Cayanne Pepper?

[Watchful]

Exactly! THOliver--very good post. Nice, concise, and balanced.

I also agree with it!

 

[Don Rearic]

Don, you can't seriously believe some of your statements, do you?

I took your last statement and wanted to address it first.

Yes, I seriously believe, 100%, what I stated above.

The problem is - you're looking desperately to be offended and anyone seeking offense will surely find it.

What that means is this, what I said was NOT out of line at all. The medical community is filled full of callous, lying profiteers just like any other BUSINESS, now - do you understand?

Yes, I believe and it's not opinion, it's a fact. We cannot blindly trust people because they are doctors and scientists and if this statement offends you, I'm sorry about that.

To continue:

You know what would be interesting? If all the people who badmouthed modern medicine gave up all the benefits they've received from it over the years. This includes every innoculation, vaccination, and even--yes--aspirin they've taken. There's a reason people used to die at 35. Hell, almost all of us would be dead by smallpox right now.

There is a lot of truth in that. But, then again, what I stated before does not attempt to negate what you are saying. You also have to realize that medicine 100 years ago was a lot more humanitarian than it is now. It's more agenda driven and infected with politics and business now.

In the context of some of the information in/on this forum, I guess we wouldn't have to give up aspirin as that can be found in nature, yeah?

Or, are you speaking solely about store-bought, pharmaceutical grade aspirin? We could look to Bayer and one of Bayer's parent companies for an interesting look at what "medicine" can do when politics get involved with medicine, ya think?

So where's the witch-doctoring? Is it witch doctoring that a small amount of mercury is added to thimerosal to kill off bacteria that might make our kids sicker, and that a microscopic dose of mercury is not in any way harmful, but a large dose in fish can?

There is no proof that eating large fish is going to hurt you. You can cite whatever you desire.

As for the mercury added to thimerosal, you can't seriously believe what YOU are saying now can you?

Or is it that when it comes to modern medicine, you may not know what you're talking about?

Tell me about doctors infecting black men with sexually transmitted disease (syphillis, wasn't it?) and pregnant women being exposed or otherwise contaminated with radioactive isotopes, tell me about medicine.

Further, my wife works in modern medicine, OK? It's all about the money my friend. It is about NOTHING else. There are lifesaving drugs out there that people cannot afford and they die because they cannot afford them or insurance, is this my opinion as well?

All of that leads to me not TRUSTING any of them. That also doesn't mean I won't seek medical care. Your "all or nothing, if you don't kiss the ass of modern medicine you must give up aspirin" argument is childish and defensive in the extreme.

This is clearly your opinion, but I find it incredible that when medicine finds a relatively low cost preventative for cancer, why not use it?

You know why they have to make it mandatory? Because under-educated folks, who think that modern medicine is a government conspiracy while simultaenously reaping all the benefits of it (like staying alive), won't let the government do three little shots that will save 70% of their daughters' lives.

Figures lie and liars figure. Desperate in a debate? In order for your little statistic to be true, 70% of women would have to die from that form or couple forms of cancer, is that your claim? Isn't heart disease or breast cancer more in line with this statistic, ya think?

Never confuse an education for intelligence. You obviously have an education, the other is not self-evident at this time.

We could save 70% of children who will grow to develop diabetes as adults if we would remove ALL sugar from their diets, do you support the government taking custody of children who have "undereducated" parents who won't follow that guideline, if not, why? That's easy! The only side benefit of totally eliminating sugar from the diet of a child is HEALTH, no side-effects except Kellogg's and Domino Sugar loses out, please answer.

We can handle cigarettes and Trans-Fats later today if you wish.

 

[conan1]

Somehow I don't think I'm the only one that wants to make up a batch of this tincture. I may be suffering from internal bleeding

 

[Culhain]

I've heard that urine is sterile and can be used to flush a wound in an emergency. Is there any truth in this?

 

[Don Rearic]

I've heard that urine is sterile and can be used to flush a wound in an emergency. Is there any truth in this?

Check this out. Kid gets circumcised, right? Urologist says to use Neosporin not only to promote healing (dissolving sutures) but to provide a barrier so urine does not hit it which will a. burn like hell and b., possibly cause infection.

