Date:   9/16/2010 3:50:50 AM ( 14 y ago)
Hits:   3,345
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1690156

 Of the people I know, most have no interest in searching the internet to find answers to their health problems. Those who do, don't wade through scientific studies.

Yet there are a lot of people who are looking for scientific validation to therapies.  

Perhaps Curezone's drop in rankings is due to more people seeking help from MD's and hospitals, and fewer people seeking natural methods.

But again studies haves shown that the number of people seeking allopathic treatments is declining while people seeking alternatives is on the rise.  This trend has been going on for a while, which is why the FDA is trying harder than ever to crack down on alternatives.

It's human nature to seek the easy way. Taking antibiotics and other drugs and having surgery is what most people do, rather than learn how to fast and self-experiment with herbs and change our eating habits.

But many people are coming to the realization that these are not real answers and the risks often outweigh potential benefits, which is why they are seeking alternatives.

I don't see Mercola's site as truly natural healing. He advocates - and sells - numerous artificial supplements that I personally consider toxic.

Artificial does not automatically mean toxic any more than natural means safe.  What's more toxic?  Artificial vitamin C or natural foxglove? Granted I am not a big fan of many artificial supplements either, but again natural is not always safe either.  So that myth needs to be nipped in the bud.

I place zero faith in scientific studies. I always wonder who funded the research. Was it a pharmaceutical company or a certain food industry, etc.? They're the ones with the money to fund studies. For example, years ago, Harvard University came out with a study saying that sugar is good for you.

So who funded all the studies I posted proving the effectiveness of herbs, supplements and ozone?  And what are we supposed to rely on? Hearsay? Unsubstantiated personal claims?  Sales hype?  Internet websites reposting the same hype and even hyping things more?

I think what's happening on Curezone is that some people are seeking a scientific route to healing. They believe in scientific studies to the exclusion of everything else and I know many people who have that belief system.

We apparently know very different people.  

Then there is another school of thought on Curezone that is based not on scientific studies but on the works of various self-taught people who have helped themselves and others overcome disease. They have no studies, for they have no money to fund studies. All they can do is share what they've learned and try to help others.

And when this happens people are usually doing a multitude of things so they have no idea what really worked since most of what they are doing has no basis.  So they ASSUME that ______ cured them and they pass on this information.  But what if that was not what really worked but rather it was some other change they made such as reducing stress or a change in diet, or...............   See the problem with this line of reasoning?

There is much conflicting information on Curezone, however such is the nature of freedom of speech. I do think that it's wise to be very careful who we take advice from when it comes to our health.

Or as I encourage people to do is to research the claims.  And I don't mean from other hype sites.

As an example a while back I had talked to a lad about her leukemia.  But she said she was absolutely against alternative medicines since in her words she had spent $10,000 already in Mexico for a quack treatment.  So I asked about more details and she said she bought this liquid for cancer and when she drank it she started throwing up a "black tar".  Well, it was pretty clear what happened. She was drinking laetrile concentrated for intravenous, not oral use.  When this highly concentrated laetrile is ingested orally it reacts with the stomach acid releasing cyanide.  So who is really to blame here?  The people who sold her the laetrile or her for not taking 15 minutes at the local library to research what she was plunking down $10,000 on?  Want to take a guess as to what my answer would be?

People need to learn to take some responsibility for their own health.  For example you cannot make a smoker with lung cancer quit smoking.  The need to do that for themself.  You cannot make a alcoholic with liver cirrhosis quit drinking.  They need to make that decision for themself.  If people want to go with either mainstream or alternative medicine they should also put forth some effort.  This includes researching what they are doing if they want to try and avoid the pitfalls.  Would you have a body part removed just because a doctor says it should be removed?  What if the doctor is wrong?  What if there is some way to avoid having the part removed?  So do you just follow the doctor's advice or do you do your research first before the doctor does something that is irreversible? Alternatives also carry risks.  For example, someone with real gallstones doing a "liver flush" can lodge one in the bile ducts requiring emergency surgery.  So should someone just do a "liver flush" without bothering to look in to the risks just because someone here recommends it?  And if someone does not bother to research the "flushes" and ends up in emergency surgery again who is to blame?

These two schools of thought will always conflict with each other and it is a wonder that they can co-exist on Curezone.

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.00 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1690156