It's a new year, but some topics remain the same. One of these is the case of the highly dubious cancer doctor named Stanislaw Burzynski who claims to have discovered anticancer compounds in the blood known as antineoplastons, conducts "clinical trials" for which he charges patients and whose results he are largely unpublished, and of late has started marketing a do-it-yourself "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" that--surprise! surprise!--almost always involves antineoplastons. More importantly, contrary to Dr. Burzynski's claim that he doesn't use chemotherapy and that his therapy is nontoxic, he does, and it isn't. Perhaps Burzynski's cleverest stroke of all is to rebrand his antineoplastons as an orphan drug (or is it the other way around?), using it off-label to treat cancer. The Texas Medical Board tried to stop Dr. Burzynski and strip him of his license back in the 1990s but, for reasons that continue to elude me even now, failed. It's set for another go at Burzynski, and I sincerely hope it succeeds this time. However, even before the Texas Medical Board will be able to convene hearings, I've learned through the almighty power of Google Alerts that there's more trouble coming Burzynski's way.
This time, it's in the form of a lawsuit by one of his patients, which is described in an article entitled Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM:
HOUSTON (CN) - An elderly cancer patient claims a doctor used his clinics and pharmacy to bilk her of nearly $100,000 by persuading her to undergo a proprietary cancer treatment that "was actually a clinical trial," and charging her $500 per pill for drugs she could buy elsewhere for a fraction of that price.Lola Quinlan sued Houston-based Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court.
"Ms. Quinlan is an elderly, stage IV cancer patient living in Florida who defendants swindled out of nearly $100,000.00 by using false and misleading tactics," the complaint states. "Defendants convinced Ms. Quinlan to under a proprietary cancer 'treatment' in Houston, Texas in lieu of traditional chemotherapy and radiation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose information about the drugs used during the proprietary cancer 'treatment' with the intent to induce Ms. Quinlan into purchasing the drugs at a highly overinflated price."
The actual legal complaint can be found here, and the details sound depressingly familiar to me (and should to anyone who's followed the Burzynski saga). It turns out that Quinlan is suing Burzynski for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Here are the allegations contained in the lawsuit:
- Dr. Burzynski convinced Ms. Quinlan to undergo a proprietary cancer treatment in lieu of chemotherapy and radiation and that the defendants failed to disclose information about the drugs used in this treatment with the intent to induce Ms. Quinlan into purchasing the drugs at a highly inflated price.
- The defendants provided false and misleading information about "gene therapy" that, according to them, lacked the side effects associated with traditional cancer treatments. These treatments were "wholly ineffective and caused even more damage to Ms. Quinlan's body." In fact, Quinlan asserts that the treatments gave her a host of side effects that included "weakness, infections, vomiting, fatigue, mouth sores, dizziness, affected taste buds, joint pain and skin sores."
- Dr. Burzynski pitched his antineoplastons to Ms. Quinlan but never disclosed that the treatment was part of a clinical trial. To add the proverbial insult to injury, he never told her that medical insurance wouldn't pay for the therapy.
- Dr. Burzynski's clinic coerced Ms. Quinlan into purchasing her prescription from Southern Family Pharmacy at "outrageous prices." She was not allowed to fill the prescriptions anywhere else. It turns out that Southern Family Pharmacy is owned by Stanislaw Burzynski, a fact that was not disclosed to Ms. Quinlan. The price for some medications was $500 per pill, and the pharmacy charged her credit card without her knowledge. Ms. Quinlan later learned that she could have purchased the same medications elsewhere at a fraction of the price.
- All defendants conspired to defraud their customers, with an emphasis on defrauding the elderly and cancer patients.
Ms. Quinlan is demanding treble damages under the law because the defendants "acted knowingly and intentionally." As well she should, if even half of the allegations in her complaint are true. In fact, one of the things that stands out to me in particular is the claim that Burzynski pitched antineoplastons to her and didn't tell her that it would be part of a clinical trial. This is such an egregious and unforgivable breach of informed consent that, if the allegation is found to be true, the FDA should swoop in and shut the Burzynski Clinic down. No. Strike that. The FDA should investigate again based on this allegation. I've often said that I'd very much like to see a copy of the informed consent form that Burzynski requires patients to sign but never really expected to see one, at least not unless a former patient has second thoughts and is willing to send me a copy. Silly me! The reason I will never see such a document is because Burzynski apparently doesn't show it to patients. One wonders if the consent forms for Burzynski's "clinical trials' exist only for show. It's hard not to suspect that these forms are something Burzynski produces to placate the FDA and to trot out when his clinic is inspected.
It continues to boggle the mind just how Dr. Burzynski can keep getting away with what he's been getting away with for the last 30 years. Does anyone think Ms. Quinlan is unique, that she's the only patient whom Burzynski has "used as his personal ATM." I don't. If only a fraction of the allegations about Burzynski are true, he is a menace to cancer patients everywhere. I say "everywhere," of course, because patients travel from all over the world to Houston in order to seek out Dr. Burzynski's woo at his clinic. As I've pointed out, recently there has been a rash of cancer patients flying to Texas from England to seek out Dr. Burzynski's services, at tens of thousands of dollars a pop. Some of these patients have successfully used various fundraising techniques, up to and including persuading celebrities to do charity fund raising shows for them that have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds.
In addition, as Andy Lewis has pointed out, Dr. Burzynski has friends in high places, including the media and entertainment industry. This results in articles referring to bloggers criticizing Dr. Burzynski as "aggressive, sanctimonious and having a disregard for the facts," the conspiracy theory-laden crank documentary about Burzynski (Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business) winning the Humanitarian Vision Award at the Newport Beach Film Festival and the Documentary Channel's "Best of Doc" award. One thing that Andy Lewis might not know, given that he's from the UK and all and might not follow American politics, is that Burzynski appears to have allies in high places in government in Washington and various states as well, such as Representative Dan Burton and possibly even Governor Rick Perry, to whose campaign Dr. Burzynski has made sizable contributions, who has been rumored to be a sympathetic to Dr. Burzynski, and whom Burzynski's supporters have been deluging with letters.
On April 11, 2012, the Texas Medical Board will convene hearings that will examine the charges against Dr. Burzynski, which sound a lot like what the complaints in Ms. Quinlan's lawsuit. We can only hope that, unlike the last time around, this time around the Texas Medical Board finally protects patients and revokes Dr. Burzynski's license. That's my opinion and I'm sticking too it.
- Log in to post comments
Emily -
You are changing your story. When you change your story, you undermine your credibility.
You have repeatedly asserted the principle that we must listen to the signals of our bodies when we are unhealthy (not normal)-- not only when we are healthy (normal). Therefore, your first statement above is simply false.
You now say, "I have agreed already that the principle to eat when hungry is to be applied in normal circumstances." Yet, you have repeatedly asserted that we must listen to the body's signals when it is unhealthy; that's what the entire discussion as been about. Some examples:
Yet, you advocate anti-hunger. Why have you lost faith in your own body?
Yet you claim that hunger in a sick person is not beneficial in nature and should be opposed.
Why don't you understand that appetite is an ally in disguise?
Including hunger. Unless you are making a selective exception based on your belief that opposing this signal my be beneficial. It follows, therefore, that you cannot reject on principle the argument that signals should sometimes be opposed.
Here you explicitly and strongly agree that we should not oppose the clear signals of the hunger mechanism in the unhealthy body.
Why do you violate this principle directly and fight against the clue of hunger in times of disease?
If you are making the claim that we must obey the body's signals when we are unhealthy, you must reject fasting as being in direct opposition to this principle.
If, on the other hand, you are radically shifting your position so that you now acknowledge that sometimes the body's signals must be opposed when the body is unhealthy, you can no longer wield the core principle you have been asserting when arguing against medical interventions that oppose the body's signals.
As you have finally admitted, you have contradicted yourself. Sadly, you also say that you do not care. That's really disappointing, because you might improve and correct your knowledge of dealing with disease if you were to address that contradiction and resolve it, rather than not caring that the two core assertions that lie at the center of your beliefs have been shown not to be mutually compatible. Surely you can appreciate that burying your head in the sand when a serious flaw in your position has been exposed is the opposite of an open-minded, enlightened approach to increasing your understanding of health. Imagine what your reaction would be if proponents of science-based medicine admitted that their position had a central contradiction, but that they didn't care?
So, the question for you now is, will you have the intellectual honesty to step up and change your views to correct this contradiction? Are you really open-minded? That claim is now put to the test.
OK, Emily, I'll play (though goodness knows why, because I doubt I'll get a sensible answer in return). IANAD but science-based research tells me that your patient with chronic bronchitis should be advised to quit smoking if they haven't already & avoid sources of second-hand smoke (see? SBM gives lifestyle advice!). Bronchodilators can relieve the symptoms by making it easier to breathe, as can steroids (although long-term use can cause side effects). And if they're on the verge of a bacterial pneumonia infection (as for your hypothetical 'patient'), then a doctor would prescribe antibiotics.
