Altie AIDS cure?

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

What, no debunkers yet?

Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of all
things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

What, no debunkers yet?

Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?

To quote Snoop Dogg, "Make it Happen', Cap'n"

Show us the cure. It would be a boon to mankind.

Otherwise, its Health Pornography, an offense to all mankind.

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

What, no debunkers yet?

Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

Quoted message said:

Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?

Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, soft-eng

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

What, no debunkers yet?

Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

If somebody is looking around for "alternative" treatments for "aids", I wouldn't want the "coconut"
theory to be missed. (Unless, of course, it's been proven incorrect.)

Thanks for lenghthening the thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?

Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
always correct.

Uh, huh.

Quoted message said:

"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Midgets mistaking other midgets for giants. Newton's "giants" were something else altogether from a
different era, not minor pathetic LPU-hackers.

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

I'd love to see it work. Let's have them do a study, expose their methods to scrutiny and we'll see.
New approaches to all sorts of medical conditions are tried all the time; the ones which refuse to
allow outside scrutiny are the ones that get vilified.

Mark, MD

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Altie AIDS cure?
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 2/13/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

I'd love to see it work. Let's have them do a study, expose their methods to scrutiny and we'll
see. New approaches to all sorts of medical conditions are tried all the time; the ones which
refuse to allow outside scrutiny are the ones that get vilified.

Mark, MD

Translation:

If organized medicine didn't find it, it won't see the light of day.

In the meantime, poeple may use it with success, then it will be claimed a placebo.

Those who have used it with success, could care less about the EGO of organized medicine.

Jan

(David Wright) said:

Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.

-- David Wright

And short pork bellies ?
--

"I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
-Yoshimo

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Altie AIDS cure? From: [email hidden] (Mark) Date: 2/13/2004 9:47 AM Pacific
Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

I'd love to see it work. Let's have them do a study, expose their methods to scrutiny and we'll
see. New approaches to all sorts of medical conditions are tried all the time; the ones which
refuse to allow outside scrutiny are the ones that get vilified.

Mark, MD

Translation:

If organized medicine didn't find it, it won't see the light of day.

In the meantime, poeple may use it with success, then it will be claimed a placebo.

Those who have used it with success, could care less about the EGO of organized medicine.

Jan

Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified and
replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that conventional docs
are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence (chiefly from the German
Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa tea to breastfeeding Moms who
are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my decision on several good studies I
have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over
Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients' Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.

Five years ago, I suspect conventional medicine wouldn't have given the time of day to SJW, but
studies, scrutiny and replicability have changed minds. That's the key.

Fifteen years ago, those advocating a role for acupuncture would have been looked upon as fringy crystal-
waver types, but now, thanks to good studies and professional scrutiny, acupuncture is being used
more and more commonly as an adjunct and even a first-line therapy.

I don't think you understand that EOM needs data before leaping to embrace any particular therapy.
As long as Alt practitioners refuse to subject their methods to scrutiny, they'll be looked upon
skeptically. If they are open, and if peer-review verifies their claimed results, everyone rejoices
and a new therapy makes its way into widespread use.

Think about it: if Hulda Clark can really cure AIDS with her herbs, diets and Zapper treatments,
don't you think she'd be happy to let fellow researchers have a look into her methods and records? I
mean, all she has to do is produce a half-dozen "cures", and a GREAT BIG ball gets rolling. She'd
get a Nobel Prize, invitations to teach at any research facility in the world, and there'd be a
Hulda Clark wing on every hospital in every major metropolitan area in the world. She'd be the next
Albert Schwietzer, for crying out loud!

Hulda isn't looked upon as a charlatan because she's outside the mainstream; she's a charlatan
because she can't/won't verify her results, yet she keeps claiming "cures" and she keeps milking
desperate people out of thousands of dollars apiece.

I hope this coconut oil thing works, but unless it can be verified and replicated, no one is going
to buy it...no one serious, at least.

Mark, MD

In article <[email hidden]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, soft-eng

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

cyberdyaryo.comf2002 1113 01.htmOpen ↗

What, no debunkers yet?

Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

Looks like it. No one responded as he wished, so he added more.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

[email hidden] (Mark) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified and
replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that conventional docs
are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence (chiefly from the
German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa tea to breastfeeding
Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my decision on several good
studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I didn't lose a wink of sleep
weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients' Mommies using herbal remedies
instead of pills.

That's commendable.

Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.

But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"

Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
toxic reactions. (Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable
logic, this is a valid conclusion.)

As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing a
trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to stop
using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Thanks for lenghthening the thread.

Sounds like something a troll would say.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

[email hidden] (Mark) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified
and replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that
conventional docs are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence
(chiefly from the German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa
tea to breastfeeding Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my
decision on several good studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I
didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients'
Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.

That's commendable.

Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.

Good of you to recognize that. Too bad all too many alties refuse to acknowledge this principle.

Quoted message said:

But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"

It depends on what you mean by "hurt." If you choose a "remedy" with "no clear proof it will help"
over one that does have proof it will help, then, yes, even very benign treatments can "hurt" you by
keeping you from effective treatment.

Quoted message said:

Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
toxic reactions.

Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening anaphylactic
reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say, peanut allergies, but
they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your contention that it is "100%
certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."

Quoted message said:

(Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable logic, this is a
valid conclusion.)

Not necessarily, since you can't even get your information right.

Quoted message said:

As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing
a trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.

Not if he or she forgoes protease inhibitors and antiretroviral drugs that have proven efficacy
and have lead to four-fold or more increase in expected survival for patients suffering from full-
blown AIDS.

Quoted message said:

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
there is no evidence existing to say that something in coconuts interfered with conventional
therapy), as long as that patient didn't forgo his regular therapy for cancer, AIDS, or whatever.
(Some herbal remedies interact with drugs, such as the ginseng/warfarin interaction, etc.) However,
we know that there are always a number of patients who DO forgo conventional therapy in favor of
such unknown and unproven "treatments." One of the memories of residency that most stands out to me
is of a patient who had an early stage rectal cancer that would have had a high probability of cure
with surgery and radiation, who instead opted for coffee enemas and megadoses of carrot juice. He
came back a year later, his skin yellowish-orange, and his tumor much more advanced, so that anal
sphincter-sparing surgery was no longer possible. At the very best, he bought himself a permanent
colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his life. I
don't know which, because the last time I saw him was only a couple of months before the end of my
residency and my move to another city.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Mark) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified
and replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that
conventional docs are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence
(chiefly from the German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa
tea to breastfeeding Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my
decision on several good studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I
didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients'
Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.

That's commendable.

Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.

But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"

Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
toxic reactions. (Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable
logic, this is a valid conclusion.)

As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing
a trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

It's not a matter of anyone being *forced* to discontinue (or denied the opportunity to try) other
therapies for AIDS -- it's the unfortunate tendency for patients to pin their hopes on a promised
cure to the exclusion of other treatments that have been shown to have some benefit. If patients are
*strongly* encouraged (by their docs, families, & those advocating alt. therapy ideas) to utilize
the alt. treatments *along with* more conventional ones, I doubt many mainstream health care
providers would have *any* objection or negative views about adding a harmless (& possibly
beneficial) thing like eating coconuts, taking vitamins, or other alt. approaches to treating AIDS.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
toxic reactions.

Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening
anaphylactic reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say, peanut
allergies, but they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your contention that
it is "100% certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."

That's rather extreme -- almost any medication you can prescribe has more chances of a reaction. So
applying this kind of logic makes no sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
there is no evidence existing to say that

You sure?

People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies MAY
be effective!

Quoted message said:

colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his life.
I don't know which, because the last time I

As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?