Nurse that gives final instructions tells us urine is "sterile" so, don't worry about that.

See what I mean? You have to be careful when your dealing with anyone nowadays, it's not just the medical profession - ALL professions. Cholesterol good, cholesterol bad, no, three years later, wait - there is good and bad cholesterol. So much that is sworn to as Gospel ends up being wrong after the next "study."

 

[nemoaz]

Nurse that gives final instructions tells us urine is "sterile" so, don't worry about that.

Nurses follow doctors orders. Not the other way around.

It's sterile unless it isn't. And the hospital is full of people with urinary infections. Second point, even if it's sterile, it may well be either acidic (more likely in dehydration, diarrhea or starvation which might be common in a survival situation) or alkaline. Not good on a wound. I guess it would depend on how bad I needed to irrigate a wound. But more than likely, I wouldn't do this. (I just don't like to say never. You guys are very creative with your hypotheticals.)

Leave the urine for Bear Grylls' headgear.

 

[Don Rearic]

Nurses follow doctors orders. Not the other way around.

I don't care if you roll your eyes, I don't care if you believe it or not. The f*ckin' doctor didn't write what she said on the final instructions before discharge, she kicked in her two cents that "urine is sterile." Now, suck on that Kemosabe!

 

[nemoaz]

Calm down, brother. The comment was NOT "rolling eyes" at you, it was "rolling eyes" at the nurse who told you something opposite of what the doctor told you.

 

[Don Rearic]

She needed her eyes rolled! Thanks for the clarification. I go out to get the car and she is taking the catheter out of my son's hand and he winces and she says to him, "I could make it hurt a lot more." My wife was about ready to beat the sh*t out of her. People in medicine, just like any other profession, in the immortal words of Howard Hughes, "wear no awe-inspiring robe of virtue with me." Howard wasn't talking about medical personnel, he was talking about the President.

 

[nemoaz]

She sounds like an ogre. I would guess that most go into the medical and nursing professions with the best of hearts and intentions. Some lose their way along the path.

What she said was perilously close to criminal assault and in any event would be frowned upon by her nursing board.

 

[LittleHairyApe]

She needed her eyes rolled! Thanks for the clarification. I go out to get the car and she is taking the catheter out of my son's hand and he winces and she says to him, "I could make it hurt a lot more." My wife was about ready to beat the sh*t out of her. People in medicine, just like any other profession, in the immortal words of Howard Hughes, "wear no awe-inspiring robe of virtue with me." Howard wasn't talking about medical personnel, he was talking about the President.

Don,
I'm with you 100%, not only in this quote but with the entire thread. I think you have put the information out there very well. As for Watchful, well I can say I used to believe as he did. His posts are sort of painful to read, because they reflect a naivete that I am embarassed to admit I once had too. The worst part is being ashamed to know that medicine is yet another mess, along with education, civil liberties, the judicial system, and the honey bees (to name a few), that we leave to the next generation worse off than it was given to our generation. I think the least we owe them is to tell them the truth, and that you have, in my opinion, rendered it as well as possible.:thumbup:
Harry

 

[Watchful]

Don,

What that means is this, what I said was NOT out of line at all. The medical community is filled full of callous, lying profiteers just like any other BUSINESS, now - do you understand?

Like any other business, there are those in medicine who do not have the purest intentions. I wouldn't say "filled." You paint with too broad a brush: do you mean researchers? Doctors? Nurses? Administrators? Insurance liaisons? Lab techs?

Yes, I believe and it's not opinion, it's a fact. We cannot blindly trust people because they are doctors and scientists and if this statement offends you, I'm sorry about that.

A fact is something supportable by evidence, not anecdotes and examples. I DO however agree that not everyone can be trusted. That's why there are a series of checks and balances designed to limit the damage that could be done. It's not a perfect system, of course, as there are thousands of cases (out of millions) that turn out to be anything from "unfortunate" to "tragic." But it's a pretty good system that's kept you and me alive up to this point.

Tell me about doctors infecting black men with sexually transmitted disease (syphillis, wasn't it?) and pregnant women being exposed or otherwise contaminated with radioactive isotopes, tell me about medicine.

