Oh, I thought by "proper doctor" you meant one who would prescribe pills that cost $100 each and list the following possible side effects: vomiting, headaches, rashes, death, chills, fever, leg cramps...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 3:02 PM, salyavin808 <[email protected]> wrote: ---In [email protected], <sharelong60@...> wrote : dear Salyavin even though it frightens me to ask: exactly how do you define "proper doctor?" One that doesn't prescribe you untested snake oil or placebo's obviously. Someone with an actual medical training perhaps, who can spot health problems and actually do something about them rather than wave a hand over you while chanting in sanskrit. Didn't we have this conversation last week? On Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:14 PM, salyavin808 <[email protected]> wrote: ---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : On 08/21/2014 10:09 AM, salyavin808 wrote: >>> >>>>Doesn't your Royal Family use homeopathy? >>>Oh well, it must be true then. I suppose wearing a crown makes you immune from errors of reasoning. >>Well, I was kidding you, of course. >> >> Even Turq once disagreed with Curtis anti-homeopathic stance because he had actually found a homeopathic substance useful. There's something to the science even if it twiddles the mind of a high school trained scientist. >>>That's the point, there is nothing to the science. That's why we do science, to work out what's real from what isn't, there's nothing like blind testing to give the lie to dodgy claims. Like we did with astrology and all sorts of other nonsense. Check the periodic table posted by MJ earlier for details. >>>:-D >>>> >>Problem is the naysayers are "often reviewing a movie without having seen it." These ideas sound wacky to them until the "white coats" adopt it for their mainstream medicine (as has happened with some of ayurveda). >= >> >>You actually can get homeopathy on the National Health in the UK but there is >>a campaign to stop it as using tax payers money to fund something you can >>demonstrate is ineffective when there are so many people with health problems >>that simply drinking water given to you by someone friendly won't cure, the >>money should go to effective and tested treatments. >= >I would say that until something is tested it shouldn't be described as >medicine (this happens here anyway) if ayurvedic treatments survive double >blind tests then yes, they should be included in public health programmes. But >as it is it's not a system of knowledge but a set of folk beliefs, some of >which are known to be seriously dangerous. Testing is expensive though so I >fall back on my trusty old maxim: try ayurveda until there is something wrong with you, then go see a proper doctor. > >> >= >> >> >>>> >>>>On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:59 AM, "Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Michael, are you being paid by Big Pharma?! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:47 AM, "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What everyone on FFL needs on their wall >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/10/handy-alternative-therapy-flowchart.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Reason Stick: A Handy Alternative Therapy Flowchart >>>>>Believe it or not, I don't really have a particular interest in alternative therapies, I just can't help picking at the scabs of alt-med credulity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>View on crispian-jago.blogspot... Preview by Yahoo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
