Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2008, 07:59 PM
Gina's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
Gina is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Junk science

Allopathic medicine reporting has no doubt tainted the once respected scientific method. Today, drug companies utilize a large majority of their profits to pay for and design their own studies. Additionally, "ghost writers" are hired to write favorable reviews of drugs despite their known dangers. These reviews are published in peer reviewed medical journals, which are used by medical doctors to get information on FDA approved drugs. Ultimately, doctors are hoodwinked into thinking that a given drug is safe and effective when, in reality, it poses great risk without benefit. [2006] Interview of Shane Ellison author of Health Myths Exposed
Despite the tendency of doctors to call modern medicine an 'inexact science', it is more accurate to say there is practically no science in modern medicine at all. Almost everything doctors do is based on a conjecture, a guess, a clinical impression, a whim, a hope, a wish, an opinion or a belief. In short, everything they do is based on anything but solid scientific evidence. Thus, medicine is not a science at all, but a belief system. Beliefs are held by every religion, including the Religion of Modern Medicine." Robert Mendelsohn MD Preface by Hans Ruesch to 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection
"I'll give you an example. This is the New England Journal of Medicine......Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising. What do you think this costs? Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising."--Dr Levin MD http://www.consultclarity.com/blazing/levin.html
"For the public ever to break command science it must first understand the basis of its enormous powers. The medical establishment derives these powers from three sources: (1) enforced consensus through peer review, (2) through commercialization, and (3) the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease.
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2008, 08:11 PM
Gina's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
Gina is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Part 2

the worst is chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Like vaccination, it's not science, it's politics.
"We are not dealing with a scientific problem. We are dealing with a political issue."--Samuel Epstein, M.D.
And look at allopathic (vaccinators) iatrogenic disease, now officially the third cause of death, costing about £6 Billion in compensation every year (UK), one tenth of the NHS budget!
Why would I want to risk my child's life for one type of unproven experimental

Animal safety tests--you couldn't make it up
"The only safety testing that has ever been done on the pertussis vaccine in the past 50 years is an unproven method called the Mouse Weight Gain Test. The "scientists" inject the vaccine to be tested into the stomachs of baby mice. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it is assumed the vaccine is safe and effective for humans. That's it!

I'm not making this up!.......

The only toxicity test required for the initial licensing of the DPT vaccine in the United States was this mouse weight-gain test 60 years ago."-----
The Sanctity of Human Blood By Tim Oshea
Safety testing left to makers and easy to fix
"FDA virologist Peter Reeve........ acknowledged that the FDA suspended its own independent tests of vaccine purity 15 years ago, leaving it entirely up to the manufacturers to ensure the vaccine is contaminant free."--'The Virus and the Vaccine': Atlantic Monthly
The cancer-causing virus was soon isolated by other scientists and
dubbed SV40, because it was the fortieth simian virus discovered. Alarm
spread through the scientific community as researchers realized that nearly
every dose of the vaccine had been contaminated. In 1961 federal health
officials ordered vaccine manufacturers to screen for the virus and
eliminate it from the vaccine. Worried about creating a panic, they kept the
discovery of SV40 under wraps and never recalled existing stocks. For two
more years millions of additional people were needlessly exposed - bringing
the total to 98 million Americans from 1955 to 1963.
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2008, 09:26 PM
Gina's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
Gina is an unknown quantity at this point

Medical Study Ghostwriting Common Throughout Drug Industry

By David Gutierrez, staff writer
October 3, 2008- Evidence continues to emerge that drug companies commonly conceal their own influence over research on their............................................

Mainstream Media Fail to Report Big Pharma Funding on Drug Studies
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000327_mainstream_media_medical_studies_presc ription_drugs.html


National Vaccine Information Center

Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2008, 09:47 PM
Gina's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,423
Gina is an unknown quantity at this point
Default More Junk Science

Science journals, science-based medicine, proven medical science and so on. As you might have guessed, however, there's surprisingly little genuine science to be found in the common practice of conventional medicine.

Take clinical trials, for example. These are supposed to be the "gold standard" of scientific study, and yet it has been well demonstrated that these studies almost always produce results beneficial to the organization providing the funding. The wishes of the study sponsors, not true scientific methods, determine the study outcomes. This is accomplished through an elaborate system of fraudulent trial design, selective reporting, dismissing study subjects who don't produce the desired outcome, statistical distortions and the application of career pressure to the researchers who carry out such studies. (Researchers who don't produce the desired results get blackballed by the industry.)

The end result is that today's so-called "scientific medicine" has almost no resemblance to genuine science at all. The word "science" is simply used as a cover story for what's really going on behind the scenes -- a massive campaign of pro-drug propaganda, arm-twisting, public brainwashing, media control and regulatory failures that all add up to one thing: A system of medicine that is the greatest con ever perpetrated on people.
Conventional medicine is almost entirely justified by truly bad science. And yet so-called skeptics, who are supposed to exercise clear thinking about all subjects, never seem to question the fraudulent science behind prescription drugs. The mass drugging of children for fictitious diseases, for example, seems to be okay with such skeptics, who are too busy bashing homeopathy and acupuncture to take an honest, critical look at the junk science behind prescription drugs, it seems.

