Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- From: "Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:37:48 +1000
<SNIFFFThis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193548706.826689.283220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 27, 9:26 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Surely no one really believes that either BIg Pharm or big industry cares
about what is said here, especially by the likes of JOHN, Ilena, Jan Drew
and the others who regularly resort to such taunts.
"You are only being paid to say that" is a debating tactic, or, more
accurately, a plot to avoid being drawn into a debate and out of one's
depth so far as medical knowledge or science is concerned. Most of
the
"issues" discussed here are readily disposed of by the extant science but
only one side wants to delve deeply into that and risk being proved
wrong.
This is a discussion group as it would appear for the discussion of
alternative
health care practices, what would be the point Peter, of any
reasonable person
to make any type of argument against any type of alternative health
care
treatments for which they have no real expertise but have only read
either
internet websites, other people's opinions, or have been advised by
others
that anything out of the realm of conventional medicine is useless.
That's a good question. I am involved with so-called "alternative"
medicine because of my experiences with cancer patients. See my web site
www.cancerwatcher.com. Cancer patients are being mercilessly fleeced and
misled by quacks and it is quite easy to prove that by an examination of
their own true results, whenever they let us get hold of them . See
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm
This situation is tolerated and even defended by "alternative" medical
supporters whose "real expertise" is certainly derived from " internet
websites, other people's opinions" and their inability to objectively and
informedly assess the meaning of their own medical experiences.
Unlike many other skeptics I believe that inactive treatment methods can
"serve as medicine" for many people with some kinds of symptom and probably
help relieve some of the exigencies of life. But treating serious
illnesses is a different matter, and "alternative" medical claims go far
beyond what placebo medicines can actually do.
There are the
cut and pasters that spend their time in pubmed looking specifically
for case
studies to defeat the opinions of those individuals that enjoy certain
types of
alternative health care.
What do you suppose might be their motives
in their
actions? If there is clearly nothing in it for them, then why spend
countless
hours in pubmed looking for specific studies (some studies may have
been
funded by conventional medicine supporters, and corporations)?
It usually only takes a few minutes to find material that contradicts most
major alternatte claims.
I can see your point, but I can also see the other side of the coin as
well.
It is not clear what point you are trying to make. If you have evidence
for what you believe you shouldn't need to be bothered by what skeptics say.
Just produce it. But be aware that major medical claims, such as those to
do with serious or life-thertening illnesses do require major evidence,
whether "alternative" or "conventional". Who would argue otherwise?
PM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- From: SNIFFFThis@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- References:
- Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- From: SNIFFFThis@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- From: SNIFFFThis@xxxxxxxxx
- Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- Prev by Date: Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- Next by Date: JOIN WWW.A2ZLEARNING.ORG TO GET FREE STUFF
- Previous by thread: Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- Next by thread: Re: Flacks, Lobbyists, Paid Shills, etc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