Fasting is not likely to help.
Now, Emily, your turn: would you really do a short fast if infected with rabies? If you are so caught up in your ideology that you truly believe this would be effective, then I hope you never have a close & damaging encounter with a rabid animal, as following your 'treatment' will see you with a short & extremely unpleasant life expectancy.
re William of Occam:
You seem hung up on this point.
Firstly, people who are chronically sick have relied on what Dr Joel Fuhrman calls "toxix hunger" to signal when to eat.
This is not true hunger, which is a mouth/throat sensation.
Toxic hunger, however, arises from uncomfortable sensations in the stomach, weakness, pain & headaches, which are mistaken as cues to eat.
Like a drug addict missing their hit, they feel a toxic hunger for their dopamine-elevating food, manifesting in the form of discomfort.
This perpetutaes their illness.
True hunger is not painful, unless taken to extremes like starvation.
Physiological hunger was never meant to assuage pain!
Legitimate mouth & throat hunger should not be over-ridden by foregoing food.
Toxic hunger, found in chronically sick people, is not true hunger.
Do yourself a favor & read Fuhrman's 2 books: Fasting & Eating for Health & Eat to Live. This goes into more detail.
But I know there would be as much chance of that as you attending my birthday party.
I'd say "this is a UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE* (*not guaranteed to have any effect)" is pretty fickle. Anyway,
Somebody should let Shelton know.
None of this repetition even vaguely resembles an answer to the questions. The UNIVERSAL LAW OF RELATION BETWEEN ORGANIC AND INORGANIC MATTER claims as corollary that "Alcohol is absorbed and circulated, but it is not appropriated. It is not used." But it plainly is--it provides calories. (Moreover, the vasodilation caused by ethanol is not "the skin acting," it's endothelial. Perhaps you're thinking of ALDH2 deficiency or something, but that's not a UNIVERSAL TENDENCY.)
The UNIVERSAL LAW OF RELATION BETWEEN ORGANIC AND INORGANIC MATTER asserts directly that "The resident forces in the various tissues acting preservatively [to reject and expel], give rise to all the phenomena that are mistaken for the actions of drugs." This is false.
And your attempt to evade these problems is to dilute the assertion to near-meaninglessness (the remaining bits also being false, as metabolism continues for a time postmortem) and nonetheless proclaim some sort of UNIVERSAL LAW OF LIFE? Clap. Clap. Clappity. Clap.
Tell me, Emily, where does one's reserve of Nerve Energy go upon death?
Oh, come on. This has got to be a joke.
@501 Alison
Ironic that Emily screams about how doctors blame lung cancer on patients who smoke, but then complains that lifestyle advice is ignored in SBM. Oh wait, it's not ironic... it's just Emily.
@502 Emily
That's our Emily: redefining words to please her again.
Hmm, thoroughly disappointed to awake to not much interesting today. Time to move on methinks.
I think I've seen more than enough. She's either going to implode from the cognitive dissonance she's painted herself into, or she's been doing this solely for the gits and shiggles.
Nope, standard-issue Shelton with a dash of Fuhrman. Which makes me wonder about triangulation. Emily has of course on more than one occasion pimped Goldhamer's unimpressive-looking TrueNorth hotel facility, which will oversee your not eating for the very reasonable fee of $139 a night, exclusive of actual medical costs and initiation fee. (Shared bathroom, but hey, who's eating?)
On the other hand, we've got the Fuhrman angle. Now, what money-making enterprise claims inspiration from Furhman? "Food for Life." "Certification" from Dr. Fuhrman as a "Nutritional Education Trainer" can be had for a mere $995 and the cost of the texts, unless you fail one of the online tests, in which case you're going to have to pony up some more for a retake. And in any event, you're going to have to recoup this in "professional services."
Something tells me these dots connect somewhere.
This is not true hunger, which is a mouth/throat sensation.
hahahaha ROFL - thank you Emily, I needed a good laugh. Honestly, this just goes to reinforce the impression that you know nothing about human physiology. I suggest you look into the role of hormones like ghrelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghrelin) in inducing feelings of hunger/appetite.
Now, I answered your question about bronchitis so play fair: would you really do a short fast if infected with rabies? Or would you overcome your ideology to take the only potentially-lifesaving route available to you, despite the fact that it's offered by the dreaded SBM?
Speaking of which...
Uh, OK.
One might wonder what else he picked up in Australia.
@ Narad: chiropractic... naturopathy... A bit of a stretch to claim the fasts were 'medically' supervised?
Not only do the dots connect but they connect in a few ways:
Fuhrman is frequently mentioned by the *ne plus ultra* de woos, Gary Null, as an advocate of extremely low caloric intake ( a/k/a near-starvation) as a means of life extension - seems rats on ultra-low calorie diets live longer- the rat model may be appropo for woo-meisters.
Well-known hucksters often trade on their fame (infamy?) by setting up schools or teaching courses to train adoring followers. Thus we have acolytes imitating their masters. I wrote about so-called counselling, education, research on the Wakefield thread this am.
Ultra-low caloric intake fits in well with the *purity* theme which is often popular in woo-topia: the essence or spirit( or vital energy) frees itself from the contaminations of day-to-day slogging through the muck of corporeal existence.
Advocates of highly specific diets ( esp low cal) may fill the criteria for Orthorexia ( see DSM-5, forthcoming)
With luck, Shelton will get a hat tip for coining "Orthopathy."
Like to know who issued this 'license'. No such medical specialty listed here.
http://www.amc.org.au/images/Recognition/AMC-list-of-specialties.pdf
@Emily:
I have never heard anyone describe their hunger as a sensation in the mouth and throat. Well, unless you mean the feeling of the production of saliva ("mouth watering") to be a sensation of hunger rather than a sensation of saliva. Even then, I'v never heard of mouth watering and feelings in the stomach of being mutually contradictory, nor have I heard of anyone having a feeling in the throat associated with hunger. So, for your description to be true, 99.9% (or more) of humanity must have never experienced anything but toxic hunger.
Oh, this is interesting.
If you look at the title bar, where someone left in "Center for Conservative Therapy," this is one and the same as TrueNorth. Score another victim of carefully supervised water fasting.
I've got one in moderation, but I suggest a California license lookup on the fourth author in both articles.
It can happen, especially if the person has gastroesophageal reflux disease. (In actual GERD, not just run-of-the-mill heartburn, the person can reflux even on an empty stomach.) But I doubt that's what Emily has in mind.
re 514 Mathew Cline:
" So, for your description to be true, 99.9% (or more) of humanity must have never experienced anything but toxic hunger".
Not humanity, western humanity!
It's why the average American is the size of a McMansion!
Emily, are you aware that the universe exists outside of the modern world? Take a look at any account describing hunger, and you'll find the symptoms of "toxic hunger".
re 517 Calli cale:
"It can happen, especially if the person has gastroesophageal reflux disease. (In actual GERD, not just run-of-the-mill heartburn, the person can reflux even on an empty stomach.) But I doubt that's what Emily has in mind".
Which brings us back to one of my main points: much of the drug prescribing in 'SBM is nothing more than spectacular palliation, masquerading as science.
What is the SBM answer to GERD?
Proton Pump Inhibitors to inhibit acid production.
But what has caused the acid to overproduce & rise?
This is never addressed properly because medical training in this area is woeful.
So what is now happening to those on PPI's for extended periods?
Welcome to clostridium difficile. But don't worry, there will be a stronger drug to counter that.
Co-morbidities anyone!
re 512 Narad:
You disappoint me again, it was Dr Isaac Jennings who coined the term, not Shelton.
But what has caused the acid to overproduce & rise?
Well, since you obviously know, why don't you share this information with the rest of us?
Emily
Actually SBM seems to be going towards fecal transplants as a treatment for intractable C Difficile. Emily would appear to be the ideal donor since she is full of shit. However, there is a distinct possibility that her wacky diet has messed up her gut flora.
re 5125 Narad:
This one doesn't disappoint me, I expect it.
Have you produced any links to the Vioxx fiasco? The HRT non-science? Dr Donald Berwick's harsh criticism of medicine in the States being up to 30% useless ( read: often dangerous between the lines), due to FRAUD & OVERTREATMENT, amongst othjer things.
Any links to the Encainide & Flecainide disasters from you? No way! 55,000 dead! You might want to read Deadly Medicine by Thomas Moore, where he states these 2 drugs led to more casualties than the Vietnam war. Second thoughts, don't read it, the total could reach 55,001- the shock might be too much.
You are not to be taken seriously because you have selective filters.
Modern medicine has a permission slip from you & your sceptic friends so no matter what's done, as long as it has SBM labelled to it, it's OK, so long as they follow the part line.
If they happen to deviate from the party line, all hell breaks loose. Even if the Party line is deadly, doesn't matter. Stone them, these blasphemes.
As John McEnroe screamed: You can't be serious!
But you do make the Holy Church proud.
