How I see it

Peter Moran said:

(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

An electric shock can induce a heart attack by causing
fibrillation. An electric shock can also cure a heart attack
when applied by a defibrillator.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer.
Exposure to radiation is also used to cure cancer.

An adverse effect of ingesting digoxin
(drug originally found in the herb digitalis) is
cardiac arrhythmia. An important therapeutic use
of digoxin is the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia.

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle

apply?).

Quoted message said:

An electric shock can induce a heart attack by causing
fibrillation. An electric shock can also cure a heart attack
when applied by a defibrillator.

Exposure to radiation can cause cancer.
Exposure to radiation is also used to cure cancer.

An adverse effect of ingesting digoxin
(drug originally found in the herb digitalis) is
cardiac arrhythmia. An important therapeutic use
of digoxin is the treatment of cardiac arrhythmia.

Ingenious.

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate and
function in arrythmias, it does not reverse them, does it? It also causes
nausea and bradycardia in normal people, which on the homeopathic
principle of "like cures like" should make it a treatment for those symptoms
in selected folk.

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the cancer
state.

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable leeway in how you
interpret such a principle it is difficult to see how it is supported by
modern therapeutics.

Peter mroan

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious
medical research funds (God knows why). Exactly the same considerations
apply to many other "alternative" treatment theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties
is actually weakening. Even after two hundred years the several
extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain quite unvalidated
(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing
for our interest, all with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack
thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic (and too self-serving?)
interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical
methods were not producing equally staunch believers until dummy treatments
were shown to be capable of producing equivalent "responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended
medical attention lead to apparent clinical benefits, what are the
limitations of such non-specific effects (we already have a fairly good
handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific
pretences as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The
power of nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and
biological treatments. Clinical Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared
concatenated

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious
medical research funds (God knows why). Exactly the same considerations
apply to many other "alternative" treatment theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties
is actually weakening. Even after two hundred years the several
extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain quite unvalidated
(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing
for our interest, all with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack
thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic (and too self-serving?)
interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical
methods were not producing equally staunch believers until dummy treatments
were shown to be capable of producing equivalent "responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended
medical attention lead to apparent clinical benefits, what are the
limitations of such non-specific effects (we already have a fairly good
handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific
pretences as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The
power of nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and
biological treatments. Clinical Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared
concatenated

Peter Moran said:

I sent this recently to the "rapid response" section of the BMJ. It was

in

Quoted message said:

response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting precious
medical research funds (God knows why). Exactly the same considerations
apply to many other "alternative" treatment theories.

Quote (slightly altered)

"Time to rephrase the questions"

Evidence that homeopathic remedies possess intrinsic biomedical properties
is actually weakening. Even after two hundred years the several
extraordinary hypotheses upon which it is based remain quite unvalidated
(where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like" principle apply?).

It is surely time to forget the "weird science" aspect of it altogether.

It is, after all, only one of many improbable treatment methods competing
for our interest, all with fairly similar levels of evidence or lack
thereof. They are all sustained mainly by simplistic (and too self-serving?)
interpretations of outcomes within the clutter of influences that apply
within everyday medical practice.

It would be easier to take such contenders seriously if there were not
altogether too many "weird sciences" involved, far too many for science

to

Quoted message said:

have overlooked in the year 2003, and also if novel conventional medical
methods were not producing equally staunch believers until dummy treatments
were shown to be capable of producing equivalent "responses"(e.g. 1).

The questions, rephrased, are "why can absolutely ANY kind of well- intended
medical attention lead to apparent clinical benefits, what are the
limitations of such non-specific effects (we already have a fairly good
handle on that) and what might be the ethics of using pseudoscientific
pretences as a therapeutic method (once this penny finally drops, as it

must

Quoted message said:

eventually for most)."

Peter Moran

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS (Eng)

1. Roberts, A. H., D. GO. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The
power of nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and
biological treatments. Clinical Psychology Review 13:375-391.

Competing interests:

None declared

concatenated

Peter Moran said:

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate
and function in arrythmias, it does not reverse them, does it?

