Question:
(J. Mark Taylor) writes: Medicine, as represented by doctors, is very much a business monopoly construct. Doctors have made a bed, sleep in it, and are protected from all external dissent. Almost no other entity is free from independent appraisal.
ROFL! You have no frigging idea of what you are talking about. Doctors answer to 1) State civil law (made by legislatures, composed of mostly lawyers), then to 2) State Medical Boards, which are regulated by state law, and staffed (dispite your fevered immaginings) only partly by doctors, and finally 3) Tort law, made by lawyers, judged by lawyers, applied by lawyers, and judged by juries composed of citizens who are never lawyers, but who also are never doctors either. One political party is called a dictatorship. One religion is termed fanatical. But one healthcare view is termed a "truth."
Hey, doctors don’t make the laws regulating healthcare. Or anything else. Again, take a look at the heart of any big city. See those skyscrapers? Who owns them? Are they owned by doctors? Or are they owned by lawyers and bankers and insurance people? So who has the power in this society? Who sets the rules which are enforced by laws? Hmmmm? Were you born yesterday? Police forces are no longer allowed to investigate themselves, neither are spy agencies, automobile mechanics, or fishermen. Without contesting opinion there can be no such thing as truth. Ultimately, all decisions regarding real truth are arrived at by public discussion, not by authoritative fiat.
Yep. A State Medical Board has no more doctor input than your local Police Inquiry Board has police input. You do need some, of course, as it’s pretty hard to judge anybody whose shoes you haven’t stood in. As well expect the Aviation Board not to have any pilots. Okay, now that you agree that idea’s dumb, what fraction of pilots should it have? The fact is that many people disagree with the current "truth" and would like some credible alternatives. Doctors are not addressing this need. In fact, they are distinctly counterproductive.
Don’t look at me– I’m a libertarian. I agree there is a problem with people who think that science should be used as a straightjacket to make people do what’s "good for them," but you will notice that the people pushing such agendas aren’t just opperating in health care– they’re everywhere. A parallel health construct needs to be established where methods of the Wholistic paradigm can be properly vetted and communicated to the public. Doctors can no more perform this role than a Christian can be representative of the Moslem faith.
Nobody’s stopping you from communicating your wholistic program or any other program to the public. The problem is when you want to practice it on patients for money. That gets into the ticklish area of what constitutes "fraud" and now (again) the problem isn’t just with medicine. The guys who want to sell you a blue ring that supposedly gets your laundry clean an infinite number of times without soap, and they people who want to sell you the magnet for the gas line which they say improves the gas milage of your car, etc, etc, are the brothers of the people with electrodiagnostic machines and the muscle testing. If it were up to me, I’d let Barnum’s law opperate. But there’s an argument to be made on the other side, too. There is nothing stopping a doctor from accepting the wholistic paradigm and fulfilling the requirements needed to become a naturopath or a clinical herbalist or a NIHM. We accept converts.
Nope. So what? To say that there is currently no monopoly is simply wrong. If there were no monopoly, neither Scudamore nor I would be writing on this matter, and doctors would not be defending themselves.
Bullshit. There are kooks everywhere on the net, and everywhere there are people explaining patient why they are kooks. Go over to the physics forum and read the people who think that Einstein’s theory is wrong, and you really can go faster than light. Gee, if FTL travel weren’t true, nobody would suggest it, and legitimate physicists wouldn’t bother to explain why it’s horsecrap. Would they….? Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, the "required safety courses? Who set those standards of safety? Doctors? No, in the US, a group of people called "the State legislature", or another called "Congress." Dig it. The folks who make laws in representative democracies. So these people that make up the representative democracies are all doctors? Or just us "normal" people who can’t think for themselves? Dig THAT. Steve Harris, M.D.
I dig it. What’s your point? They’re not doctors. But they are the ones who make licensure and medical practise laws. Take it up with them. Don’t expect the Naturopaths to be on your side, however. After years of pissing and moaning about how the big bad state wouldn’t let you practice medicine without a licence, the naturopaths finally got licenced. Now they want to keep certain privileges only for graduates of the big 4 year schools, and they spend their time siccing the cops on people who practice naturopathy with mailorder degrees. Thus is it ever. Not even a trace of embarrassment do they show. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good. I’m not saying they are not good, just not as good as the real deal. I don’t have to try it to know that… Jet Silverman To email me, remove the x.