Ah, yes, Jennings has the attestation as a subtitle to The Tree of Life, or, Human Degeneracy: Its Nature and Remedy, As Based on the Elevating Principle of Orthopathy all the way back in 1867, before Shelton started to get in on the action. At least I don't have to worry that much about specifying "Post-Victorian" any more.
Welcome to clostridium difficile
Sounds like germ theory to me.
@Emily:
Then it should be easy to find examples of people from Asia/Africa/etc who find it strange that Westerners describe hunger as coming from the stomach.
Also, what about old Western literature, from hundreds to thousands of years ago? Surely the people of the Western world haven't been all been obese for thousands of years? So there should be examples from old Western literature of people describing hunger as being of the mouth and throat rather than the stomach.
You seem to be playing rather fast and loose with the UNIVERSAL LAW IN THE RELATIONS OF THE LIVING ORGANISM TO EVERYTHING THAT SURROUNDS IT, Emily.
re 501 Alison:
"OK, Emily, I'll play (though goodness knows why, because I doubt I'll get a sensible answer in return). IANAD but science-based research tells me that your patient with chronic bronchitis should be advised to quit smoking if they haven't already & avoid sources of second-hand smoke (see? SBM gives lifestyle advice!). Bronchodilators can relieve the symptoms by making it easier to breathe, as can steroids (although long-term use can cause side effects). And if they're on the verge of a bacterial pneumonia infection (as for your hypothetical 'patient'), then a doctor would prescribe antibiotics.
Fasting is not likely to help".
Well the poor patient doesn't have much hope, eh. Just more of the same.
Patient tried multiple antibiotics - bronchitis just keeps recurring.
Smoke? Never!
Second hand smoke? No!
What next, Doc?
Oh, I guess you better just live with it, take more bronchodilators & cortisone unless you want a lung transplant?
Oh, no thanks Doc. But what do you think if I try someone different from your line, you know, a naturopath, osteopath, chiropractor, I even heard of someone who fasted with bronchitis & another person with pneumonia & they recovered completely? How's about it, Doc?
OMG no- these people can honestly make you worse. They're all charlatans you know. They are not trained in educating the patient like I am. And besides, if you do go, I'll have to release you from my patient-base.It's a matter of principle, I know you'll understand.
Oh, OK Doc. I'd rather lose my lungs than lose you. But where did you hear about fasting being not likely to help?
I read it on Scienceblogs, a gal named Alison said it, & she sounded like she knew her stuff! They only go by science you know, that's why it's called scienceblogs.
Oh, that's great Doc, I'm so glad you explained it to me. Now I'm fully in the picture. My problem has no causes, cause I don't smoke & I don't live with a smoker. Wow, that's a relief. Just bad luck, eh? Well, there you go? I'm so glad I came to you today, Doc. Anything could have happened to me had I gone to those quacks. Where can I learn to look after myself like this in future, Doc?
Scienceblogs is the way to go! But now, when can we book you in for that cashectomy, I mean lung transplant! Step right this way!
But what do you think if I try someone different from your line, you know, a naturopath, osteopath, chiropractor, I even heard of someone who fasted with bronchitis & another person with pneumonia & they recovered completely? How's about it, Doc?
Where's your actual, verifiable evidence of this claim, Emily? You know, something more than anecdote? Oh, & nice goalpost move there - you didn't give the full 'history' of you 'patient' at the beginning.
I notice that you've also carefully avoided answering a direct question about how you would really deal with a case of rabies...
That's not an anecdote. It's not even much of a sales pitch.
@507 Narad, and @516 Narad
Let's not forget that at night-time, no one 'oversees' anything. There's no staff available at night. Not even a nurse. No wonder they settled the court case. In front of a jury, there's no way they could win based on the above fact alone.
But in Emily's world, this doesn't count, only Vioxx and those mean SBM doctors are able to commit fraud, malpractice, or any other bad thing.
... I wonder if not eating whilst alseep is considered 'fasting'.
@509 Narad
Oh geez... like we don't have enough woo already.
@514 Matthew
Well of course. The majority of people are wrong, and Emily the special little snowflake, is right.
re 530 Alison:
I have already given you my position on rabies, in that I would probably undertake a short fast after being bitten, with or without confirmation of 'infection'.
BTW, not everyone who is bitten by a rabid animal gets rabies.
Rabies: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs099/en/.
So you'd really prefer to take your chances, Emily? How could you be sure that you'd be one of the lucky ones?
re 530 Alison again:
The person with bronchitis & then mycoplasma pneumonia who fasted to recovery, without any alt/med or con/voo treatments was my partner.
Twenty two years ago, a 17 day fast allowed the body the physiological rest (woo there) to resolve its own patholgy.
So what was learned?
Plenty!
All to do with my partner's own cause & effects.
We asked the liberating questions:
1) What had been done to lead the body to protest this severely?
2) What needs to be added?
3) What needs to be dropped?
4) What needs to be continued?
A good self-audit, don't you think?
BTW- since then, no more chest problems.
I've seen it in many patients since.
Anecdotal, not peer-reviewed, not in the Merck Manual, not data-deified, not in the medical lexicon, but it just might fall in the "today frogshit, tomorrow science" category.
Thanks for that anecdote Emily. Picture me doubtful that you can diagnose, accurately, bronchitis. Please don't tell me that this is the diagnosis your partner was given, I have had so many patients of mine (No I don't Pilot them, I treat them) relate to me what the doctor told them only to discover they have COMPLETELY misunderstood what was said. So given your lack of understanding of all things science and medicine, I shouldn't be surprised if you misunderstand all that is said to you or relayed to people who then tell you (remember the game 'telelphone' that you played in a group as a child? did the last repetition sound anything like the original story?)that you misunderstand.
Is this partner your business partner? Tell me again how you can not make money at this game you play and yet you own a clinic. Is it an empty office? No chairs or rent? You do all your piloting for free? Someone else has called you a liar. I am inclined to agree.
Keep up, agashem. Bronchitis? No problem.
Noisy, uncomfortable coughing. What else could it possibly be?
No need for a long checklist or swabs or cultures or checking other symptoms or any of that malarkey. The answer's always obvious - and it's always the first thing you thought of.
"Oh, that's great Doc, I'm so glad you explained it to me. Now I'm fully in the picture. My problem has no causes, cause I don't smoke & I don't live with a smoker."
Note how Emily slyly, and falsely, implies that smoking is the only cause of bronchitis. In fact, there are any number of irritants that can cause it in someone who is susceptible. When i had repeated bouts of bronchitis, my doctor recommended that I get out of an environment with second-hand smoke, and that helped but didn't completely solve the problem. So he recommended giving up pets (see how the evil allopaths push drugs instead of lifestyle changes?). When my pets died of old age, I didn't get more for years and during those years I had no respiratory symptoms.
It's entirely possible (and Emily's babble about "What needs to be dropped?" rather implies this) that there was some other irritant in her partner's environment which they removed and thereby solved the problem. Which is exactly what my evil allopathic doctor would have recommended and applauded.
You seem to be suggesting that people in the conventional medical field don't know that the human body grows, heals when damaged and has an immune system. Was it Natural Hygiene that discovered the link between folate deficiency and neural tube defects? Do conventional doctors not clean a wound and suture it, trusting to the body's healing abilities to do the rest? Who was it that developed vaccination and eradicated smallpox? You are attacking a caricature of modern medicine, a strawman that I just don't recognize at all. Here's an article that sums up the approach to health I am familiar with. This doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the modern medicine you describe. You should pay particular attention to their advice to "Make sure you understand the risks and benefits of deciding not to have treatment."
Emily,
I wonder what you actually know about Vioxx. Yes, Merck and the FDA didn't behave as well as they should have, but the drug was taken off the market because clinical trials showed it was unacceptably dangerous, and lessons have been learned. I'm still waiting for your evidence that proves that water fasting is less dangerous than Vioxx. At least Vioxx is effective at reducing arthritic pain, unlike fasting which is all risk and no long term benefit except weight loss.
Some forms of HRT have been shown to increase breast cancer and cardiovascular disease (and decrease hip fractures and colorectal cancer). Other types don't increase breast cancer or cardiovascular disease and have a number of other benefits. Menopause can cause misery for some women while others sail through it. HRT provides valuable relief for those that suffer. It's a matter of balancing risks and benefits. Again, I would like to see evidence that fasting and other NH practices are safer and more effective than HRT for menopausal symptoms. If you can't provide that, you shouldn't be using them, and you certainly shouldn't be telling sick people to stop taking their medication. Look at what happened to the patient in the link Narad gave above who had had several TIAs and predictably "suffered a massive stroke brought on by dehydration and removal of her medications".
Did Dr. Berwick actually write anything about medicine being dangerous "between the lines" or is that just your prejudice? Trying to use waste and fraud as evidence that Natural Hygiene's outdated ideas are somehow better than science is just pathetic.
Except that's not true.
re 517 Calli cale:
It...I....What?