You also forget trephination, leeches, bloodletting, amputation for minor wounds, and a ton of other specific practices. Tell when the last time a young black male was infected intentionally with a disease. And at whose orders. Or when a pregnant woman was intentionally exposed to harm. You're looking at incredibly rare and bizarre examples of things that happened a long time ago.

Seriously, if THESE are your reasons to bad-mouth the entire medical community you actually depend on... well... hey, okay. Nothing anyone says is likely to convince you.

Further, my wife works in modern medicine, OK? It's all about the money my friend. It is about NOTHING else. There are lifesaving drugs out there that people cannot afford and they die because they cannot afford them or insurance, is this my opinion as well?

No, but this doesn't appear to be your argument. This is the first you've talked about this. I agree that money drives medicine. As you know, money also drives government, transportation, scientific funding, the military, the arts, and me. This is a non-argument.

All of that leads to me not TRUSTING any of them. That also doesn't mean I won't seek medical care. Your "all or nothing, if you don't kiss the ass of modern medicine you must give up aspirin" argument is childish and defensive in the extreme.

I appreciate your honesty here, and I'll be honest that I would never consider--for a second--denying somebody the benefits of medicine simply because they either reject modern medicine or, possibly in your case, have personal issues with it from things that may have happened to you.

Figures lie and liars figure. Desperate in a debate? In order for your little statistic to be true, 70% of women would have to die from that form or couple forms of cancer, is that your claim? Isn't heart disease or breast cancer more in line with this statistic, ya think?

You're correct here, and I am incorrect: 70% of women will *not* die of cervical cancer, and reading your response, it is the logical complaint to my claim. I stand corrected by saying: these innoculations will eliminate 70% of cervical cancer deaths in women so innoculated.

We could save 70% of children who will grow to develop diabetes as adults if we would remove ALL sugar from their diets, do you support the government taking custody of children who have "undereducated" parents who won't follow that guideline, if not, why? That's easy! The only side benefit of totally eliminating sugar from the diet of a child is HEALTH, no side-effects except Kellogg's and Domino Sugar loses out, please answer.

This is introducing a new thread into your claims, but I'll bite.

I am not aware of any evidence that we could save 70% of children from diabetes, but let's say there is evidence to this hypothesis. If we remove *all* sugar, of course, the kids will become malnourished... but I assume you mean "all supplementary or added sugar."

Adding sugar to food products is not in any way detrimental. It's the cumulative effect of eating lots of sugars that can produce diabetes. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with eating a greasy burger with bacon and cheese... but eat that every day for a year, and you'd be in bad shape. So what's your point?

That the government should step in and take custody of kids who do? What sort of assumption or claim is that? Where does that follow?

I didn't mean to derail this thread, if I did, by claiming that there's no evidence to support some of the outlandish claims one person made about cayenne pepper.

So Don--

If some guy came up to you in a parking lot and said that cayenne pepper can cure drowning victims, would you believe him? Or would you ask "How good is your evidence?"

*That* was my point.

Don,...(Watchful's) posts are sort of painful to read...

Harry, with all due respect, don't read my posts. Save yourself some pain.

 

[mmmotorcycle]

Thanks for everyones help. I didn't think this would stir up a debate but since it has evolved as such i have come to a conclusion, finally.

To have some of this cayenne pepper as a last option in a first aid kit undoubtably is a good idea but to use as a routine remedy is not such a great option.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[Don Rearic]

Don,

Like any other business, there are those in medicine who do not have the purest intentions. I wouldn't say "filled." You paint with too broad a brush: do you mean researchers? Doctors? Nurses? Administrators? Insurance liaisons? Lab techs?

A majority is 51% and I think the majority of people who get into healthcare get into it because it interests them and after some tough years of schooling and being abused by hospitals who make them work long hours for little pay - they get to live very, very well.

There is nothing terrible about that until the greed of insurance companies and a host of other things make them work in another format more akin to a chain karate school instead of a place that is supposed to cure ills and save lives.