Ultimately, these so-called quack-busting skeptics only question certain selected topics.

All drugs get an automatic thumbs up, no matter how ludicrous the underlying science, while all natural therapies are automatically and routinely criticized by skeptics who equate their own lack of understanding with proof that something mysterious can't possibly work.

They say homeopathy can't work, for example, simply because they can't find any mechanism to explain how it could work. That's tantamount to saying that nothing new will ever be discovered because skeptics already know everything there is to know about the way the universe works.


This is how doctors have come to believe the incredible: That food has nothing to do with health, that antioxidants will kill you, that herbs interfere with drugs, and that only drugs can treat or cure disease. It's a cult-like belief system handed down by the high priests of conventional medicine, and if this intricate web of false beliefs was actually subjected to genuine scientific scrutiny,

it would crumble into a thousand pieces of "junk science" and marketing propaganda.

Conventional medicine, as practiced and promoted today, has nothing whatsoever to do with good science, but everything to do with promoting a particular cult-like worldview.

beliefs founded on circular logic ("Drugs are safe because they are subjected to scientific scrutiny in studies specifically designed to show that drugs are safe.")

What skeptics should really be considering

Consider these facts about modern medicine:

• There is currently no requirement whatsoever that surgical procedures be scientifically proven as either safe or effective before being widely performed on the public.

• Chemotherapy has been scientifically proven to be worthless at curing cancer, enhancing quality of life or protecting the health of the patient. In fact, chemotherapy kills patients, and even the ones who survive it are left with permanent damage to their brain ("chemo brain"), kidneys, liver and other organs. Chemotherapy is a medical hoax with absolutely no scientific validity. The size of a tumor is not a measure of the degree of cancer that exists on a patient's body, and shrinking a tumor is not a meaningful measure of a cancer treatment's success.

• The rapid rise in depression, ADHD and other mental or "behavioral" disorders is so large that it can only be explained by either an infectious epidemic (in which case the CDC should be involved) or rampant disease mongering where drug companies invent diseases and push them onto children and adults in order to sell more drugs.

• Nearly all pharmaceuticals receiving FDA approval today have been tested on only a few thousand people for a very short period of time (as little as six weeks in some cases). Yet, from such limited testing, the FDA declares the drugs to be safe for everyone, even for long-term use, without a shred of evidence that such long-term use is safe.

• No scientific testing whatsoever has been done to fully document the toxic effects of combinations of medications. Deadly drug interactions are simply noted after the fact. Consumers who take multiple prescription drugs are literally serving as Big Pharma's guinea pigs.

• There is currently no requirement whatsoever that drug side effects noticed by doctors be reported to the FDA. The entire system of reporting is purely voluntary.

• The entire paradigm of pharmaceutical medicine makes no sense. Chemicals are used to treat "biomarkers" or measurable biochemical states, yet disease and dysfunction is complex and always involved more than a single measurable number. Cholesterol drugs, for example, may artificially lower cholesterol numbers, but they completely ignore the root cause of elevated cholesterol. This is why cholesterol drugs have been scientifically proven worthless in preventing heart attacks or other fatal cardiovascular events.

• Most drugs don't work on most people. Claims of benefits are highly exaggerated by reporting their relative percentage rather than absolute percentage of efficacy. For example, if two people out of 100 normally get breast cancer, and a drug causes that number to be reduced to one person out of 100, the drug company will claim a "50% reduction in breast cancer!" when, in reality, it's a 1% reduction across the population. Yet the drug will be marketed to everyone as a breast cancer "prevention" strategy. And yet 99% of the people who take it will experience no benefits from it.

Most drugs are useless. A drug only has to work on about 5% of test subjects to receive FDA approval.

Real science is about the search for truth and an understanding of the laws of nature, but modern medical science (conventional medicine) is little more than a search for profits at the expense of public health. It has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine science.
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re:Goldacre - Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism by MartinWalker Sheri Nakken Homeopathy List Discussion 0 2nd January 2008 08:05 PM
UK: Doctor (& homeopath) who used 'junk science' in courtfaces GMC hearing Sheri Nakken Homeopathy List Discussion 0 2nd October 2006 01:15 PM
Homeopathy, American TV, and Junk Journalism Dana Ullman, MPH Coffee Shop 1 3rd March 2004 04:40 PM
RICKY - software for Spam and Junk mail doctorleela Coffee Shop 30 22nd December 2003 12:29 PM
Is it a science? The Fat Man Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy 19 26th November 2003 11:17 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.

The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2