The body needs food, for pete's sake. It needs to take in calories every day - That's what it's bloody designed to do.
If there's a dopamine elevation after meals, it's because the brain wants to encourage you to eat, not because you're an "addict".
I mean, heck, if eating so that I don't feel like I'm going to fall over when I stand up makes me an addict, then call me Queen Crackhead.
re 539 Kreb:
"You seem to be suggesting that people in the conventional medical field don't know that the human body grows, heals when damaged and has an immune system. Was it Natural Hygiene that discovered the link between folate deficiency and neural tube defects? Do conventional doctors not clean a wound and suture it, trusting to the body's healing abilities to do the rest? Who was it that developed vaccination and eradicated smallpox? You are attacking a caricature of modern medicine, a strawman that I just don't recognize at all. Here's an article that sums up the approach to health I am familiar with"
You still haven't got it, after all this discussion.
I am not totally opposed modern medicine, as you are against alt/med.
I know when modern medicine is invaluable. And in these areas I am an appreciative potential recipient just like you.
I also know when there are non-invasive, non-violent,& very efficacious ways to reverse patholgies in countless areas, whilst NEVER resorting to alt/med "treatments".
I strongly oppose the militaristic model of disease that "treats" everything.
Of course there are some situations that demand immediate treatment by highly trained, skilled & competent medical staff, & I acknowledge that.
But with very few exceptions, like Ornish, McDougall, Fuhrman, Klaper, Esselstyn, Sultana, Siegel, Koumantakis, Esser, Barnard etc, doctors know very little about the body's innate capacity to heal itself.
It's not their fault.
They are simply not trained in this area.
The aforementioned doctors all picked up their wisdom & deeper knowledge when they left Medical School & started to think outside the box.
The average doctor & specialist has no real idea what to do with recurrent bronchitis, recurrent pneumonia, recurrent tonsillitis, recurrent appendicitis, recurrent UTI's, recurrent sinusitis, recurrent endometriosis (I could go with more serious conditions as well but Christmas would arrive) after their "treatment" has failed.
The answer generally is 'rip it out' or put them on heavier 'artillery' & then treat the adverse effects of that artilery, all in the name of SBM.
I know they really try to provide life-style advice to their patients, but this is extremely general, & is limited to: quit smoking & get moving, avoid known allergens like dust & pollen, cut "back" on alcohol & lose weight.
What I am saying Kreb is, the body responds magnificently to changes which I call "fine tuning". These go far beyong these general platitudes.
This fine tuning is in effect, educating the patient to remove certain things in their diet/life style, maybe eschew some things they were hitherto doing, & watch their health improve & MANY pathologies reverse.
Such recommendations are not peer-reviewed, not the subject of the gold standard DBRCT's.... yet!
But if they consistently lead to powerful results, as I see almost every day of my life, they should be adopted.
And as far as Natural Hygiene goes, it was the hygienists who, decades before 'science' had caught up, advised against tobacco, sedentariness, stopping a fever, & recommended we eat greens daily, we exercise regularly, we get sufficient sunshine & we learn to relax.
Their fasting recommendation will one day be accepted but not for a long time. Although, with the American Journal of Cardiology endorsing fasting for heart health as previously quoted, it may be closer than I think.
re 540 Kreb;
"Thus, the allegations in Deadly Medicine could not be confirmed"
I read it 3 times,but sadly for the authors, not a very convincing rebuttal, the article in PubMed.
They didn't conclude it (above)at all convincingly: 'could not be confirmed'. But you believe them anyway: "It's just not true".
Even if the figures of 55,000 were inflated,the fact remains that thousands were killed. Not good enough.
"Trying to use waste and fraud as evidence that Natural Hygiene's outdated ideas are somehow better than science is just pathetic"
Who said I was using Dr Donald Berwick's criticism of medicines up to 30% uselessness (from fraud & overtreatment, amongst other things) as evidence vindicating Natural Hygiene?
He said it, not me. And he should know. He was the outgoing head of Medicaid/Medicare. In the actual article I read, it actually stated that this led to thousands dying.
"At least Vioxx is effective at reducing arthritic pain, unlike fasting which is all risk and no long term benefit except weight loss"
Here we go again. What is your experience of fasting?
Zippola!
What a pathetic defence of Vioxx, the drug which led Dr Graham from the FDA to whisleblow to Congress.
Sure Voixx reduced their arthritic pain.
The poor patients couldn't feel it over the pain in their chests!
"Here's an article that sums up the approach to health I am familiar with".
I know you are familiar with this approach, because it is the only one you have allowed yourself to be exposed to.
The problem with this "Best Health" from BMJ Evidence Centre is that it has virtually nothing to with HEALTH, & everything to do with SBM treatments, much of which is NOT science-based, as many of your colleagues I have quoted before have said.
How do you achieve your "best health"?
Don't ask Best Health" because it becomes a rhetorical question.
If this "Best Health" was released anywhere other than your beloved drugging business, I would laugh myself electric.
But tragically it's not funny.
I really hope the EPA isn't going to come after me for disposing of this much irony in the municipal water system.
Emily, you have presented exactly nothing other than an isomorphism to the assertion that one can fly by having one's "head right" and jumping out a window to "test it out" because you say it works real good.
You know nothing of my experience of fasting. As a matter of fact in my youth, when I was interested in all manner of alternative approaches to health, I did fast. I bought a book about fasting (I still have it, it's by Carlson Wade) that promised all manner of miracles from fasting. I think my longest water only fast was 5 days, but I also did a few juice fasts and a brown rice fast. I didn't notice any health benefits at all, though I did pass out when standing up suddenly from low blood pressure a couple of times.
Incidentally, I was also a vegetarian for over ten years until poor health (I was underweight, anemic and generally enervated) led me to start eating meat. My health improved dramatically after that.
Playing with some numbers, I just figured out that the increase in risk of a fatal heart attack for a healthy 75-year-old taking a low dose Vioxx for a year is about 1 in 2,200. For a high dose the increase in risk is more like 1 in 650 (PMID:15809459). The risk of a child dying of measles may be as high as 1 in 370 (according to 'Acute Measles Mortality in the United States, 1987â2002' PMID:15106092). Just saying.
Hmmm, I notice Emily conveniently does not answer any questions regarding A) her education, B) her clinic, C) any money she makes 'piloting' people.
Further, no defense offered as to why governments who pay enormous amounts for health care (UK, Canada, France, Cuba, China, etc, etc) have not insisted on NH becoming the standard treatment for all. Come on Emily, answer some questions and prove to us you are capable of realizing that you sound like a fool as you keep saying the same thing over and over and hope we get it. Put up or shut up. (apologies to Flip)
re 547: Agashem:
I do run a clinic & yes I do charge for consultations.
I just don't peddle "stuff".
I also run seminars & courses, & I have taught Nutrition at University.
I will not disclose my qualifications as I wish at this stage to give no hint to anyone as to my true identity.
Of course you do. It's just astonishingly stupid, preowned "stuff."
"At this stage"? What's the "next stage"? Your performance has been, generously speaking, buffoonery, with the only noteworthy item from my perspective, as I've been long acquainted with this "stuff," being that TrueNorth managed to get an 80-year-old with a history of TIAs to stroke right out in the best Vetrano tradition.
re Kreb 545:
My apologies if you have had some experience, albeit as it is very limited.
BTW Carlson Wade is not regarded as an expert by the present day fasting exponents.
May I suggest, if you are indeed open, looking into this area in more detail in the years to come.
Secondly, many diets are poor, whether they are omnivorous, vegan or vegetarian.
I have seen too many 'unhealthy' vegetarian diets & vegan diets over the years.
My partner became a vegetarian after the pneumonia I mentioned over 20 years ago.
No meat, chicken or fish of any quantity. Not even a morsel. No milk. Ever! Very small amount of cheese occasionally for taste, apart from that, no animal protein.
Fantastic health, which everone remarks on.
I do agree with you about the truth of Michael Pollan's introduction. Few words, much wisdom.
Re 550 Narad:
Do you know something Narad?
Could have fooled me!
@548 Agashem
Don't know why you're apologising: the phrase is after all, a common one amongst sceptics when dealing with cranks.
@549 Emily
Bwahahhahahha! Oh thanks I needed that.
From the Wakefield thread:
I think we have known for quite a while what the truth is.
Ooh, there's a zinger. Don't you have a backlog of actual questions to get around to?
You know, it's only taken several hundred comments to get Emily to even admit outright that she has a clinic. Maybe a few hundred more and she'd actually explain "toxemia" or any of the other (hundred) questions posed to her.
I posted a little response to Emily's claims on the Wakefield thread.
It has as little evidence to support it as Emily does, but I did weave a couple anecdotes into it.
I actually liked the speech from the previous scene better, since it was more logical. However, I thought the ironic tone of this speech made for an appropriate response to Emily.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/andrew_wakefield_great_scienc…
A noble work of literature, squirrelelite.
