention "guided imagery" and meditation. (injection by Dr. Novella) "Meditation is simply stress reduction which is good for you, but don't call it a cure for cancer and stop mystifying it."

The rest of Oz's show was so reminiscent of Burt Lancaster's excellent portrayal of Elmer Gantry in the movie. Gantry as you recall, was a fast talking itinerant preacher man who preached hellfire and brimstone...and redemption...sans Dr. Oz's tailored scrubs.

I too, counted 3 of Orac's blogs on the screen.

@ Andy

You're right, it was painful to read.

many doctors work for universities that are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry

On which planet? My lab is working, among other projects, on cancer drugs, but frankly, whatever little we got from any industry is not worth running after. We are funded by federal grants. And I'm almost sure we get nothing from Big Pharma itself.
And in my native country, it's even worse - there, most industrials think that academics are utterly clueless and certainly won't invest into any university.
I don't know what my North American university is doing with all this pharma money, but my lab sure doesn't see any of it.

A Huge point that is over looked in "Where's the Science?" screams by Doctor Nancy Syderman and the Doctor on the OZ Show.....is because of Scientific Censorship by the FDA and gestapo behavior by the FTC to protect the public.... both have the powers to Self Regulate without the approval of Congress.... And suddenly a nutrient or food magically becomes a drug.....and punishment for websites like mine for what is written....and because they only have the right to say cure, treat, or prevent a disease and, of course Doctor's can say it.
The ban of Vitamin C and forcing Farmers to pull up cherry trees and ruining their livlihood for one bad crop. Does this justify suffering little children in burn and cancer wards without Vitamin C. Vitamin C and E has many, many notable scientific research, beginning with Linus Pauling, who won a Nobal Prize for it in the 1970's. Acerola Cherries are a major source of Vitamin C and is tried and proven common cold and cancer recoveries standing behind it. Quality manufacturers of food supplements such as Mannatech with Clinical Trials and several Nobal Prizes under their belts; do quality research and prosper people in 3rd world countries. They also share their knowlege by frequent visits to Congress.

Scientific Information Claims are being challenged in Federal Courts. Judges are fed up because the science was apparent all the time, and ruled the ban of Vitamin C, E, and Selenium Unconstitutional.
We also know that Big Pharma and MD's who are not educated on the benefits of nutrients and food supplements in medical school is a core problem and great source of stupidity on the Medical Profession....we also know lobbyists are running to Washington and pushing Congressman like Harvey Waxman to disguise anti food supplements into the Wall Street Reform Bill. It is all about the money.

Currently, the Human Genome Project, the Angiogenesis Foundation, and including The National Cancer Institute Food Research from USA Universities and Global studies are pointing the way; phytochemicals and micronutrients leading the way to defeat cancer, and including the repair of parent DNA. Another simple biochemical fact and a major cause of death is dumping toxic chemicals in an all ready toxic body with cancer and further stressing and overloading the immune systems in the body trying to fight cancer. The President's Cancer Panel 2010 let him know increased toxins in the environment is the cause of Cancer. How stupid is this to insist the people of America must use toic forms of chemotherapy to kill cancer cells, year after year? This is the Medical Association's answer to defeating Cancer? Why not trying to super boost the immune system. My Grandmother knew what to do by planting vegetables in her garden. She would never let the FDA or the FTC tell her what to do, nor would she wait for scientific evidence. Hmmmm?

A Huge point that is over looked in "Where's the Science?" screams by Doctor Nancy Syderman and the Doctor on the OZ Show.....is because of Scientific Censorship by the FDA and gestapo behavior by the FTC to protect the public.... both have the powers to Self Regulate without the approval of Congress.... And suddenly a nutrient or food magically becomes a drug.....and punishment for websites like mine for what is written....and because they only have the right to say cure, treat, or prevent a disease and, of course Doctor's can say it.
The ban of Vitamin C and forcing Farmers to pull up cherry trees and ruining their livlihood for one bad crop. Does this justify suffering little children in burn and cancer wards without Vitamin C. Vitamin C and E has many, many notable scientific research, beginning with Linus Pauling, who won a Nobal Prize for it in the 1970's. Acerola Cherries are a major source of Vitamin C and is tried and proven common cold and cancer recoveries standing behind it. Quality manufacturers of food supplements such as Mannatech with Clinical Trials and several Nobal Prizes under their belts; do quality research and prosper people in 3rd world countries. They also share their knowlege by frequent visits to Congress.