A fact is something supportable by evidence, not anecdotes and examples. I DO however agree that not everyone can be trusted. That's why there are a series of checks and balances designed to limit the damage that could be done. It's not a perfect system, of course, as there are thousands of cases (out of millions) that turn out to be anything from "unfortunate" to "tragic." But it's a pretty good system that's kept you and me alive up to this point.

Yeah, like most statistics, what you say can be so horrific that it gets buried under the numbers. I am in no way comparing you to Stalin, we're just two people who vehemently disagree with each other on this issue, so don't take offense at this. Stalin once said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

Stalin had an incredible moment of lucidity.

Another reason I don't trust, and I mentioned this entity in an earlier post, The Journal of The American Medical Association and other, similar entities, is because of their twisting of gun control-death-crime statistics to fit their agenda as well. Johns Hopkins is a world-renowned teaching and research hospital. They more or less twisted the truth when it came to owning a gun in the home and if they twist one bit of research, they'll twist another.

Getting back directly to medicine, there are well over 80,000 preventable deaths directly caused by the medical community every year in this country. I think in some years it is over 100,000 yearly. I'm in a bit of a rush today but the stats on that are easily found. Can those stats be believed? I don't know, but if they're telling us 80 to 125 thousand, I shudder to think what might be hidden for fear of some terrible backlash against the medical community in the legal arena.

One hospital in Baltimore suffered the same type of tragic "error" within a month or two - that of amputating the wrong limb of a patient leaving them a double amputee after the mistake and "error" was figured out and the correct limb was then amputated. In another case I read about a couple years ago, an older gentleman went in for either prostate or bladder cancer surgery and they removed his penis and testicles as well, without his specific consent to do that - upon examination and testing it was found there was no cancer present in the penis or testicles.

I'm a republican, these cases are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I don't consider myself a republican anymore. I am, as Gerald Celente once remarked about himself, a "political atheist." I don't believe ANY of them until proven otherwise. The reason I have arrived at this place is because the republican party, through bribes in the healthcare industry, have their tongue firmly stuck up the doctor and hospital lobby's O-Ring. They wish to limit lawsuits and the amount you can sue for malpractice. To me, this is looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope - you should be working to limit the horrors of hospitals who don't care and doctors that work in them and don't care either.

At least one hospital in Los Angeles is still dumping people off on skid row after treating them.

These are not "urban legends" they are not mere anecdotes meant to shock or entertain, they are FACTS. They are FACTS, they happened, and this is not even the tip of the iceberg of the problem.

Just because they didn't come out of some type of peer-reviewed study makes them no less powerful to the thinking person. There are far too many instances in life where the foxes get to guard the henhouse. Cops blast someone, who investigates? Other Cops. Some times the Cop(s) doing the shooting is the bug, sometimes they're the windshield - totally dependent on the political winds blowing that day OR corruption and a mistaken, perverted notion of "brotherhood" more suitable for outlaw biker gangs than public servants.

Why do I mention this? Human nature! If you criticize law enforcement, no matter how outlandish their acts of negligence, crime or plain stupidity, you're a "cop basher." The same holds true for the medical community now.

You also forget trephination, leeches, bloodletting, amputation for minor wounds, and a ton of other specific practices.

I forgot nothing. Should I have put a disclaimer on the past posts that my lists of stupid acts and horror was not an all-inclusive list?

Tell when the last time a young black male was infected intentionally with a disease.

In the case that I cited, that would be the 1940s or 1950s, right?

As for right now, I don't know.

And at whose orders.

Apparently the military and/or a hospital that was complicit with their "studies."

Or when a pregnant woman was intentionally exposed to harm.

Yeah, do we really need to get into women's health issues? If you want to, we can but I think you would be lost on that one. What I cited happened in the 40s or 50s as well, IIRC. Other issues, exposure to harm? Hmm...think about prescription medications given to women that later harmed them or the child.

You're looking at incredibly rare and bizarre examples of things that happened a long time ago.

Not long enough ago, unfortunately. And, the horrible malpractice cases are alive and well today. Sure, they don't involve those Nazi-like experiments with black men and pregnant women, but I would imagine that waking up with no genitals is about as bad as some of those other tragic things.