If you weren't, you were just using it to change the subject. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that NH has the value you attribute to it; one wonders why, if you actually had such evidence, you would need to gasp and point and say "LOOK over THERE at what MODERN MEDICINE is doing!!"
Wow!! This thread still lives?? Emily is right up there with MjD.
I disagree - The Monitor of Natural Hygiene hasn't subjected us to Vogon level poetry.
I do not mean to say squirrelelite's rework of the Bard was Vogon-like, I thought it was spot on.
Emily:
Recurrent *appendicitis*? You think somebody who has attempted the mainstream medical treatment for appendicitis can get recurrent appendicitis? Surely you're aware of the mainstream medical treatment for appendicitis. It definitely prevents recurrence. If you disagree, I'd really like to know what you think appendicitis is, and what you think doctors do about it, because we have to be talking a different language at this point. There's just no way for you to say something like that if we're actually talking about the same thing.
Emily -
A few questions, to help me understand your position better.
For how long have you been adhering to the tenets of Natural Hygiene with regards to your diet?
When you fasted for 28 days on two occasions, what disease were you trying to combat? How long ago were those two fasts?
Some of the authorities you have referred to in support of your positions are chiropracters and osteopaths (e.g. Goldhamer), yet in some posts, you seem to regard chiropracters as quacks. What exactly is your stance on chiropractors and on osteopathy? SBM-style quackery, alt-med quackery, some third type of quackery, or legitimate healing disciplines?
In the Wakefield thread, I asked, do you claim that there can be not only influenza without the virus, but that there can be any disease without the germ that is associated (by science-based medicine) with that disease?
Do you disagree with the widely-believed assertion that the flu is a simple viral illness?
@544 Emily:
I have already supplied you with the actual quote from Dr Donald Berwick in the post 288 (and 292) of http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/andrew_wakefield_great_scienc…
Here it is again since you love to misinterpret/re-interpret quotes:
What he is not saying is that SBM is incorrect and does not produce good outcomes ... he is indicating that there are problems with Medicare. Again, as you have been told before, he is not saying that 20-30% of modern medicine is a waste, but 20-30% of spending on medicine is a waste (in the US Medeicare system). BTW: You added that the "suffering" yourself.
Here is a hint Emily ... if you are going to quote someone, actually use a quote, not what you think they mean.
Then again, a quote from a couple of doctors does not a case make.
Yikes - I wish there was a "edit" button for post @563 ... so many typos. I was very frustrated with Emily after seeing her trot out something that had been put to bed in another thread.
Emily must think we have short memories.
Some of the authorities you have referred to in support of your positions are chiropracters and osteopaths (e.g. Goldhamer)
It should perhaps be noted more directly than above that while Goldhamer is a licensed D.C. in California, his TrueNorth bio's claim that he "became licensed as an osteopathic physician" in Australia is meaningless and conceivably intended to mislead. Australia doesn't have "osteopathic physicians," they have "registered osteopaths," which are basically a flavor of chiropractor. California, however, does have osteopathic physicians. He's not one, and he's not a D.O.
stewartt1982
In Emilie's line of work a short memory is an asset. A short memory is vital for maintaining the delusion that her woo works.
re 563 Stewart:
Oh, I see. Dr Berwick was really referring to the wasted paper & tissues in the medicare offices. That's right- all $250 billion of it.
No- No- No, Dr Berwick was quoted as listing 5 reasons for this up to 30% waste, & TWO of them were FRAUD & OVERTREATMENT.
And in the article I've got it states the cost was "thousands of lives".
Fraud! Sounds familiar, doesnt it?
GSK fined $3 BILLION a few months ago for fraud- I suppose that wasn't fraud in the sceptics eyes, just the cost of doing business.
re 562 William of Occamslaser:
My position is that chiropractors, & physical therapists generally, overtreat.
There is a place on occasions no doubt, for physical treatment, but as a general rule, the body can recover well with little or no interference.
Some rehabilitation post-accident/surgery is appropriate.
My position regarding all modalities is the same, including modern medicine.
There is gross overtreatment.
Having said that, the chiropractors I have referred to, like Dr Goldhamer, emphasise removal of cause. They have not confined themselves to the erroneous subluxation & nerve impingement theory of disease causation.
To be perfectly honest & without wanting to offend any of the sceptic bloggers, Dr Goldhamer would crucify anyone on this blog in a debate one on one. And he won't be debating his chiropractic, but the nature of health & disease.
Drs Fuhrman, McDougall,Klaper, Ornish etc the same.
I have done many fasts, the two longest being 28 days.
"On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute in IRS history agreeing to pay $3.1 billion. At issue in the case were Zantac and the other Glaxo Group heritage products sold from 1989â2005. The case was about an area of taxation dealing with intracompany "transfer pricing"âdetermining the share of profit attributable to the US subsidiaries of GSK and subject to tax by the IRS. Taxes for large multi-divisional companies are paid to revenue authorities based on the profits reported in particular tax jurisdictions, so how profits were allocated among various legacy Glaxo divisions based on the functions they performed was central to the dispute in this case.[57]" Wikipedia
This may be fraud in the strictest sense, but I don't think Emily is really using this instance of a 3 billion dollar fine to show what she thinks.....This has nothing to do with fraud regarding efficacy of drugs and everything to do with hiding from taxes (I think I am not a lawyer). Emily seems to think all fraud is fooling the public into buying something that is not good for them. And that fasting and starving are somehow different. I need a new dictionary; apparently the one I have is defective.
Emily, are you aware that we can scroll upwards to see what people have actually written? Why do you believe you can get away with lying about what they say?
If you know him that well, perhaps you could get him on the blower, as you're certainly not getting the job done. (Although I'll give you a hat-tip for bringing that stroke-fast and contemporaneous shifing of TrueNorth "Medical Director" to my attention. It's the sort of advertisting that you just can't buy.)
Emily -
I ask that just as you expect others to read what you write with care, the same courtesy is expected of you. Specifically, I would request that you re-read my most recent post and directly address the questions I have asked, in the interests of furthering the line of discussion that you have initiated. Here are the questions again, with some refinements:
1. For how long have you been adhering to the tenets of Natural Hygiene with regards to your diet?
2. When you fasted for 28 days on two occasions, what disease were you trying to combat? How long ago were those two fasts?
3. What exactly is your stance on the discipline of chiropractic? I am not asking about how some practitioners might employ it, but rather on the principles of the discipline itself.
4. What exactly is you stance on osteopathy? Again, I am not asking about how some practitioners might employ it, but rather on the principles of the discipline itself.
5. In the Wakefield thread, I asked, "do you claim that there can be not only influenza without the virus, but that there can be any disease without the germ that is associated (by science-based medicine) with that disease?
6. Do you disagree with the widely-believed assertion that the flu is a simple viral illness?
@Emily
If you recall, in post 292 @ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/andrew_wakefield_great_scienc…
You will see were lilady write:
I never said they are wasting 20-30% of Medicare spending on something as trivial as tissues ... but nice of you to quote me in your usual manner of quoting. All of these are serious issues, structurally within Medicare and in patient treatment. Is anyone denying that? Not that I see, I'm not for certain.
Fraud and over-treatment does not mean that SBM is all wrong ... it means there are issues (serious) with the Medicare system.
BTE: why don't you actually try posting a quote, so people can see "context".
Emily, get this through your head ... fraud is bad and we all know it. Fraud does not mean all SBM is wrong. You will note that "GSK fined $3 BILLION" when they were found doing wrong and not let off the hook. Isn't that nice?
Poor Chris, still waiting for an answer while everyone else piles on.
(Please do pile on, but it'd be nice if one of the original questions could be answered after all this time)
Thanks, flip.
re 563 Stewart says:
"Here it is again since you love to misinterpret/re-interpret quotes:
'Twenty percent to thirty percent of health spending is "waste" that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by his agency'.
That is your quote above, Stewart, deliberately omitting the 2 serious reasons why people like me get very worried about your claims for SBM: fraud & overtreatment.
You then add to the quote (572)after I corrct you:
"The official, Dr. Donald M. Berwick, listed five reasons for what he described as the âextremely high level of waste.â They are overtreatment of patients, the failure to coordinate care, the administrative complexity of the health care system, burdensome rules and fraud".
Now in the article I read (& have somewhere, apologies if I don't have my references at the click of a button) Dr Donald Berwick was also credited with saying that thousands died & that the costs were up to $250 billion.
With that in mind, & knowing he used the words fraud & overtreatment, it is not an exaggeration to say that people would "suffer" (my word admittedly).
Says Stewart:
"All of these are serious issues, structurally within Medicare and in patient treatment. Is anyone denying that? Not that I see, I'm not for certain.
Fraud and over-treatment does not mean that SBM is all wrong ... it means there are issues (serious) with the Medicare system.
All of these are serious issues, structurally within Medicare and in patient treatment. Is anyone denying that? Not that I see, I'm not for certain.
Fraud and over-treatment does not mean that SBM is all wrong ... it means there are issues (serious) with the Medicare system."
