Fuck Doctors

[compared2what?]

Vitamin C cures scurvy but it is illegal to say so.

Scurvy is caused by Vitamin C deficiency and cured by correcting it -- ie, with Vitamin C. And it's not illegal to say so. As far as I know, nobody disputes it. It used to be common knowledge, and something you learned about in grade school. I assumed that it still was, to be honest. But I don't really know. The subject just doesn't come up all that often.

SCURVY IS NOT A CONGENITAL GENETIC DEFECT IN MOST CASES, IT IS A LACK OF NUTRITION. Society is awash in scurvy like illness, and it is illegal to say so.

By definition, scurvy is never a congenital defect and always caused by a lack of nutrition. Because it's a disease of malnutrition. Like Pellagra. I suppose that a congenital condition that left people unable to absorb nutrients might lead to scurvy. But it wouldn't itself be scurvy. Because you can't be born with scurvy.

There are some societies that are awash in scurvy-like illnesses (not excluding scurvy) because they're awash in widespread famine and poverty, the former of which leads to malnutrition. It's not illegal to say so in the slightest. People just don't like to dwell on it.

And there are also some segments of otherwise affluent western societies that are awash in...not exactly scurvy-like illness, although homeless people do get pellagra, which is scurvy-like. But they're mostly awash in nutrition-deficiency disorders that are more Korsakoff's-Syndrome-like than they are scurvy-like. But whatever. They're all caused by vitamin and/or other nutritional deficiencies. And again, it's not illegal to say so. Most people just don't care.

The beginnings of most illness in otherwise healthy people in this day and age is the result of inadequate nutrition, poisons marketed as nutrition, poisons marketed as food, poisons marketed as medicine, or a poisonous environment.

I don't know about "most." Those are all bad things, though.

Society is awash in poison,

Literally and figuratively true.

and poison is our medicine.

With a few exceptions, such as chemo, false.

I think its a travesty. I think some people need a "dose of their own medicine."

Spoken like the healer you are.

[Simulist]

Fuck Doctors

Okay, but they better be cute ones.

[MacCruiskeen]

[compared2what?]

In no particular order:

Dr. Noah Drake, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, Drs. Elliot and Beverly Mantle, or Dr. Gregory House.

Any of them would be fine.

[slomo]

In no particular order:

Dr. Noah Drake, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, Drs. Elliot and Beverly Mantle, or Dr. Gregory House.

Any of them would be fine.

No, No, No/No, and Yes. Rationale: Too babyface, too creepy, too creepy2, and no explanation needed.

[compared2what?]

Have I told you how much I love your recent avatars?

[slomo]

:rofl2

Have I told you how much I love your recent avatars?

Thanks. I have another one to roll out, but I may stick with Freddy for awhile.

Re: the title of this thread. I have, on a couple of different occasions. No biggie. These days, I'm pretty attached to fucking the mechanic

[MacCruiskeen]

[Hammer of Los]

...

Who is the Great Physician of the World?

...

[Grizzly]

HOL wrote:

Who is the Great Physician of the World?

Dr. Josef Mengele? Dr. Henry Kissinger? Dr. Seuss?

Speaking of Kissinger...

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300307-1&start=5594
Kissinger - Time for a New World Order.

[eyeno]

compared2what wrote:
By definition, scurvy is never a congenital defect and always caused by a lack of nutrition. And it's not illegal to say so.

There have been cases of people who don't metabolize vitamin c properly, from birth, which is what I am referring to. The FDA frowns heavily on telling the truth about the disease curing properties of nutrition and supplements regardless if there is a mountain of peer reviewed science behind it. They destroy business daily for perfectly valid claims.

[compared2what?]

compared2what wrote:
By definition, scurvy is never a congenital defect and always caused by a lack of nutrition. And it's not illegal to say so.

There have been cases of people who don't metabolize vitamin c properly, from birth, which is what I am referring to.

As I said, malabsorption can be secondary to a congenital condition that might lead to scurvy, among other things. But scurvy itself is never congenital and always caused by a lack of nutrition -- specifically by vitamin C deficiency.

The FDA frowns heavily on telling the truth about the disease curing properties of nutrition and supplements regardless if there is a mountain of peer reviewed science behind it. They destroy business daily for perfectly valid claims.

If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.

So I'm standing by.

[eyeno]

If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.

So I'm standing by.

I'm not into homework assignments today. The web has many examples of companies that have been harassed by the fda for making valid claims about nutrition and supplements. You can easily find them.

As I said, malabsorption can be secondary to a congenital condition that might lead to scurvy, among other things. But scurvy itself is never congenital and always caused by a lack of nutrition -- specifically by vitamin C deficiency.

Whatever. Its not what you said but you do a great job of renaming things. I'm not here for the combative argument, i'm here for honest interesting discussion. Later.

[slimmouse]

If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.

So I'm standing by.

You stand right there by on that C2W. You just do that why dont you.

Ive been reading much of this thread with much reflection, and zero comment, cos its healthy to do that from time to time.

But heres a thought , which I would appreciate your input on...

Im just wondering what percentage of the trillions of dollars spent by the sick on "officially sanctioned medicine" is a complete and utter waste of money. Would 95% be a reasonable estimate ? I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?

If you, like myself arrive at a similar figure, in this age of wondrous scientific advancement which would include, if you believe the hype, modern medicine ,then dont you think theres something seriously fucking wrong here ?

I of course know there is. But dont take my word for it folks.

On edit, a link to another relatively unheard of ( by the masses at least ) form of treatment for cancer. The comments section is worth a good read in itself . It clearly shows that cancer is indeed a complicated beast, but can anyone else see what is blatently more complicated ?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... cancer.php

[slomo]

I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?

[citation needed] First of all, operationalize "beneficial", then point to the relevant meta-analyses that prove your claims in terms of the definition you have established.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php

Pharyngula is an annoying blog, and I would say that its author would casually dismiss about 99% of what is entertained here at RI. I'm just saying. But the drug he discusses is one of 100s available on the market now, and most of the others have at least been scrutinized in peer-reviewed studies, most of them in FDA approved trials. That is his basic complaint in the cited article - the lack of evidence for DCA in particular, not for cancer drugs in general.

I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but cancer is one of the handful of areas where modern R&D has actually resulted in huge improvements in longevity and quality-of-life. If you want to complain about the disease itself, fine - it's horrible, and even when you can improve survival and QoL, it's still not as great as if you never had had the diagnosis. If you want to complain about all the things we might do to prevent cancer but don't, I'm right there with you, including complaints about the resources that are allocated to treatment in comparison to prevention. (It might interest you to know, however, that the two most undisputed modifiable risk factors for cancer are smoking and obesity, issues which a large number of Americans still refuse to take personal responsibility for.) But please don't make specious claims that somehow if we all just took vitamin supplements our very serious late-stage cancers would suddenly disappear. Would that medicine were really that easy.