CureZone   Log On   Join
I wouldn't even try... (another soap box moment)
 

Clark Liver Flush
Dr. Hulda Clark’s amazing Liver Flush available here. Pure products!...



New lower prices!
Hulda Clark Cleanses



Free Remineralizing Tooth Powder!
Best Teeth Remineralization, Strengthening, and Clea...


More
More

Clark Liver Flush
Dr. Hulda Clark’s amazing Liver Flush available here. Pure products!...



New lower prices!
Hulda Clark Cleanses



Free Remineralizing Tooth Powder!
Best Teeth Remineralization, Strengthening, and Clea...


John Cullison Views: 2,205
Published: 19 years ago
Status:       R [Message recommended by a moderator!]
 
This is a reply to # 126,209

I wouldn't even try... (another soap box moment)


I used to have this burning desire to show people that I was right (and the corollary, that they were wrong).

It didn't get me very far.

I see little reason to try to change the opinion of someone who doesn't want to have his opinion changed. I have tried this. I have yet to see it work.

Then again, others tried this with me. It didn't work for them, either. My experience is that we're only going to see what we want to see, and if something shakes that perception at all, then we find some way to make it fit, so that we can avoid the growing pains that come with shaking off old prejudices.

Usually, a person has to reach his own personal rock bottom before he'll consider something new. Not always, and certainly not anyone who's already experienced a rock bottom or two, but as long as everything is "OK", people don't often see any reason to change anything, most especially their own viewpoints.

Modern, "mainstream" "cut, burn, or poison" medicine is one framework of health on a spectrum of viewpoints. It's just one viewpoint on the way things are, and not a terribly useful one, but it has its successes, and it has its financial backers, which is what keeps it around so much.

Most folks need to see what kind of harm modern medicine can do before they'll be able to see that more healthful alternatives exist. They have to reach their own rock bottom, medically.

Even among the alternatives, there are different viewpoints. The advantage that we here at CureZone have is that we have access to all the available viewpoints, including modern medicine. Each of the individuals or fields who/which have provided theories for alternative medicine have done so within the framework of their own biases and it shows in their work.

To modern medicine, this multitude of viewpoints is proof that all the other viewpoints are wrong. They aren't. But they aren't right for all people. Some methods will give better results for an individual person than others. Sometimes, modern medicine is the right answer, too, and those of us who follow the alternatives might not realize that.

Consider naturopathy. It's like modern medicine, only it finds its remedies in nature, rather than using modern drugs. It tends to focus more on nutrition and health promotion rather than fixing you up once you're sick.

Consider homeopathy. It opposes modern medicine's "counter the symptom" philosophy by using the natural substances which cause the same symptoms as the patient is experiencing to knock out those symptoms.

Consider Dr. Clark. She provides a framework for health which is fairly close to the standard American diet. She doesn't promote veganism, for example, and in fact goes so far to say that milk is the best reliable source of calcium for humans, so we should consume it. She finds fault with all the toxins and parasites in the things we can eat, and she recommends against consuming them if and only if they contain these toxic substances or parasites. She doesn't recommend against milk products or eggs, but she does have recommendations for how you prepare them to eliminate unfriendly bacteria. She developed a simple technology to help eliminate parasites.

Consider Dr. Schulze . He provides a framework for health which requires veganism. Both he and Dr. Clark recognize parasites and toxins, but Dr. Schulze goes a step farther and requires veganism. He also uses herbs a great deal more than Dr. Clark does. Dr. Clark uses her technology; Dr. Schulze uses herbs. Dr. Schulze is a big proponent of juice fasting.

Consider Dr. Burroughs. He provides an extremely simple fasting program to handle virtually any problem. It's like taking Dr. Schulze's juice fasting and making it as simple as it could possibly be. He has his own technology of colored light for healing.

Consider Chinese medicine. This is a form of naturopathy which is extremely old and has a lot of experience to draw from, as well as a lot of herbs which we wouldn't usually consider here in the west. It has a much more spiritual viewpoint of the body than modern medicine, but since modern medicine has mostly declared God dead, modern medicine really cannot understand spirituality and especially not why Chinese medicine works, except by analyzing the chemical substances of the herbs.

And so it goes.

Each framework works. Each one is dramatically more helpful than modern medicine in most (but not all) cases (no amount of juice fasting is going to repair a compound fracture). Wherever modern medicine fails, these other frameworks can easily come to the rescue, but modern medicine fell into a bias trap.

Standard medical doctors (M.D.'s) are practitioners of modern medicine. They have never been taught anything but cut, poison, burn. Often times, they believe in their own importance, and the importance of being able to name all the bones in the human body. They have degrees and certificates and the respect of their peers and they even have titles, not like us regular folks. Clearly, they're better than us. (This, of course, is a generalization, and no, not every M.D. is like this.) CERTAINLY they know better than you do what's good for your body. That's what they spent twelve years going to school for.

It rarely occurs to them that a healthier alternative exists. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail." This is modern medicine in a nutshell. And by attempting to demonstrate that other tools exist, you come perilously close to invalidating twelve years of schooling, however long the internship lasted, and whatever other experience the doctor has acquired.

What if someone could show *you* that everything you knew -- everything -- was wrong?

No, that's (probably! *grin*) not what you're trying to do at all, but when someone is stuck behind that much professional bias, an attack on any one datum is confused with an attack on the whole body. THAT cannot be allowed to happen. That's end of the world kinda stuff. Here this doctor probably had some desire to help people, spent all this effort working to gain the government-granted right to do it, and then some know-nothing patient comes in and tries to prove him wrong?!? Not likely!

And guess what happens when he brings it up in the lunchroom with the other M.D.'s? They all have a good laugh about the stupid gall bladder patient who thinks she can fix her gall bladder by drinking oil.

I've seen this too many times to expect otherwise. It *could* happen, I suppose, that your doctor will see the light, but even if your ultrasound shows no stones, chances are that he'll come up with some way to think around the obvious. ("I guess sometimes stones don't always show up in the ultrasound." or some such.) You have to look to see.

My advice is to let your doctor have his bias.

=-John-=
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  curezone.org

1.188 sec, (4)