Firstly, as you may not have kept in touch with the line of this thread, I have often said I very much value the SBM that is of legitimate benefit, based on legitimate science.
This is, IMO, about 10% of what goes on in any given day around hospitals & in doctors' offices.
The other 90% is SBM (seriously bad medicine).
Your line that "this does not mean that SBM is all wrong", as if that was my opinion, is typical of what transpires on this site when someone like me comes on with an unpopular opinion.
Dr Peter Lipson did it with Dr Joel Fuhrman on a previous link. Lipson attacked Fuhrman for something Fuhrman would never endorse, & that is, that diet can cure "everything".
Although critics of SBM are criticised for building the 'straw man' to attack, the sceptics are continually impugning their adversaries with statements or beliefs that were never made.
Stewart says:
"it means there are issues (serious) with the Medicare system".
I contend, & I have many supporters within the medical field, that the problems in medicine go far beyond issues with the Medicare system.
It is the foundational philosophy which runs like the San Andreas Fault through medical treatment, that needs rethinking.
Now I am prepared to debate anyone, as I have done often, in a calm & fair manner, on my beliefs that modern medicine is very often unscientific, largely unnecessary & commonly dangerous.
Now I'm off to get my references organised.
@575 Emily
About 1000 comments later... you couldn't have done this from the off? Not that I expect you to post accurately, seeing as how you haven't done that when posting references before.
I have said it before and I am saying it again. Emily, get yourself to your local hospital. It is not filled with healthy people looking for 'cures' to things like dandruff. The hospitals are filled with a rapidly aging population. The body starts to shut down. I suppose in your world, living right will mean it won't shut down.
Again, I am repeating myself but Emily you are going to die. Life is 100% fatal. Fasting will not change the end, but boy when you are in the end stages of your life, I wonder if you won't think, hmm I could have had one more hot dog.
Emily:
I don't see deliberate omission, and he's certainly talked about them elsewhere in this thread. In any case, his underlying point still stands: you are using the existence of fraud and overtreatment to completely abandon SBM, yet what you are throwing away is the science-based part rather than the part that tempts people to fraud and deception: money. You haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater; you've thrown out the baby and kept the filthy bathwater.
@576 - Emily
That remains the quote ... I've omitted nothing from the quote as far as I know. I was addressing the fact that you persistently claim that Dr. Berwick says that 20-30% of modern medicine is a waste. He does not, he is speaking of "health spending" and is mainly referring to systematic problems in Medicare, including treatment (ie. overtreatment).
You then re-interpret this quote as support for whatever you want ... such as your last post.
BTW: I'm well aware Medicare is not all there is to healthcare in the US ... in fact not being American, I'm aware that there are health systems that follow a different model than the US.
I also referred you to another post by lilady where she outlines the reasons that Dr. Berwick gives for this waste. I've never been able to find a quote of this, nor does it seem lilady has (it is reported that he said these things).
Why don't you go find the quote then? You feel some important about it that you've misquoted Dr. Berwick twice. Go look it up! point us all to a link. As for the $250 billion ... that is the 20-30% spoken of above, not some other misused money.
I know I'm harping on about a quote a lot everyone. I get annoyed when someone misquotes to strengthen there point ... especially after being told 2x that he is not saying what you claim he is saying.
My point "20-30% of modern medicine" != "20-30% of health spending"
@ stewartt1982: Emily has conveniently misinterpreted what Dr. Berwick is reported to have stated. I still have not located the actual video of what he stated, but have located an interview about his appointment by Barack Obama to head the Medicare/Medicaid office, the concerted effort of some Republicans to not confirm his appointment...based on their efforts to "gut" the Affordable Health Care legislation passed by the Democratic Congress:
www.boston.com/.../clipboard-don-berwick-last-week/.../index.html
This interview describes the vicious castigating of Dr. Berwick in Congress...as part of the continuing campaign by the far-to-right fringe to repeal the Affordable Care Act (shades of Palin's death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma")
All the "fringe" groups and the quacks on the internet are spinning his statement with their own interpretations...some quacks are even posting their "opinions" on science blogs.
Dr. Berwick is an extraordinarily competent health care administrator. He had superb credentials to implement the Affordable Care Act within the Medicare/Medicaid system. He was "taken out" by the "fringe" element in the Republican Party, because he had the ability to cut waste, to manage a cumbersome bureaucracy and because he felt that we as a great society, should be able to provide good health care to the tens of millions of people who do not have insurance coverage.
@582 - lilady
Thank you lilady. I've not had much time to dig around for sources the last few days (darn thesis isn't going to write iteself, is it?).
I think I've found what Emily is talking about when it comes to "thousands died".
From the NY Times article you posted in the other thread:
Again, I think Emily has twisted and mis-represented what Dr. Berwick says. This is about systematic problems with a system that result in errors and deaths. Regrettable, and much more should be done to prevents these deaths, I'm sure most people here agree. I wonder if medical systems around the world that are more tightly integrated have fewer deaths due this kind of mistake? Anyone know where to look for such information?
Emily, I doubt you would recognize a debate if one were scoured from your intestines like so many toxins and presented to you on a salver.
I've not seen very many posts directed towards your comments that were not calm. Some sarcastic of course, and making a bit of fun, but not much shrill or screaming. On the otherhand, your posts are full of yelling ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!!!!!!!! With your history of quote abuse, general lack of references and reliance on the anecdotal I'm not sure how a debate would go ... defiantly would need to see a very complete reference list to verify any claim you made.
I'm glad to have found out about Donald Berwick. He was involved in The 100,000 Lives Campaign, of which he said in a 2005 Newsweek article:
Berwick thought that making sure patients get medication and SBM treatment saves lives. He also campaigned for measures to reduce errors, and for respirators and catheters to be properly sterilized, for doctors and nurses to wash their hands more frequently etc.
I don't see Berwick as a good poster boy for Natural Hygiene at all. Why would sterilizing equipment and handwashing matter if germs don't cause diseases? If that was true we could just make sure everyone eats properly and fasts regularly and save a fortune on autoclaving surgical instruments, washing surgeons' gowns etc.
This thread has given me a serious bout of headache, no doubt an artifact of all the headdesking and facepalming. Where do you all get that inhumane patience from?
The words natural hygiene always makes me think of a gigantic bar of soap and a scrubbing brush the size of Texas.
@ stewartt1982: Dr. Berwick, a pediatrician, has spent the majority of his career working for non-profit institutes that seek to improve health care for the consumer, while eliminating burdensome duplicate paperwork by computerizing patient records, while also increasing health care clinicians efficiency-resulting in more time devoted to actual patient care. (See Wikipedia for Dr. Berwick's entry)
I call that a win-win-win situation.
Dr. Berwick also mentioned in that TV interview, that he has spoken to groups of seniors on Medicare who are quite hostile to the Obama Health Care Plan, having been "primed" by the disinformation coming out of the far-to-the-right fringe. He discusses that he is able to provide them with accurate information and the majority of seniors are able to understand the benefits inherent in the Obama Health Care Plan.
Let's not forget the important provisions of the Plan for kids and adults who are disabled, for people who change jobs (health insurance portability) and for people with complicated and expensive-to-treat health problems. They cannot be thrown off their existing plans and tossed to the curb and left without health care insurance, under the Obama Health Care Plan.
Why is it that some Americans are distrustful of a national health care plan? Is it just a collective xenophobia because every other "first world" nation has a national health care plan? Is it because of misplace national pride, i.e. American=good and "foreign"=bad?
Ok, this is a bit off topic but since paperwork has come up I am curious about it. I have often heard people complaining about how much paperwork is needed within the US heathcare system and I was wondering how my experience in Canada would compare to the US.
I had a day surgery a few years ago. When I showed up at the hospital I had to fill out some forms. I do not think it was more than a page or so and even with the extra hassle of having an out of province heath card it took less than 15 minutes. I did have one problem, eventually a bill for $1000 was sent to me as the province said the surgery was not covered but that was a mistake and a single, very short phone call rectified the situation.
@587 - lilady
I think part of the problem is lack of knowledge on other countries healthcare systems (none are perfect of course) ... if you don't know better, and you keep being told how America is the greatest, can one expect to have a clear idea of how the US system compared to other countries? I'm thinking no.
The level of discourse on the topic is pretty low. ie) the discussion on "death-panels" that some, especially die hard republicans, believe we have in Canada. It is a bastardisation of the truth of course (not as if insurance companies don't make life or death decisions for patients coverage in the States). Or bleating "it is socialism/communism" when the US already has so much spending towards social benefits.
Not sure where I was trying to go in this post, other than it seems as if it has to do with ignorance and fear.
@ Travis:
I rarely have to do paperwork myself as a patient, but I wouldn't be surprised if that varied significantly between insurers. Normally when I hear about reams of paperwork being needed, it's the doctors filling it out.