Scientific Information Claims are being challenged in Federal Courts. Judges are fed up because the science was apparent all the time, and ruled the ban of Vitamin C, E, and Selenium Unconstitutional.
We also know that Big Pharma and MD's who are not educated on the benefits of nutrients and food supplements in medical school is a core problem and great source of stupidity on the Medical Profession....we also know lobbyists are running to Washington and pushing Congressman like Harvey Waxman to disguise anti food supplements into the Wall Street Reform Bill. It is all about the money.

Currently, the Human Genome Project, the Angiogenesis Foundation, and including The National Cancer Institute Food Research from USA Universities and Global studies are pointing the way; phytochemicals and micronutrients leading the way to defeat cancer, and including the repair of parent DNA. Another simple biochemical fact and a major cause of death is dumping toxic chemicals in an all ready toxic body with cancer and further stressing and overloading the immune systems in the body trying to fight cancer. The President's Cancer Panel 2010 let him know increased toxins in the environment is the cause of Cancer. How stupid is this to insist the people of America must use toic forms of chemotherapy to kill cancer cells, year after year? This is the Medical Association's answer to defeating Cancer? Why not trying to super boost the immune system. My Grandmother knew what to do by planting vegetables in her garden. She would never let the FDA or the FTC tell her what to do, nor would she wait for scientific evidence. Hmmmm?

Well look both at my reference page and resources and nature's pharmacy for lots, lots of significant research....I don't need any research my intuiative inner voice tells me.....and where's the science on this....life has taught me....when I follow my inner guidance, my life works.....and when I don't....life does not work our well.
I am tuned in when it comes "listening" and especially in a MD's office and recommendations of surgery and chemotherapy and radiation.

"the ban of Vitamin C, E, and Selenium"

They were banned? [Citation needed]

Sandra, wow. You really have lots to say, but the question is can you back any of it up?

Let's look at what you wrote:

"is because of Scientific Censorship by the FDA and gestapo behavior by the FTC to protect the public"

Ah, a Nazi reference. Godwin! You lose by default.

"The ban of Vitamin C"

Cite? I believe it is still sold in stores, and grocery stores still seem to carry fruit.

"and forcing Farmers to pull up cherry trees and ruining their livlihood for one bad crop."

Cite? I live in the state that grows half of the sweet cherries in the USA. It is often big news if there is something that affects the cherry crop. I have heard nothing about the FDA and FTC interfering with this major agricultural export, but I have heard of issues with the cherry vinegar fly (spotted wing drosophila)

"Does this justify suffering little children in burn and cancer wards without Vitamin C."

Cite?

"Vitamin C and E has many, many notable scientific research, beginning with Linus Pauling, who won a Nobal Prize for it in the 1970's."

Um, no. His 1954 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was for "for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances".

"Acerola Cherries are a major source of Vitamin C and is tried and proven common cold and cancer recoveries standing behind it."

Cite?

I could go on, but I have to deal with dinner and getting a kid somewhere.

Sandra,
Are you really saying that that the search for objective fact doesn't matter since your "intuitive inner voice" is more reliable?
If so, we really must know what it's saying.

Sandra is clearly being paid by the ellipses lobby.
Either that, or the various .... are signs of censorship, in which case I demand to read the unabridged LONG-FORM comment.

Herr Doktor Bimler,
Ellipsis abuse is the number two cause of punctuation shortages (the number one being the "grocers' apostrophe"). There are now 6 billion people on the planet and while our supplies of punctuation marks is currently adequate, our data mines will soon be depleted and unable to fill the gap. Only punctuation conservation can ensure we continue to meet our needs for years to come.

I think Doctors are afraid of alternative medicine because they know themselves that it is made from organic ingredients like fruits and vegetables that are really good for our health. We all know the health benefits fruits and vegetables gave us. I think that's the reason why they are against alternative medicine. They got lot's of money in medicine they prescribe. Why would they suggest an alternative medicine? Am I right? Like this one http://www.mercola.com/Downloads/bonus/choosing-anti-oxidant-supplement…. I just found it while looking for an article about anti-oxidant supplement. Need one right now. Do you think it's good?