Seriously, if THESE are your reasons to bad-mouth the entire medical community you actually depend on... well... hey, okay. Nothing anyone says is likely to convince you.

I told you that you were looking to be offended. When you look to be offended, it's easy to be offended. :::shrug::: Just don't get your ass up on your back like I'm too stupid to "educate" on these issues or I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist.

No, but this doesn't appear to be your argument. This is the first you've talked about this. I agree that money drives medicine. As you know, money also drives government, transportation, scientific funding, the military, the arts, and me. This is a non-argument.

Yes, again, this is why I no longer consider myself a republican even though I am still a registered republican. Greed is a virtue, if you run a company or own one. If you just have a job and you want a substantial cost of living adjustment, you're an O-Ring and "you think the world owes you a living" or "you want something for nothing." Or, "you want to live beyond your means."

I could go on, I won't put you to sleep.

You do bring up scientific funding and that's really a corrupt system that needs to be stripped down and overhauled because THAT is one thing that is filled with corruption.

I appreciate your honesty here, and I'll be honest that I would never consider--for a second--denying somebody the benefits of medicine simply because they either reject modern medicine or, possibly in your case, have personal issues with it from things that may have happened to you.

Things have happened to me and my family that have left a sour taste in my mouth when it comes to doctors, insurance, hospitals and the whole nine yards, as it were. That is not what is driving the debate on my part, however.

I'm tired of being preached to. I'm tired of being treated like I'm "stupid." As you did earlier with your comments on education, I'm tired of being asked questions by arrogant asses like, "Do you keep a loaded firearm in your home?"

"Uh, I've been asked this before, what does this have to do with the medical procedure we're scheduling?"

"It's something we just ask about."

"Why don't you ask me if I have stove locks, knot by miniblind cords and keep buckets empty in the home? This is none of your business, next question."

You're correct here, and I am incorrect: 70% of women will *not* die of cervical cancer, and reading your response, it is the logical complaint to my claim. I stand corrected by saying: these innoculations will eliminate 70% of cervical cancer deaths in women so innoculated.

Now, we get to the meat and potatoes of the last post you made.

I won't make a value judgment on this error you made but I will say this, other people in positions of POWER are saying the same thing that you now say was made in error, but they're not coming back and correcting themselves.

This is the use of terror to make money and, yet again, force people to do something against their will and if they don't like it, you call them "undereducated" or some other insult.

This is introducing a new thread into your claims, but I'll bite.

I am not aware of any evidence that we could save 70% of children from diabetes, but let's say there is evidence to this hypothesis. If we remove *all* sugar, of course, the kids will become malnourished... but I assume you mean "all supplementary or added sugar."

Well, I guess you're not familiar with a company that is over a century old now, IIRC. Domino's sugar, that's why I used their name, I was speaking about the consumption of sugar.

Adding sugar to food products is not in any way detrimental. It's the cumulative effect of eating lots of sugars that can produce diabetes.

Yes, the child eats sugar in the morning at home or at school in the form of breakfast cereal, then at lunch, has a snack that has sugar in it and a soda. Do you think schools should be "banning" soft drinks in school?

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with eating a greasy burger with bacon and cheese... but eat that every day for a year, and you'd be in bad shape. So what's your point?

My point is - YES, although I am not sure on the percentage of children that could be "saved," why don't you support the elimination of sugar, not to the point of malnutrition, to prevent the needless suffering of diabetes, just think, if it only saves one life...

To put it bluntly, if we banned most of the things that kids eat like Hostess Cup Cakes and Twinkies and all the rest of it, we would probably save more people from diabetes than the cervical cancer - HPV vaccines will save from cancer. I don't think this can be debated really, diabetes is at epic proportions right now.

That the government should step in and take custody of kids who do? What sort of assumption or claim is that? Where does that follow?

Well, if you have a daughter and you don't want her to have the vaccine that we were speaking of, you can be charged with neglect, just like denying them other shots. You are denying them medical attention. So, if you allow your kids to eat pizza three times a week and hamburger and pork chops once a week each and eat half a cup of sugar every day, isn't that neglect as well judged by the same standard?