Just to chip in on the health insurance issue; the biggest obstacle to reform in Canada's health care system is the US, but not in the way the GOP thinks. No, it's because plenty of people here look at the mess down in the US and thinks how much better off we are with the current system even with its shortcomings... so we get complacent, and maybe a bit fearful that change might make things worse (with a glance to the south) rather than better.
Maybe we need more private care in the system, maybe not. (COI: I work for a private-sector company providing teletriage service and basic health information over the telephone.) But the debate here gets stymied before it can get at any facts by the inevitable comparisons with (and fears of) the dysfunctional American model.
So endeth my pontificating, before I run the risk of drawing out the thread even further. (Sorry. Hobby horse.)
-- Steve
@591 - Steve
I agree with you. The fear of ending up with the dysfunction, unequal system of the US makes changing the system so difficult ... of course then there is federal-provincial bickering on jurisdiction but I digress. I'm not sure what the correct balance of public/private in the Canadian healthcare should be. I personally want government to play a strong role but willing to debate just how much.
Alternative, to put a positive spin on America's deplorable lag to put a national health care system in place, it should/could present a golden opportunity to seriously look at other national health care systems. This would enable us to pick and chose the very best pieces of other systems to put in place a system that is workable, efficient and provides health care to all.
Just as a side note, the cumbersome hand-written duplication of medical notes, doctors orders and prescriptions, leads to errors in transcribing and medical "errors"...in addition to denying patients time with their physicians and nurses.
re 578 Agashem:
Agreed. We are all going to end up in the bone orchard, 100% sure.
And I have been inside plenty of hospitals plenty of times, & I shake my head in disbelief at what goes on 90% of the time, in line with my assessment of SBM & SBM Type 2.
But what people like myself, McDougall, Fuhrman, Ornish, Goldhammer, Burton, Campbell, Diehl et al are saying is that the journey to the orchard can be healthier, less drug-dependent & less painful if a different approach is adopted than is presently employed.
And a major part of this change is a shift in the medical approach.
re 583 Stewart:
"Dr. Berwick, a soft-spoken pediatrician, received his own Medicare card in September when he turned 65. As Medicare chief, he has pushed doctors and hospitals to adopt electronic health records, merge their operations and coordinate care to eliminate medical errors that kill thousands of patients each year"
.
Again, I think Emily has twisted and mis-represented what Dr. Berwick says. This is about systematic problems with a system that result in errors and deaths. Regrettable, and much more should be done to prevents these deaths, I'm sure most people here agree. I wonder if medical systems around the world that are more tightly integrated have fewer deaths due this kind of mistake? Anyone know where to look for such information?
Regarding your criticism of my interpretation of Dr Berwick's quote (ie up to 30% of medicare/medicaid spending was waste & not up to 30& of modern medicine was useless), you are indeed correct.
I would be harping on about it also, if the situation was reversed. It was not deliberate, & I appreciate your pointing this out more than once so as I could see my error.
@596 - Emily
Thank you Emily, that is all I wanted to hear from you. No matter the virtue of the person being quoted, they are not a great method for establishing a case ... authority doesn't always mean correct. But if you are going to use them please give the full quote and even better some sort of reference.
Yes, I'm wondering when "Emily" will be contacting her "good friend" "Dr. Goldhammer"...her good friend spells his name as "Goldhamer"...to come and debate here.
Might Emily give him some pointers about debating on this blog...i.e. her germ denialism, her confusion about the number of her progeny, her spouting off about treatments for appendicitis, gall bladder disease and cancer and her references to "monitoring blood levels"?
Please do invite Dr. Goldhammer/Dr.Goldhamer to come and debate here...we are all awaiting his arrival as we are worn out from debating the disease promoting, germ denying, confused and addled Emily.
Says Kreb:
"Berwick thought that making sure patients get medication and SBM treatment saves lives. He also campaigned for measures to reduce errors, and for respirators and catheters to be properly sterilized, for doctors and nurses to wash their hands more frequently etc.
I don't see Berwick as a good poster boy for Natural Hygiene at all. Why would sterilizing equipment and handwashing matter if germs don't cause diseases? If that was true we could just make sure everyone eats properly and fasts regularly and save a fortune on autoclaving surgical instruments, washing surgeons' gowns etc."
Again you build the straw man here yourself.
I have never attacked the gentleman, nor have I ever devalued any attempts by him or anyone else to increase efficiency, cleanliness, hygiene etc in medicine. All wonderful stuff.
And again, if you read my previous posts, I don't deny the existence of germs, nor do I deny their associative & opportunistic role in some diseases.
Some SBM does save lives as I've stated a number of times, it would be churlish to state otherwise.
It's the "making sure patients get medications" argument I, & those I've mentioned previously, would strenuously say is more often than not seriously bad medicine, when non-invasive, inexpensive & very efficacious alternatives are right before our eyes.
Your statement brings images of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest: "medication time".
The problem is the drug companies employ the FDA as a "handmaiden".
To Natural Hygiene? Sure thing. I do find it curious that you are now lumping yourself in with your usual nominal retinue, though.
This is merely an attempt to paper over your actual, explicit, germ-theory-denying crazy. I've asked before, and I don't recall a reply: Do microorganisms have any causative role in producing the diseases that "The Church of Modern Medicine" or some other idiotic coinage ascribes to them?
Was this another poster with the Emily 'nym that postulated on "germ theory".
"Allopathy has its theories of disease such as germ theory, herd theory & free- radical theory, to name a few. Other modalities have their own theories, such as Homeopathy with its own theories of like curing like, as elaborated by Dr Samuel Hannermann.
NH postulates that disease is caused by enervation & toxemia. I won't elaborate these fully here, but it's important to know that enervation (exhaustion of vitality) leads to toxemia.
The causes of disease are many & varied, influenced by hereditary & genetic factors:
Poor nutrition, excesses of any kind such as work, exercise, food, sun, sex etc, deficiencies, too little rest & sleep, drugs, alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, sedentariness, stress- the list is long.
By removing as many causes as possible that are within our control, such as nutritional insults (& this goes far beyond the standard "eat a balanced diet" mantra) & requires a deep knowledge of the subtle causes of enervation & toxemia, & then by providing the appropriate biological conditions upon which health depends, something miraculous happens- health improves, naturally.
NH has never purported to be the answer to all health issues, but in my very considerable experience, it has far more to offer the vast majority of health problems than any other modality, including allopathy."
Posted by: Emily | January 25, 2012 9:38 PM
@ Comrades:
I count more than 600 comments here and nearly 800 on the Wakefield thread, isn't it about time one of us challenged her to a duel? Gentlemen? Ladies? Don't look at me that way just because I have really nice gloves. Alright, I'll be a second. I think that the challenged one gets to pick the weapons. Oh good.
I'm qual'd on everything from the .38 up to and incuding an M60 light machine gun. I'm game.
(hmm. Possibly not the best choice of words).
re 572 Occamslaser:
"I would request that you re-read my most recent post and directly address the questions I have asked, in the interests of furthering the line of discussion that you have initiated. Here are the questions again, with some refinements:
1. For how long have you been adhering to the tenets of Natural Hygiene with regards to your diet?
Not perfectly, but with continued refinement, I have been eating this way for 30 years.
2. When you fasted for 28 days on two occasions, what disease were you trying to combat? How long ago were those two fasts?
Firstly, CFS 22 years ago & secondly, a chronic sinus problem 16 years ago.
3. What exactly is your stance on the discipline of chiropractic? I am not asking about how some practitioners might employ it, but rather on the principles of the discipline itself.
Palmer, IMO, was mistaken, when he postulated the nerve impingement/subluxation theory. I do not condemn all chiro work, as I do not condemn all SBM. It's when they study health from a broader perspective outside their course, like many of them have done ( Goldhamer for eg.), that they elevate their usefulness to the ill & suffering.
Osteopathy, the modality founded by AT Still circa 1874, is similarly limited IMO. Unlike your sceptic bloggers, I think there is a place in our health-care system for both these, but, like much of SBM, they don't really address the underlyng causes of disease.
5. "In the Wakefield thread, I asked, "do you claim that there can be not only influenza without the virus, but that there can be any disease without the germ that is associated (by science-based medicine) with that disease? &
6. Do you disagree with the widely-believed assertion that the flu is a simple viral illness?"
I have never subscribed to the germ theory, nor to herd immunity theory.
Just because these diseases have a characteristic constellation of symptoms in specific bodily areas with the same micro-organisms present, doesn't prove causation.
SBM is forever stating associations don't prove causation.
There is far more to the simplistic notion that germs cause disease, & I believe that one day in the future, more detailed understandings will unfold.
There are studies which show that the level of nutrition of the host can directly influence the genetic makeup of the virus, changing its virulence:
J Am Coll Nutr 2001; 20: 'Antioxidants & viral infections: host immune response & viral pathogenicity'
& studies which show the ability of the nutritionally competent immune system ( not those eating the SAD) to prevent viral genetic mutations that would allow the virus to evade the host's defences, even those studying HIV:
AJCN 2002; 75: Micronutrients & vertical transmission of HIV
And where nutrition impacts viral replication:
J Nutr; 1999; 127: Newly emerging viral diseases: what role for nutrition?