If the arrhythmia condition is removed, does that not count
as a "cure", even though continued treatment with digoxin
may be required to maintain the arrhythmia-free state?

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the
cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt
progression of the diesease, does that not count as a "cure".

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable
leeway in how you interpret such a principle it is difficult
to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice
of rhetoric. If you recast the question of whether homeopathy
is a valid medical practice into a question about whether
"like cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd
better be prepared to defend your position.

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

But from memory, while digoxin has beneficial effects on heart rate
and function in arrythmias, it does not reverse them, does it?

If the arrhythmia condition is removed, does that not count
as a "cure", even though continued treatment with digoxin
may be required to maintain the arrhythmia-free state?

In auricular fibrillation, the main medical use for digoxin, it slowed the
heart rate but does not defribillate. Other drugs or electrical
defibrillation will do so sometimes, but they are not "like". It was also
used for congestive cardiac failure, which is not a notable side effect of
digoxin.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the
cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt
progression of the diesease, does that not count as a "cure".

Radiotherapy simply causes more genetic damage so that the cancer cells die.
It does not reverse the gene or immunological abnormalities that can cause
cancer to develop, it makes them worse. It even has limited applicability,
curing only a few cancers by intself.. Surgery cures far more cancers,
but is not :like".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable
leeway in how you interpret such a principle it is difficult
to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice
of rhetoric. If you recast the question of whether homeopathy
is a valid medical practice into a question about whether
"like cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd
better be prepared to defend your position.

I am. I said "where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like"
principle apply?" Are you suggesting that these rather dubious few cases
are establishing a general *principle* (i.e. rule or law) that would be
of use in directing the treatment of other conditions? That is what the
"like cures like" principle did for homeopathy. All of homeopathy was based
upon choosing treatments by their ability to cause the symptoms that
patients complained of.

Peter Moran.

Peter Moran said:

It was in response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still attracting
precious medical research funds (God knows why).

When I went onto milk as a child, as well as other foods, my body would
swell up until it was close to splitting and I experienced apnea. During
times of swelling I obviously could not walk.

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was
causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me
on an anti-histamine for the rest of my life that was known to produce
drowsiness.

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

The doctors and conventional medicine were far too rigid, arrogant and
ignorant to help me.

Very curious that it was only with the assistance of a "weird science"
such as naturopathy that my problems were solved.

Russ.

Peter Moran said:

In auricular fibrillation, the main medical use for digoxin, it slowed
the heart rate but does not defribillate. Other drugs or electrical
defibrillation will do so sometimes, but they are not "like". It was
also used for congestive cardiac failure, which is not a notable
side effect of digoxin.

Fibriillation was used in my first example -- electric shock both
causing and curing fibrillation.

The second example is digoxin having cardiac arrhythmia as
one of its major adverse side effects, but also having the
treatment of cardiac arrhythmia as one of its major therapeutic
uses. Do you dispute either of these?

I didn't say anything about using digoxin to treat any form
of fibrillation. You seem to have confused my first and second
examples.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the
cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt
progression of the diesease, does that not count as a "cure".

Radiotherapy simply causes more genetic damage so that the cancer
cells die. It does not reverse the gene or immunological abnormalities
that can cause cancer to develop, it makes them worse. It even has
limited applicability, curing only a few cancers by intself.. Surgery
cures far more cancers, but is not :like".

At level of an individual cell, sure, radiation does not cure that
cell from the cancer state. But at the level of the whole organism,
if radiation permanently eradicates the cancer, is that not a cure?
How about of the cancer is gone and replaced by healthy cells?
At what point will you say a cure has been accomplished?

If someone were to accept your semantic argument, they'd
have to say no one was ever cured of a bacterial infection by
antibiotics, because the antibiotics did not resurrect the cells
already killed by the infection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable
leeway in how you interpret such a principle it is difficult
to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice
of rhetoric. If you recast the question of whether homeopathy
is a valid medical practice into a question about whether
"like cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd
better be prepared to defend your position.

