Does this place serve any purpose?

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-
payroll?

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe that there is a huge
government conspiracy to keep these discoveries down? No. Most governments can't work a balance
sheet. How do you expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all this time. And if you all
weren't so busy beating each other over the head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might
actually learn something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to research the
topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

All good points.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the entertainment.

😉

In article <[email hidden]>,

m nesbitt said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a
pharma-payroll?

Absolutely. I know John Scudamore and "Dr" Cee, just to name a couple, believe exactly that, and Jan
Drew is pretty close to such a belief. (OK, let me amend that -- Scudamore does not think *all*
doctors are bad, just any that don't agree with all his looney beliefs.)

Quoted message said:

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Depends on how many, of course, but the "Evil Organized Medicine" crowd is confident that the
companies really don't care how many patients die as long as the costs of those deaths are less than
the profits on the drug.

Quoted message said:

Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe that there is a huge
government conspiracy to keep these discoveries down? No. Most governments can't work a balance
sheet. How do you expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

People who think the government can keep the wraps on a vast conspiracy have not been paying
attention to history.

Quoted message said:

So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all this time. And if you all
weren't so busy beating each other over the head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might
actually learn something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to research the topic
elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

Thanks for the entertainment.

You're welcome, and thanks for the good words.

-- 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)

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-
payroll?

Quoted message said:

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

Yes they do! And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is top priority.

Quoted message said:

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when the insurance companies
are coughing up for the person.

Quoted message said:

Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe that there is a huge
government conspiracy to keep these discoveries down? No. Most governments can't work a balance
sheet. How do you expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

Amazing how pharm companies can puppet governments typically the Nazi government.

Quoted message said:

So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all this time. And if you all
weren't so busy beating each other over the head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might
actually learn something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to research the
topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

Yup best bet, in here you get coral calcium and cell salts.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the entertainment.

M Nesbitt

Anth

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 1/14/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>, m nesbitt

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-
payroll?

Absolutely. I know John Scudamore and "Dr" Cee, just to name a couple, believe exactly that, and
Jan Drew is pretty close to such a belief.

Do post your proof of this statement.

Can't? I didn't think so.

So you can stop lying.

Then you can look up my posts that prove it is a lie.

So much for David Wrong.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Does this place serve any purpose?
From: [email hidden] (m nesbitt)
Date: 1/14/04 2:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a
pharma-payroll?

All drugs are not bad. Properly used they can save your life. However, to become a "prescription
drug junkie" is usually what happens.

The pharmaceutical companies are inheirently evil due to the fact that they profit at the expense of
the public's health and offer only "cures" while fighting and not offering "healing."

Doctors are a mixed bag. "Newbies", those recently graduated are out to poison the world into being
healthy so they can repay their medical loans and secure that condo in the Caribbean. Those over 55
are relatively safe. It is among this group that you will find those willing to speak out about
medical atrocities and even write books to warn the public.

Generally, never trust a MD under 55. His brain is still washed and he may not be debt free yet.

You are considered to be on the pharma payroll if the only thing you offer this group is
harassment, insults, and the advice "go see your doctor, he/she/it knows best." and only they have
"scientific" answers.

DrC PhD.

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

Quoted message said:

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a
pharma-payroll?

Quoted message said:

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

Yes they do! And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is

top

Quoted message said:

priority.

Quoted message said:

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when the insurance companies
are coughing up for the person.

The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try in desperate
circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not significantly different to that of
conventional care. Yet we constantly hear such whining at conventional medicine trying to prolong
life and alleviate suffering with methods that actually do often work. There are few areas where it
can known definitely in advance, for example, that chemotherapy is not worth a try for two or three
months, and both surgery and radiotherapy have their place as well-tested options for particular
circumstances.

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more aggressive in their use of
chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide. But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in
places with free public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried doctors
choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though there is no way they can directly
profit from it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that require doctors to be either
fools or villains. We have our share of those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.

Peter Moran

Anth said:

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-
payroll?

Quoted message said:

Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

Yes they do! And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is top priority.

Quoted message said:

But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when the insurance companies
are coughing up for the person.

Quoted message said:

Do I believe that there are medications in nature? Sure. Do I believe that there is a huge
government conspiracy to keep these discoveries down? No. Most governments can't work a balance
sheet. How do you expect them to keep a vast conspiracy together?

Amazing how pharm companies can puppet governments typically the Nazi government.

Quoted message said:

So, just thought I'd let you guys know what I've seen here after all this time. And if you all
weren't so busy beating each other over the head with personal attacks and flame wars, you might
actually learn something. I have. Mostly that, if I see it on the net, I need to research the
topic elsewhere before I rely on anything I see here.