TBC
re 602 Lilady:
Thank you mam.
It was an absolute pleasure reading this again.
When you're done admiring yourself in the mirror, perhaps you could get back to that causality thing.
@ Shay:
Well... I was thinking more along the lines of rapier-like wit, whip-smart repartee, essays at 50 paces... but I think that the *challengee* choses the weapon so....
@ Comrades:
Ms E has signed off ( @ Wakefield thread).
Well you win Lilady & Occamslaser, although I am surprised at you Occam, I never thought you would stoop so low.
Lilady, I did say your personal attacks were a sign of danger very early in the thread, ( disease vector kids/ abusive mother/neglectful mother/ etc) but I was prepared to bite the bullet & continue.
With the threat of now finding out my residence (your threats on the Wakefield thread) & coming with a white hood on your head just because my views differ from yours, & perhaps, as happens in our unpredictable world, inflicting some insane harm on my family, I sign off.
Thank you to all ( except Lilady) for the intellectual jousting, it was a valuable experience for me, but I won't risk the safety of my family for one screwball.
Well-formed stools at 50 paces?
Emily lies repeatedly, and then is shocked when called a liar. Not surprising.
Deniece: You mean you want me to play nice? Shucky darn.
Perhaps Emily had a speck of insight when she called us, IIRC, *an intellectual lynch mob*...
Now, I'll go brood on that.
Aw, just when she starts to answer properly, Emily flounces off.
Darn, I would have asked her to answer my q's properly.
@614 Denice
I have to agree that sometimes on sceptic blogs the commenters end up coming off as a mob. It's an unfortunate effect of large groups of people of similar opinions on the same site, with a minority of differing opinions coming into the fray. It's the same thing that would happen at AoA though, or any other place where there is no equal division between viewpoints.
I do think it sometimes becomes a bit over the top and hard to avoid; but I also think that criticism of viewpoints is necessary and that criticism can often (especially when grouped together like it is here) be mistaken for mob thinking.
I do try and remember this though as it helps keep my posts less emotional and more based in logical arguments.
SBM is always reminding people that correlation alone does not prove causation.
Emily's misinterpretation of that as "correlation forever renders causation unprovable; I get to ignore all the evidence that germs cause disease because correlation is one element of that evidence" is, of course, completely unjustified.
At the risk of regretting it massively, what is Emily's alternative to germ theory? It's one thing to deny germ theory but without an alternative that accounts for everything that germ theory does then it is mere blustering.
Though I say, it seems odd that someone who edpouses "natural hygeine" as a health approach could deny germ theory. Why is hygeine useful if illness does not result from being dirty?
The woos only have one alternative to germ theory: it's vitalism! You need to be so filled to bursting with chi, prana, mana, *elan vital*, essence, self-healing life energy that *your* sparkling effervesent energy crowds out and stifles the miserably weak, lower-frequency life energies of bacteria, amoebi, plasmodia et al and the quasi-life forces of virii. Prayer, hope and anti-oxidants are usually prescribed.
Suddenly, dealing with vitalism feels like dealing with someone who thinks hit points and experience levels are real things, not just gaming abstractions that oversimplify the complexity of life for the sake of speed and convenience.
Though I say, it seems odd that someone who edpouses "natural hygeine" as a health approach could deny germ theory. Why is hygeine useful if illness does not result from being dirty?
"Hygiene" doesn't just refer to cleanliness even outside of the NH world. Within the latter, though,
The "Natural" was tacked on in the late 1800s; it's further subdivided into "Preventive Hygiene" and "Remedial Hygiene," the whole of which is "bionomy," etc. The system of returning to the pure way of living that existed before some sort of Fall. Germs are a result of disease; if one conducteth oneself in obedience to the Law(s) of Life, Health shall be maintained, and germs are a nonissue. Warmed-over Béchamp with an occasionally self-contradictory expression due to an attempt to roll everything available at the time into the NH tent.
Marry Me, Mindy,
From what I have read on Natural Hygiene websites it seems to be that sick people give off toxins that are somehow absorbed by people around them, and eventually this can cause them to succumb to illness, as their bodies attempt to rid themselves of the toxins. Microorganisms then move in to eat up the tissues damaged by the toxins. It makes perfect sense if you ignore all the scientific knowledge acquired in the last 150 years or longer.
The term 'Natural Hygiene' relates to the word's roots in the Greek word for health, 'hygieine', so it means 'Natural Health', and does not refer to silly notions of cleanliness and germs causing illness ;-)
Denice,
Sunshine, fresh air, fasting and bed rest seem to be the cornerstones of Natural Hygiene's techniques to increase 'nervous energy' levels to the point where you become impervious even to rabies and die in your bed perfectly healthy at the age of 150.
Watch this video there are so many people and family members that stand up at his court hearings defending him. Mothers crying because he saved their childs life that otherwise had only months to live. Everyone needs to watch this video. Trust me after watching this you will have a different outlook on him and the corruption of the FDA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1ihuZNg84
Read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/burzynski_the_movie_subtle_it…
More of the same...the money grubbing medical establishment going after him AGAIN. What has happened with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, and his treatment, is utterly defenseless. They've failed to shut him down because his treatments actually work. The evidence is there, you just have to have the balls to actually READ. They've attempted to throw him in jail, simultaneously approving patents for the drugs in question, on TOP of the patents already approved by the Dr. himself. Killing patients using protocols NOT approved by Burzynski, willingly allowing patients to die. You just have to read it for yourself, and not fall for the goons who run the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA. When our rights to choose what treatments as individuals we want to have administered to ourselves and our families are removed by those who "know best", in spite of decades of research to the contrary...then we have a problem.
silverrocket:
Certainly, just provide the title, journal, and date of the studies that include this evidence. We are especially interested the completed phase 3 clinical trials.
"the goons who run the pharmaceutical industry"
Those are the goons, I presume, who sell the same products as Dr B. but for less than the price he charges? Much, much less.
Just who is addicted to profits here?
@silverrocket
Since you say that there are "decades of research" for burzynski, it shouldn't be hard for you to bring up relevant citations.
You made the claim, it shouldn't be that hard for you to support it, unless you were a coward troll.
Yeah, we'd all be happy to read the evidence that Burzynski's treatment works. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem terribly interested in *publishing* it. He produces a lot of promotional material, sure, but not actual *evidence*. This despite the fact that he's supposedly been running clinical trials of the stuff for years -- trials which curiously never seem to end, or produce any kind of publishable data. One wonders, one does.
This is just another attempt by the FDA to discredit another brillient scientist who is on the brink of a cure for cancer and has cured cancer already without the poisen that chemo is from big pharma. To all you people who think the FDA is really concerned about the public stop being brained washed. The FDA is owned by big pharma and they want to shut down any independent scientist who discover real cures for cancer or any other disceases.Just like the patent office is owned by big oil. GOOGLE Stanley Meyer (hydrogen fuel cell). Stanislaw Burzynski is a genius and he has cures many people do the research. Dont be blind and brain washed.
This is just another attempt by the FDA to discredit another brillient scientist who is on the brink of a cure for cancer and has cured cancer already without the poisen that chemo is from big pharma. To all you people who think the FDA is really concerned about the public stop being brained washed. The FDA is owned by big pharma and they want to shut down any independent scientist who discover real cures for cancer or any other disceases.Just like the patent office is owned by big oil. GOOGLE Stanley Meyer (hydrogen fuel cell). Stanislaw Burzynski is a genius and he has cures many people do the research. Dont be blind and brain washed.
Nice double rant post there....and you do know that chemo is a key part of Dr. B's treatment, right? Charged about 10x what his patients would get from a conventional pharmacy....
I give Duke Point 8/10 for parody. Points lost for over-doing the bad spelling.
Emily -
As you were already adhering to the tenets of Natural Hygiene when you undertook your fasts, your claim that the hunger felt when fasting is "toxic hunger", and thus not a "real" signal from your body to take in nutrition, is false in your own case. That is, despite your constant declaration that the core principle of Natural Hygiene is that we must obey our bodies' signals, rather than oppose them, you did exactly that, and you have now proven that you cannot claim "toxic hunger" as a justification. Therefore, by your own facts and actions, you have demonstrated that you do not believe in the core principle that you have put forth as the foundation for nearly all of your other claims.
Have you made your position clear to the founder of your clinic?
Once again, you have evaded the direct questions, and you know what evasion means-- you are afraid of giving a direct, truthful answer. Why are you so afraid to provide simple answers to these simple questions? Here they are again:
- Do you claim that there can be not only influenza without the virus, but that there can be any disease without the germ that is associated (by science-based medicine) with that disease? Note that this is a yes-or-no question.
- Do you disagree with the widely-believed assertion that the flu is a simple viral illness? Is your fasting guru Dr. Fuhrman wrong when he takes this position?