I have to agree with rational thinking. Yes it is good to listen to both
sides of an argument, but i do think the editors of quackwatch have a blind
love affair with "western medicine" anthing that does not come from Pfizer
or Lilly must be the work of a quack (in their minds) when in fact if one
just does the research on some alternative types of medicine they will often
find validity into "why" other forms of therapy work... Why is quackwatch
trying to "protect" us from alternative medicine? I would wager that people
who pursue alternative forms of medicine have often researched it in advance
and are aware of what "traditional" medicine has to offer. I would also
wager that people who pursue other forms of treatment are better educated
than most of the "sheep" who aimlessly adhere to treatment without getting
second opinions and doing research on their own. But yes, it is correct
that we should keep an open mind - even if we do not like the source.
rob
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CS>heavy metal
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:56:02 EDT
In a message dated 7/10/00 7:05:30 PM EST, [email protected] writes:
<< Subj: Re: CS>heavy metal
Date: 7/10/00 7:05:30 PM EST
From: [email protected] (rob gr)
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Yes, quackwatch is an infamous site. They are anti anything that does not
make a profit for the drug companies.
rob
>From: Pamela Grant <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: CS>heavy metal
>Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:37:59 -0500
>
>http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
>
>
>* <01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html>Colloidal Silver
>(updated 11/5/99)
>
>Someone just sent this to me. I don't know what they are saying on this
>websiteabout colloidal silver, but if they are out to discredit ALL
forms
>of alternative medicine then it is just as well my Netscape fails me. I
>thought some of you might want to check this out.
>
>PG
>
> >>
Rob: I wouldn't be so quick to write off "QuackWatch" posters, just as I
wouldn't be so willing to believe everyone who posts here. I saw some
interesting QuackWatch discussion of microwave radiation and mercury
amalgams, for example. It's much better to hear both sides of a debate,
however imperfect the discussion, before making up your own mind even if
you
have to rely on interpreted or even distorted information. Otherwise,
you're
faced with digging out all the relevant, and sometimes highly esoteric and
technical information yourself, interpreting what you found so that you can
reach an independent conclusion. Few of us have such a knowledge base,
and/or
training to do that beyond our own specialty. In fact, many posters here
are
simply not specialized in ANY particular area. It is much easier to let the
so called experts make their case, and then decide who has the best
supporting evidence and logic on his/her side. Tuning in to Quackwatch is
helpful in this regard. What are the alternatives? Even using gut feel or
intuition should be combined with as much factual information as possible.
IMHO, relying solely on your "inner voice" may simply be a rational for
intellectual laziness. Roger
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:
[email protected] -or- [email protected]
with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