Yup best bet, in here you get coral calcium and cell salts.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the entertainment.

M Nesbitt

Anth

All calcium carbonate is the result of deposits from oceans. You could say that all calcium
carbonate is coral calcium.

j.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(DRCEEPHD) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Does this place serve any purpose? From: [email hidden] (m nesbitt) Date: 1/14/04
2:20 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:

A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a pharma-
payroll?

All drugs are not bad. Properly used they can save your life. However, to become a "prescription
drug junkie" is usually what happens.

The pharmaceutical companies are inheirently evil due to the fact that they profit at the expense
of the public's health and offer only "cures" while fighting and not offering "healing."

[censored]. Some are not trustworthy; some are. Most are somewhere in between. Just like any
human endeavor.

Quoted message said:

Doctors are a mixed bag. "Newbies", those recently graduated are out to poison the world into
being healthy so they can repay their medical loans and secure that condo in the Caribbean.

Oh, please.

Quoted message said:

Those over 55 are relatively safe. It is among this group that you will find those willing to
speak out about medical atrocities and even write books to warn the public.

It is also among this group that you will sometimes find doctors so stuck in their ways that they do
not use the latest therapies.

Quoted message said:

Generally, never trust a MD under 55. His brain is still washed and he may not be debt free yet.

New doctors are also more aware of the newest therapies and techniques. Doctors over 55 may not
be as up on the latest medical research and therapies, particularly if they are practicing in a
rural area.

Quoted message said:

You are considered to be on the pharma payroll if the only thing you offer this group is
harassment, insults, and the advice "go see your doctor, he/she/it knows best." and only they have
"scientific" answers.

I note that your definition conveniently appears to include anyone you deem to be offering
"harassment" or "insults." And, based on your previous posts, your definition of "harassment"
appears to be, in essence, daring to express an opinion that is contrary to your "altie" beliefs.

--
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]
.au>,

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life when the insurance
companies are coughing up for the person.

The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try in desperate
circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not significantly different to that of
conventional care. Yet we constantly hear such whining at conventional medicine trying to prolong
life and alleviate suffering with methods that actually do often work.

Precisely. It's the same way we hear alties routinely castigating conventional medicine for merely
"treating the symptoms," when that is EXACTLY what a great deal of "alternative medicine" does.
Indeed, you probably remember hearing some alties say right on this very newsgroup that it doesn't
really matter what the cause of a disease is, that the treatment is based on the symptoms.

Quoted message said:

There are few areas where it can known definitely in advance, for example, that chemotherapy is not
worth a try for two or three months, and both surgery and radiotherapy have their place as well-
tested options for particular circumstances.

Indeed. And even when we know that chemotherapy or radiation therapy won't cure the patient or even
significantly prolong his or her life, there are circumstances where chemotherapy and especially
radiotherapy (and even occasionally surgery) can provide excellent palliation.

Quoted message said:

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more aggressive in their use of
chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide.

Possibly true, but I don't have adequate experience with non-American oncologists to judge.

Quoted message said:

But I can assure you, from personal experience, that in places with free public health systems
like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried doctors choose exactly the same options and at
similar rates, even though there is no way they can directly profit from it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that require doctors to be
either fools or villains.

But that is exactly what some of these alties clearly believe: That we are either fools or villains
and that we can do no right.

Quoted message said:

We have our share of those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer quackery.

Unfortunately true. Quacks like Dr. Day, for example, did, alas, spring from the "conventional"
medical profession.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden] Date:
1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more aggressive in their use of
chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide. But I can assure you, from personal experience, that
in places with

free

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried doctors choose exactly
the same options and at similar rates, even though there is no way they can directly profit from
it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that require doctors to be
either fools or villains. We have our share of those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer
quackery.

Peter Moran

All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and

properly

Quoted message said:

brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.

All you are telling us is that if you believe in a conspiracy, everything can be explained by
reference to the conspiracy.

Peter Moran

In article <[email hidden]>,

(DRCEEPHD) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden] Date:
1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <4005e961$0$897$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>

Quoted message said:

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more aggressive in their use of
chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide. But I can assure you, from personal experience, that
in places with free public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried
doctors choose exactly the same options and at similar rates, even though there is no way they
can directly profit from it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that require doctors to be
either fools or villains. We have our share of those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to cancer
quackery.

Peter Moran

All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and properly brainwashed, he/she/it
will act according to their training.

B I G D E A L

A dog, properly trained, will salvate at the sound of a bell. A doctor, properly trained, will
prescribe at sound of a bell....Ka ching.