I didn't mean to derail this thread, if I did, by claiming that there's no evidence to support some of the outlandish claims one person made about cayenne pepper.

So Don--

If some guy came up to you in a parking lot and said that cayenne pepper can cure drowning victims, would you believe him? Or would you ask "How good is your evidence?"

*That* was my point.

I said something flippant about medicine and you got your ass up on your back about it. :::Shrug::: Apparently, you don't get some references in my writing that perhaps I take for granted, like Dominos sugar. Another reference I made was about "Heaven's Gate." A cult that used Cayenne Pepper enemas before they shed their vehicles.

By saying that the Cayenne Pepper information was one step below modern witchdoctoring, you took offense. Why? Because you want to take offense. You didn't understand that I was making fun of the Cayenne Pepper information by mentioning Heaven's Gate.

This is what I said:

"As for all of the Heaven's Gate Cayenne Remedies - well, it's just one step below the witchdoctoring of modern medicine which dictates by law that infants must be inoculated with vaccines with stabilizers and preservatives that contain mercury while warning us not to eat large fish because they might contain high levels of mercury. More Governmental B.S. Look at what is going on with mandatory vaccinations for girls to attend school with the pharmaceutical companies paying off politicians to sell their snake oil. Don't trust JAMA and the rest of the agenda-driven "scientists" either."

For the record, if I'm clutching my chest having a heart attack and someone runs up and sticks an eye-dropper in my mouth with tincture of anything in it, I hope I have enough power to punch them in the throat.

What I said about mercury STANDS. Enjoy your tuna fish because the "70% terrorists" in government and medicine are totally full of gobshite.

Yet, just a little mercury, an itty-bitty-bit, injected directly into your infant?

Nothing to worry about! Nothing at all! A trace amount in 30 cans of albacore can play hell with your nervous system, injecting a trace amount into a human being that weighs under 10 pounds? Totally harmless, we assure you, about your upcoming scheduled amputation of your leg because of diabetes, we're too stupid to take a Sharpie, of all things, and mark which leg is coming off in three hours - could you please do this for us before you arrive for your procedure? Have a nice day.

Harry, with all due respect, don't read my posts. Save yourself some pain.

Hey friend, if you think injecting an infant with something that has mercury in it is OK because your earthbound gods declare it to be, maybe we should all ignore you.

 

[Watchful]

By saying that the Cayenne Pepper information was one step below modern witchdoctoring, you took offense. Why? Because you want to take offense. You didn't understand that I was making fun of the Cayenne Pepper information by mentioning Heaven's Gate.

I wasn't reacting to that at all; I was reacting to what appears/appeared to be a sweeping dismissal of modern medicine. At this point, we have presented our respective sides, and the readers are able to pick which side they support.

Incidentally, I take no personal offense at anything you say, Stalinist or otherwise, since this is an open and honest debate; if you took offense at anything I said, I apologize. I cannot convince you, nor will I be swayed. I suspect we each think one is using reason and the other emotion. :thumbup:

I very much doubt there are any readers on the fence; anyone who supports either side was probably already on that side to begin with.

Therefore, our statements stand as they are (minus my one correction and subsequent revision).

Hey friend, if you think injecting an infant with something that has mercury in it is OK because your earthbound gods declare it to be, maybe we should all ignore you.

You're welcome to do so, as well. I'm not aware of any non-earthbound god who has said otherwise.

 

[Don Rearic]

I wasn't reacting to that at all; I was reacting to what appears/appeared to be a sweeping dismissal of modern medicine.

Well, I would think that the whole thing was basically for nothing, then. I was not dismissing modern medicine at all. I am critical of modern medicine because a lot of what they do is one step above the alternative medicine wackaloons, i.e., I believe using mercury as some sort of preservative in vaccines is just about as "smart" as thinking some witch's brew of Cayenne pepper and Vodka, for Christ's sake, is going to save someone from having a heart attack. I understand why it's in there, I also understand that it didn't have to be in there and they could have used something else.

At this point, we have presented our respective sides, and the readers are able to pick which side they support.