[email hidden] (Michele) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

It's not a matter of anyone being *forced* to discontinue (or denied the opportunity to try)
other therapies for AIDS -- it's the unfortunate tendency for patients to pin their hopes on a
promised cure to the exclusion of other treatments that have been shown to have some benefit. If
patients are *strongly* encouraged (by their docs, families, & those advocating alt. therapy
ideas) to utilize the alt. treatments *along with* more conventional ones, I doubt many
mainstream health care providers would have *any* objection or negative views about adding a
harmless (& possibly beneficial) thing like eating coconuts, taking vitamins, or other alt.
approaches to treating AIDS.

I agree that's the most sensible approach. There is an unfortunate tendency amongs conventional
practitioners to see "alties" as enemies, and vice versa.

Fact is, conventional medicine has recourse to a very wide range of proven therapeutic solutions.
Even though it has lately caught a little darkness of the heart, courtesy of Mammon, there are
centuries of excellent practice behind it. And lots of motivated people. So it is very valuable.

But alternative medicine is also very valuable. It is the only way left to explore non-money-
making solutions. When it costs nearly a billion dollars to introduce a new medication, what
pharma is going to invest in, of all things, coconuts? In fact, given the existing investment in
non-coconut remedies, what pharma with good business sense is going to _tolerate_ coconuts? And
how many practitioners get their knowledge from sources other than those that are pharma-supplied
and approved?

So alternative therapists are providing an extremely valuable function, they should not be
denigrated as a matter of knee-jerk reaction.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not
cause toxic reactions.

Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening
anaphylactic reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say,
peanut allergies, but they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your
contention that it is "100% certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."

That's rather extreme -- almost any medication you can prescribe has more chances of a reaction.
So applying this kind of logic makes no sense.

You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're the
one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I simply
pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy rebuttals,
don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced
to stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to
stop conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from
people subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
there is no evidence existing to say that

You sure?

Yep.

Quoted message said:

People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies
MAY be effective!

No, we merely point out when appropriate that there is no convincing scientific or clinical evidence
that they are. Indeed, it is really you altieswho get into fits, but the fits are over suggestions
that, maybe, just maybe, some good scientific evidence for efficacy would be nice to have before
adopting an "alternative" remedy or suggestions that probably your favorite remedy of the hour is
not effective. Heck, the moderators kick people off the CureZone message boards for such statements!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his
life. I don't know which, because the last time I

As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?

If you're going to use that sort of fallacious reasoning, then don't forget to point out how many
lives conventional medicine has saved relative to "alternative" medicine.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

...Oh the hypocrisy... Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-357CE9.10025515022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
the one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I
simply pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy
rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in
a barrel.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
the one who said that it's "100%" certain

You forget, I am the one who uses "reasonable" logic.

Quoted message said:

that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I simply pointed out to you that you are wrong.
If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like
"100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nonsense. You need to understand contexts.

It is "100% certain", in the context. The objection you use is known as "nit-picking", and this
class of objections are useless and irrelevant to the actual logical discourse.

(In a mathematical or logical proof, nitpicks would be quite relevant, actually. When applying to
real-world situations, the entire context is relevant, therefore the nit-picks are irrelevant.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies
MAY be effective!

No, we merely point out when appropriate that there is no convincing

I suggest you read some actual posts. I did not use the term "fits" lightly. To an unbiased
observer, it would appear I used a very mild term, in fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?

If you're going to use that sort of fallacious reasoning, then don't

What fallacy?

Quoted message said:

forget to point out how many lives conventional medicine has saved relative to "alternative"
medicine.

Sure. Washing hands prior to surgery was "alternative", Pasteur was "alternative"... You wanna start
the counting?

I never said conventional medicines has not saved lives, of course it has. Otoh, your anecdote was
merely a personal anecdote which ignored the wider context, hence I was pointing out the wider
context to you.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

...Oh the hypocrisy... Anth

Why are you accusing soft-eng of hypocrisy? Geez, even I don't do that. I consider him misguided a
lot of the time and often too quick to believe unsupported alt-med claims, but not a hypocrite.

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-357CE9.10025515022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
the one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I
simply pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy
rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish
in a barrel.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"