And an altie like yourself, when properly trained, will froth at the mouth whenever he hears anyone
either criticize any aspect of alternative medicine or defend any aspect of conventional medicine.

--
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]>,

(Jan) said:

The debunkers refuse to accept the FACTS that many are turning to alternative/complementary for
cancer and with success.

Logical fallacy used: appeal to popularity.

nizkor.orgappeal to popularity.htmlOpen ↗
fallacyfiles.orgbandwagn.htmlOpen ↗

Just because something is popular does not mean it is correct.

--
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]
.au>,

Peter Moran said:

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040114203157.21029.00000082@mb-
m29.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden] Date:
1/14/04 8:14 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I have a suspicion that American oncologists may be marginally more aggressive in their use of
chemotherapy than are oncologists worldwide. But I can assure you, from personal experience,
that in places with

free

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

public health systems like England, and Queensland, Australia, salaried doctors choose exactly
the same options and at similar rates, even though there is no way they can directly profit
from it personally.

The claim that cancer care is wholly profit-driven is one of those that require doctors to be
either fools or villains. We have our share of those - enough, in fact, to donate a few to
cancer quackery.

Peter Moran

All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and

properly

Quoted message said:

brainwashed, he/she/it will act according to their training.

All you are telling us is that if you believe in a conspiracy, everything can be explained by
reference to the conspiracy.

But that's the mark of a true conspiracy theorist. Moreover, the conspiracies they refer to are
always conveniently designed so that it is impossible to disprove their existence.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden] Date:
1/14/2004 5:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> So, I've been popping through these forums for a while, and there's one thing that constantly
> amazes me. Is it possible that people actually believe:
>
> A- All drugs, companies, doctors are bad? B- If you don't believe "A", you're stupid, or on a
> pharma-payroll?

> Cuz let's be honest here. I believe that drug companies want to make money. And do they cut
> corners, engage in shady marketing, and screw around with research? You bet.

Yes they do! And they don't have the health of the people as no 1 priority. Money is

top

Quoted message said:

priority.

> But do companies make lots of money if their products kill their customers? Not usually, no.

Cancer treatments are highly profitable, typically at end stage life

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the insurance companies are coughing up for the person.

The majority of alternative cancer care is based upon giving things a try

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

desperate circumstances, and often at a personal cost that is often not significantly different
to that of conventional care.

That's mainly the purpose of some here, all of them brainwashed by

organized

Quoted message said:

medicine who keep repeating the same thing over and over, even though they

have

Quoted message said:

been shown otherwise.

Look in the archives and you will find the same things being said time and

time

Quoted message said:

again.

No one has previously pointed out that the motives behind the desperate and often fruitless use of
conventional treatments in advanced cancer are precisely the same as those driving the desperate and
even more fruitless use of "alternatives". Even doctors don't like to have to give up, and will tend
to offer anything that has a small chance of helping to prolong life and relieve suffering.

Of course, to understand this you have to regard the medical profession as being dominated by normal
human emotions and concerns, which I realise is a quite foreign notion for you and your fellow
crazies at the deep end of "alternative" medicine... Don't pretend you are " not like that at all".
The material you post here, and the people you support, categorize you quite well. .

As Orac points out, popularity does not equate to efficacy. The two most popular alternative methods
involve vitamin usage and spiritual practices, neither of have been shown to work to cure cancer.

Peter Moran

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

Quoted message said:

So you can stop lying.

Jan

$ KaChing $17

Quoted message said:

My altie beliefs are based upon an American theory of medicine begun in 1822, called "orthopathic
medicine".

These docs were MDs just as you call yourself and had similar training. However, they did not
believe the germ theory of disease. The did not believe in drugging their patients. They were
drugless MDs and as a result were termed "the do nothing theory of disease doctors."

I am not an MD and do not pretend to be one. However, a am a student of medicine and have been
well trained in two theories of medicine...allopathy and orthopathy. Knowledgeable enough to now
be able to tell the difference between [censored] and cowshit, if you wish to spit the difference.

DrC PhD.

You know, it always amuses me when people talk about drugless doctoring and how the old ways were
better than the new ways.

Because, my friends, the old ways wouldn't have been so good for me. As a long term diabetic, with a
relatively new kidney, a lot of these meds that have come out of R&D departments are allowing me to
work, stay somewhat healthy, and keep contributing my paltry sum back to society in taxes.

A drugless doctor would be wonderful, but the human body can't fix itself all the time.

And if we go back even 30 years, I'd be dead. So pharmacorps, despite their many faults, do some
good work mixed in with the greed.