I am. I said "where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like"
principle apply?" Are you suggesting that these rather dubious few
cases are establishing a general *principle* (i.e. rule or law) that
would be of use in directing the treatment of other conditions? That
is what the "like cures like" principle did for homeopathy. All of
homeopathy was based upon choosing treatments by their ability
to cause the symptoms that patients complained of.

You asked where. I provided the where. Now, you are changing
the criteria, asking for an establishment of a general principle.
If that was what you originally wanted, you should have asked for
that in the first place. If I were to provide that now, how do I know
you wouldn't just change the criteria again?

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

In auricular fibrillation, the main medical use for digoxin, it slowed
the heart rate but does not defribillate. Other drugs or electrical
defibrillation will do so sometimes, but they are not "like". It was
also used for congestive cardiac failure, which is not a notable
side effect of digoxin.

Fibriillation was used in my first example -- electric shock both
causing and curing fibrillation.

The second example is digoxin having cardiac arrhythmia as
one of its major adverse side effects, but also having the
treatment of cardiac arrhythmia as one of its major therapeutic
uses. Do you dispute either of these?

I didn't say anything about using digoxin to treat any form
of fibrillation. You seem to have confused my first and second
examples.

No. Electrocution causes ventricular fibrillation. The commonest
arrhythmia cause by digoxin overdose was coupled beats due to extopics.
The most widespread use for digoxin was auricular fibrillation. Digoxin
initially got into medicine becasue it could treat oedema of cardiac origin,
and that also does not fit "like cures like".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Likewise radiation kills off cancer cells, it does not reverse the
> cancer state.

If enough cancer cells were killed to permanently halt
progression of the diesease, does that not count as a "cure".

Radiotherapy simply causes more genetic damage so that the cancer
cells die. It does not reverse the gene or immunological abnormalities
that can cause cancer to develop, it makes them worse. It even has
limited applicability, curing only a few cancers by intself.. Surgery
cures far more cancers, but is not :like".

At level of an individual cell, sure, radiation does not cure that
cell from the cancer state. But at the level of the whole organism,
if radiation permanently eradicates the cancer, is that not a cure?
How about of the cancer is gone and replaced by healthy cells?
At what point will you say a cure has been accomplished?

If someone were to accept your semantic argument, they'd
have to say no one was ever cured of a bacterial infection by
antibiotics, because the antibiotics did not resurrect the cells
already killed by the infection.

OK. There are a lot of ways of interpreting "cure", and homeopathy was
based wholly upon symptoms rather than pathologies or diagnoses we think of
these days, so unless we stick strictly to symptoms rather than conditions ,
there is plenty of leeway for argument as to what is intended. Unless you
can produce lots of examples to establish a pattern, a specific meaning to
"like cures like" we are indeed talking at cross purposes.

A couple of hundred years ago red mercury salts were used for menorrhagia,
becasue they were red. That, along with rhino's horn for impotence are
other wasy of interpreting such a principle. .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am sure you would agree that even allowing considerable
> leeway in how you interpret such a principle it is difficult
> to see how it is supported by modern therapeutics.

I'd just suggest you be a little more careful in your choice
of rhetoric. If you recast the question of whether homeopathy
is a valid medical practice into a question about whether
"like cures like" is ever a reasonable proposition, you'd
better be prepared to defend your position.

I am. I said "where on earth else in medicine does a "like cures like"
principle apply?" Are you suggesting that these rather dubious few
cases are establishing a general *principle* (i.e. rule or law) that
would be of use in directing the treatment of other conditions? That
is what the "like cures like" principle did for homeopathy. All of
homeopathy was based upon choosing treatments by their ability
to cause the symptoms that patients complained of.

You asked where

--- such a principle applies, yes. I dispute two of your examples.

Quoted message said:

I provided the where. Now, you are changing
the criteria, asking for an establishment of a general principle.
If that was what you originally wanted, you should have asked for
that in the first place. If I were to provide that now, how do I know
you wouldn't just change the criteria again?

Do try me. I would be fascinated to see how you would justify a "like cure
like" principle from a large sampling of modern treatment methods (or even
alternative methods other than homeopathic preparations).

Peter Moran

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

It was in response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still

attracting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

precious medical research funds (God knows why).

