Re: Get moderators who understand - good attitudes

Very good points.

As regards belief having more to do than science, I suggest that many of us believe that nature often trumps science.  Let me explain a bit further:

In any given age, there is a tendency for many to believe that the science of the day is the final word in all things and if something has not been embraced or validated by today's science then it is not valid.  History has shown us time and again that the science of today will often be overturned by the science of tomorrow.  If not, then we would still be believing that we lived on a flat earth which was the center of the Universe that rotated around it.  Or that the atom was the smallest particle that matter could be divided into.

Lack of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of lack.  in truth, there is much about healing and nature which science has failed to grasp.  In part that is due current limits on knowledge and in part due to built-in bias as well as the fact that research is money-driven towards looking for ways to find patentable and profitable discoveries.

Medical science and practice tends to look at the body as a collection of parts and at disease as symptoms to be managed instead of root causes to be eliminated for true healing.  The body works synergistically as is true of nature itself.  As such, the body as a whole must be treated in order for true healing to take place. 

Science also looks at natural healing plants to try to determine what the main compound is that gives the plants their healing qualities.  Which explains why such a large percentage of patented drugs are based on plants.  However, again it must be stated that nature works synergistically, and that looking for a single compound which can be sythesized and patented - or for a way to uniquely isolate a single compound which is patentable - fails to take into account the supporting compounds which may be present in the plant which gives it its overall healing abilities.

One such example which I am highly familiar with is the oleander plant.  For the past half century, and aqueous extract of the normally toxic oleander plant has been used to save thousands and thousands of lives around the world.  Science has identified the major active component of oleander extract to be the cardiac glycoside oleandrin.  However, when oleandrin is isolated it has not been nearly as effective as an extract which contains many of the other compounds (and it should be noted that aqueous extraction results in less than 2% oleandrin content).  Aqueous extracts of oleander also contain a great many other compounds which have been recognized as cancer fighters and immune stimulators.  For example: beta sistosterol, quercitin and ursolic acid - to name just a few.  Science has yet to determine how all the many compounds work together to give the results that they do, but clearly it is the synergy of the compounds which is key to the results which have been observed in thousands of successes.

Now, there is one person in particular here who is heavily into science-based herbalism who has tried to label oleander as quackery.  Based on actual observation of results (and observation is, after all, a primary tenet of science research - or should be), that is patently a false accusation.  Despite the fact that two oleander based extracts have passed FDA phase 1 toxicity trials and are proceeding to phase 2 trials, despite the fact that the Turkish doctor H. Z. Ozell, who produced the patented oleander extract Anvirzel, has treated thousands of patients for over 40 years with a success rate of over 70% without any other natural accompanying items, and despite all the case reports and many, many testimonials, the contention that oleander is quackery has persisted.

In part, that may be due to scientific bias and/or scientific lack of knowledge.  Sadly, for those in the know, in great part the contention that oleander is quackery has sprung from a personal vendetta because someone who has promoted the healing properties of oleander dared disagree with the poster's contention that "the vast majority of cancers are caused by viruses" - which ironically mainstream science as well as alternative healing has not agreed with.

It should be noted that I do not recommend oleander (or just about anything else) as a standalone treatment for cancer - despite the fact that it has had very good success as a sole treatment.  Instead, I suggest that it a very good central item to incorporate in an overall comprehensive anti-cancer protocol which includes modifications in diet and nutrition, modifications in lifestyle, management of stress, cleansing and toxin removal and other natural healing vitamins, minerals and herbs.  Once again, that word "synergy".  It's how our bodies work and it is also how our healing should work.