I'm sure they will and I'm sure that injecting infants with something that contains a small amount of mercury in it and then allowing the medical community to investigate and clear itself is going to ring like a bell to some people in light of the fact that the very same types of doctors and "scientists" are telling them to limit their intake of tuna because mercury can hurt you.

Common sense.

Incidentally, I take no personal offense at anything you say, Stalinist or otherwise, since this is an open and honest debate; if you took offense at anything I said, I apologize.

I think when people start using words like "undereducated" or "uneducated" to describe parents who don't want certain medical procedures or whatnot forced into/onto their children - it's the height of arrogance. Especially when you consider this particular issue with the HPV remedy. It's communicable, HPV, but not in the classic way as smallpox and other contagions are. It's driven by greed and that's that, they use the same terror-tactics as you did, although you said your words were a mistake.

I cannot convince you, nor will I be swayed.

Yes, you will not convince me to trust those that should not be trusted or believe their cooked reports used to cover their ass and I won't appeal to your capacity for common sense. You're a true believer, you are inundated with the religiosity of medicine, and it is a religion to some just as surely as atheism is to others.

I suspect we each think one is using reason and the other emotion. :thumbup:

I think you are emotionally invested in some corner of the vast mosaic of "modern medicine" and that has clouded your judgment on issues of common sense because you, like many others, trust that community way too much because of the good they do, have done and will continue to do.

I very much doubt there are any readers on the fence; anyone who supports either side was probably already on that side to begin with.

I think you're in an extreme minority. I think most people in here have a genuine respect for the miracles of modern medicine but also realize that it, like almost every other field of endeavor, is chock-full of greed and corruption and other negatives that must be navigated by someone interested in surviving.

Nothing more and nothing less. I listen to a doctor the same way I listen to a guy at Jiffy Lube or a mechanic. I weigh what they have to say with the full realization that they might just be taking me for a fool, or they might be a fool, whatever. I choose carefully.

Therefore, our statements stand as they are (minus my one correction and subsequent revision).

What you had to correct was telling! That's the same B.S. they're using to terrorize people into passing these mandatory vaccination laws, what you said is the same medical propaganda delivered with a non-blinking, all-trusting religious fervor, the medical-scientific equivalent of a snake handler.

You're welcome to do so, as well. I'm not aware of any non-earthbound god who has said otherwise.

Your earthbound gods exist in the offices of The Lancet and JAMA and other places.

I don't believe in faith-healing, I don't particularly believe in "miracles" as Christians do although they might be possible - I have no idea.

I don't believe in alternative medicine to the detriment of one's own health but believe that nature does have some wonderful cures. I don't think Cayenne pepper saves all or any other thing such as that. I do, however, think that things like garlic can save you from ticks and that this should be tried before taking a bath in modern chemicals that have been vetted by various ass-weasels in "science" as being "safe," i.e., better to use garlic and give it a try before taking a bath in DEET, use it as a last resort, etc.

I don't believe in Colloidal Silver Smurfjuice, I don't believe in a lot of things. I also don't believe in a lot of modern medicine, especially when they start preaching about Trans-fats, cigarettes, guns and seat belts when they, as a community, kill 100,000 a year through negligence or apathy. I don't smoke anymore, guns are my personal business, I wear a seatbelt because I like to have teeth to chew with and try to use virgin olive oil to cook with instead of the other killers. But I don't need preached to or flawed or corrupt studies or the power of LAW to intervene on my account.

 

[LittleHairyApe]

Harry, with all due respect, don't read my posts. Save yourself some pain.

Watchful,
With all due respect, I wasn't talking to you.

 

[woodsstalker]

I have to disagree strongly when it is said that the doctors kill 100,000 people per year. The medical "industry" kills more than 400,000 for sure. If the general public only had the remote clue of the actual death toll there would be an uprising. The 100,000 figure is for prescription drugs alone. The true figures on that is possibly 185,000. Have a nice day!!!

 

[nemoaz]

Nothing good can come from resurrecting this thread.

 

[Watchful]

I agree--we ventured into a topic better suited for the Political Discussion forum. I took this thread into a direction it shouldn't have gone (and I accept responsibility for doing so), one that has nothing to do with Wilderness and Survival skills.

Let's leave it dead.