When I went onto milk as a child, as well as other foods, my body would
swell up until it was close to splitting and I experienced apnea. During
times of swelling I obviously could not walk.

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was
causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me
on an anti-histamine for the rest of my life that was known to produce
drowsiness.

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

Allergies are a mainstream concept. If you truly had allergies, we are
talking about missed diagnoses rather than weird science. Naturopathy
borrows concepts heavily from mainstream medicine. Knowledge about the
immune system, parasites, vitamins, and many other components of naturopathy
are mainstream.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

The doctors and conventional medicine were far too rigid, arrogant and
ignorant to help me.

Very curious that it was only with the assistance of a "weird science"
such as naturopathy that my problems were solved.

Russ.

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
om.au...

Quoted message said:

No. Electrocution causes ventricular fibrillation. The commonest
arrhythmia cause by digoxin overdose was coupled beats due to extopics.

I would have thought that the commonest arrhythmia caused by digoxin is
bradycardia.

Pardon my nit picking.

--Rich

Peter Moran said:

Quoted message said:

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

Allergies are a mainstream concept If you truly had allergies, we are
talking about missed diagnoses rather than weird science. Naturopathy
borrows concepts heavily from mainstream medicine..

And yet...
Clearly the doctors were far behind the naturopath, who immediately
recognised the problem.

For how long has it been a mainstream concept?

This was before there were any allergy testing clinics (which confirmed
my allergies when they were established), and the doctors in question
were unwilling to consider food allergies.

As my allergies included milk allergies, we came to a doctor in order to
determine how safe supplementing calcium in my diet with tablets was. He
said to forget the calcium supplements, and that custards and
concentrated cheese(!) would do just fine. No amount of reasoning with
him would dissuade him from the belief that this would cause me no harm.

(he still thought my mother was crazy for believing in food allergies,
regardless of my recovery)

This was the last we ever saw any of these foolish doctors. Armed with
far more knowledge about allergies than any of them, fortunately there
was little need to.

Not everyone was so wise or brave. It was about 5 years later when
knowledge of allergies began to spread. There was boy a year or so
younger than me, who was under the care of another doctor for milk
allergies and related behavioural problems. As a trial, the doctor put
him on a special "no milk" diet in order to see if it would help make
him behave.

Of course, the calcium in his diet was supplemented with custards and
concentrated cheese. No one but my mother could see the problem with
this, because they all trusted in the infallibility of the Doctor.

The concentrated milk diet obviously made his behaviour much worse, thus
the trial was perceived by all to have failed.

"Well, it obviously wasn't the milk" they all said.

Russ.

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

Quoted message said:

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor.

Got news for you. I still consider them to be witch doctors.

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

Quoted message said:

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

Allergies are a mainstream concept If you truly had allergies, we are
talking about missed diagnoses rather than weird science. Naturopathy
borrows concepts heavily from mainstream medicine..

And yet...
Clearly the doctors were far behind the naturopath, who immediately
recognised the problem.

For how long has it been a mainstream concept?

This was before there were any allergy testing clinics (which confirmed
my allergies when they were established), and the doctors in question
were unwilling to consider food allergies.

As my allergies included milk allergies, we came to a doctor in order to
determine how safe supplementing calcium in my diet with tablets was. He
said to forget the calcium supplements, and that custards and
concentrated cheese(!) would do just fine. No amount of reasoning with
him would dissuade him from the belief that this would cause me no harm.

(he still thought my mother was crazy for believing in food allergies,
regardless of my recovery)

This was the last we ever saw any of these foolish doctors. Armed with
far more knowledge about allergies than any of them, fortunately there
was little need to.

Not everyone was so wise or brave. It was about 5 years later when
knowledge of allergies began to spread. There was boy a year or so
younger than me, who was under the care of another doctor for milk
allergies and related behavioural problems. As a trial, the doctor put
him on a special "no milk" diet in order to see if it would help make
him behave.

Of course, the calcium in his diet was supplemented with custards and
concentrated cheese. No one but my mother could see the problem with
this, because they all trusted in the infallibility of the Doctor.