But from reading the previous handful of messages, a moderate, healthy cynicism does not seem to be
appreciated much. I like my GP, my nephrologist, and my team of specialists. I believe that they
wish me well, and I don't believe that they are brainwashed or unaware of the pressures upon them.
Here in Canada, you can make just as much money as a doctor who never writes a scrip as one who does
nothing but.

And most are well under 55.

I'm not trying to be strident or bullish, I'm just saying that to classify physicians so simply is
to invite ridicule.

But hey, what do I know?

Mark

"m nesbitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My altie beliefs are based upon an American theory of medicine begun in

1822,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

called "orthopathic medicine".

These docs were MDs just as you call yourself and had similar training. However, they did not
believe the germ theory of disease. The did not

believe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in drugging their patients. They were drugless MDs and as a result were

termed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"the do nothing theory of disease doctors."

I am not an MD and do not pretend to be one. However, a am a student

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

medicine and have been well trained in two theories of

medicine...allopathy and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

orthopathy. Knowledgeable enough to now be able to tell the difference

between

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cowshit, if you wish to spit the difference.

DrC PhD.

You know, it always amuses me when people talk about drugless doctoring and how the old ways were
better than the new ways.

Because, my friends, the old ways wouldn't have been so good for me. As a long term diabetic, with
a relatively new kidney, a lot of these meds that have come out of R&D departments are allowing me
to work, stay somewhat healthy, and keep contributing my paltry sum back to society in taxes.

A drugless doctor would be wonderful, but the human body can't fix itself all the time.

And if we go back even 30 years, I'd be dead. So pharmacorps, despite their many faults, do some
good work mixed in with the greed.

But from reading the previous handful of messages, a moderate, healthy cynicism does not seem to
be appreciated much. I like my GP, my nephrologist, and my team of specialists. I believe that
they wish me well, and I don't believe that they are brainwashed or unaware of the pressures upon
them. Here in Canada, you can make just as much money as a doctor who never writes a scrip as one
who does nothing but.

And most are well under 55.

I'm not trying to be strident or bullish, I'm just saying that to classify physicians so simply is
to invite ridicule.

But hey, what do I know?

Mark

What you know is that these anti-medicine know nothings are just that.

In article <[email hidden]>,

DRCEEPHD said:

All you are telling us is that once a doctor has been educated and properly brainwashed, he/she/it
will act according to their training.

B I G D E A L

A dog, properly trained, will salvate at the sound of a bell. A doctor, properly trained, will
prescribe at sound of a bell....Ka ching.

And "Dr" Cee, faced by an article favorable to MDs, will spout gibberish all over the newsgroup. Dr
Pavlov, call your office.

-- 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)

In article <[email hidden]>,

(DRCEEPHD) said:

My altie beliefs are based upon an American theory of medicine begun in 1822, called "orthopathic
medicine".

These docs were MDs just as you call yourself and had similar training.

Not in 1822, they didn't. In 1822, medical training in the U.S. and Europe was vastly different than
it has been during the last few decades, even in the medical schools. Medical schools were generally
only one or two years consisting primarily of lectures. Any additional training in how to actually
care for patients was much more like an apprenticeship than higher education. A medical school
graduate would hook up with an established physician and learn from him for a while. There were few
licensing boards to regulate how doctors practice. Indeed, it was not until the late 1800's that
medical schools approached a form that we would now recognize and that residencies started to come
into existence for postgraduate training.

In fact, medicine in 1822 was much the way alties practice: unscientific, unreproducible, full of
questionable remedies overhyped (the iconic "snake oil salesmen"😉, and with no accountability. No
wonder you're nostalgic for it.

Quoted message said:

However, they did not believe the germ theory of disease.

That's nice. Of course, the germ theory of disease was not really developed until decades later than
1822; so it's not surprising that a philosophy of medicine begun in 1822 would not recognize it. Too
bad they didn't keep up with the times.

Quoted message said:

The did not believe in drugging their patients. They were drugless MDs and as a result were termed
"the do nothing theory of disease doctors."

Sounds about right to me.

Quoted message said:

I am not an MD and do not pretend to be one. However, a am a student of medicine and have been
well trained in two theories of medicine...allopathy and orthopathy.

Your posts are enough to show that you are not well trained in conventional medicine, as you
frequently misrepresent it and demonstrate that you do not understand even the most basic biological
and physiological principles behind it.

Quoted message said:

Knowledgeable enough to now be able to tell the difference between [censored] and cowshit, if you
wish to spit the difference.

It is not surprising to me that you would be an expert in [censored].

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