The concentrated milk diet obviously made his behaviour much worse, thus
the trial was perceived by all to have failed.

"Well, it obviously wasn't the milk" they all said.

Have you ever had a blinded challenge with milk products? I would not
regard the possibility of allergies to cow's milk proteins as "weird
science", and indeed paediatricians I have worked with have entertained it
as a diagnosis. Where we and naturopaths would differ is that we would want
higher standards of proof as to its existence. Its has been repeatedly
shown that many, but not all, of the food allergies diagnosed by naturopaths
or self-diagnosed by patients cannot be confirmed when the patient is
blinded as what they are consuming.

Anyway, this is not wholly relevant to my complaint about the nonsensical
science underlying homeopathy, and the subluxation theory of chiropractic,
Hulda Clark's various nonsenses, therapeutic touch and many other
"alternative nonsenses". . All of these also have their staunch believers
even though there is absolutely no scientific backing for them. They even
all have quite contradictory views as to the basis of illness.

Peter Moran

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

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

om.au...

Quoted message said:

No. Electrocution causes ventricular fibrillation. The commonest
arrhythmia cause by digoxin overdose was coupled beats due to extopics.

I would have thought that the commonest arrhythmia caused by digoxin is
bradycardia.

Pardon my nit picking.

That's OK. My general medicine is running on memory now, and I can;t recall
if bradycardia is listed as an arrythmia side effect as opposed to a
desirable property of the drug. It would make a further exception to like
cures like.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: How I see it
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 10:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

It was in response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still

attracting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

precious medical research funds (God knows why).

When I went onto milk as a child, as well as other foods, my body would
swell up until it was close to splitting and I experienced apnea. During
times of swelling I obviously could not walk.

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was
causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me
on an anti-histamine for the rest of my life that was known to produce
drowsiness.

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

Allergies are a mainstream concept. If you truly had allergies, we are
talking about missed diagnoses rather than weird science. Naturopathy
borrows concepts heavily from mainstream medicine. Knowledge about the
immune system, parasites, vitamins, and many other components of naturopathy
are mainstream.

Peter Moran

LISTEN UP!!

Quoted message said:

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was

Quoted message said:

causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

That's heard a lot.

Quoted message said:

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me

Quoted message said:

on an anti-histamine for the rest of my life that was known to produce
drowsiness.

Misdiagnoses, treat with a drug.

THIS IS WHAT THE POSTER SAID!!!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The doctors and conventional medicine were far too rigid, arrogant and
ignorant to help me.

Quoted message said:

Very curious that it was only with the assistance of a "weird science"

Quoted message said:

such as naturopathy that my problems were solved.

Russ.

it happens, over and over.

This treatment foorm conventional medicine IS WHY PEOPLE ARE TURNING TO
ALTERNATIVE.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: How I see it
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 10:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]

om.au>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran wrote:

> It was in response to a disussion of homeopathy, which is still

attracting

Quoted message said:

> precious medical research funds (God knows why).

When I went onto milk as a child, as well as other foods, my body would
swell up until it was close to splitting and I experienced apnea. During
times of swelling I obviously could not walk.

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was
causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

Doctors told her she was foolish and mistaken. Another wanted to put me
on an anti-histamine for the rest of my life that was known to produce
drowsiness.

Her (and my) last line of help was a naturopath, which at the time was
considered the equivalent of a witch-doctor. The naturopath correctly
recognised food allergies, and went about identifing each one that I
had.

Allergies are a mainstream concept. If you truly had allergies, we are
talking about missed diagnoses rather than weird science. Naturopathy
borrows concepts heavily from mainstream medicine. Knowledge about the
immune system, parasites, vitamins, and many other components of naturopathy
are mainstream.

Peter Moran

LISTEN UP!!

Quoted message said:

My mother tried all conventional methods for months to discover what was

Quoted message said:

causing it, and how to fix it. Doctors told her, while patting her hand,
that "the only thing wrong with him is his mother".

That's heard a lot.

I'm sure that whether it was said BY a doctor, teacher, or preacher, it was
said ABOUT Jan quite often.