I like boca burgers better than beef.
Response:
Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good. I’m not saying they are not good, just not as good as the real deal. I don’t have to try it to know that… Jet Silverman To email me, remove the x. I like boca burgers better than beef.
I second the motion. I’ll take a Boca Burger over a beef burger anytime. I’ve tried nearly all the vegetarian burgers, and I like Boca Burgers the best!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A new study reported in the popular press today finds that minocycline (a tetracycline class antibiotic known for its penetrative effects– often used in acne) has dramatic effects on rheumatoid arthritis– nearly stopping the disease in almost half of early sufferers. This is a far better result than NSAIDS, which don’t modify the disease, and such esoteric therapies as gold and methotrexate, which make only very modest differences, and are very toxic. It’s long been known that tetracyclines have odd effects beyond their antibiotic activities. They inhibit metalothionine proteases, and they inhibit angiogenesis. There has been a long underground treatment of arthritis with these drugs, with some doctors theorizing an actual organism which causes arthritis. But the results have been ignored and poo-pooed, since the "bug" has not been found. There is also an overlap between arthritis patients and "Lyme disease" sufferers, some of whom have long been known to respond to tetracyclines so far as their arthritic symptoms, even though their "Lyme disease" sometimes couldn’t be proved. A lot of quackery charges have been aimed by all sides in these cases. Now, however, no matter what the mechanism, the results cannot be ignored. Everybody with RA probably deserves a good long trial of minocycline. Possibly other kinds of arthritis also will benefit. Beware side effects. Minocycline gets into inner ears, and has long had a reputation for causing dizzyness. It’s also a trigger for pseudotumor cerebri (high pressure in the brain ventricles), particularly in women of childbearing years (it’s a hormonal thing) and people taking the drug Accutane, or large amounts of vitamin A. This problem isn’t too serious, and goes away when the drug is stopped, but the headaches can be frightening and can mimic a brain tumor quite well. Watch for them. Steve Harris, M.D.
Did this report compare minocycline to any other form of treatment? What about glucosamine? And, do you know of any side affect glucosamine may have?
Response:
Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good.
I’m not saying they are not good, just not as good as the real deal. I don’t have to try it to know that… Jet Silverman To email me, remove the x.
Response:
I have never tasted a Boca Burger, but I *know* it is nowhere near as good as a real ground up dead cow burger. Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad.
If you have a good recipe, a homemade veg burger can provide real competition for dead ground moo meat (I have nothing against eating moo, just don’t want to be eating a lot of it). lynn
Response:
I have never tasted a Boca Burger, but I *know* it is nowhere near as good as a real ground up dead cow burger.
There was a time when I probably would have felt the same way, had there been Boca Burgers to ‘compare’ with (shoot, I don’t know if they were or weren’t available then, actually!) I used to love a "real ground up dead cow burger" now and again, although not just any fast-food one would do – they had to have high-quality fresh beef, and be seasoned and prepared just right. Anyway, several years back I decided to eliminate red meat from my diet, purely for health reasons. Then a couple years later, I found myself in an awkward social situation one day. I was with a backyard picnic gathering of friends, hamburgers and hot dogs were the main course, and I was very hungry! The idea of just having a meager lettuce salad or potato salad (yuck!) was not satisfying, to say the least. (I’ve never been big on hot dogs.) So I took a hamburger, cooked medium well on the grill. It smelled good. My mouth watered. I bit into it – and I might as well have been chewing on solid lard, or something! I could only eat about two bites, had to leave the rest on the plate, and then suddenly became quite satisfied with a meal of meager lettuce salad and potato salad! It was truly an eye-opening experience. I kept thinking, did I used to eat these greaseburgers on a regular basis, and actually enjoy them? Today, give me a BocaBurger anytime! vitality
Response:
Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good. I’m not saying they are not good, just not as good as the real deal.
Oh, now you’re NOT saying they’re not good? ;) I seem to recall that your earlier comment was to the effect that was that everything that doesn’t have artificial ingredients or unhealthy fats tastes like ‘fiberboard’, or something. I don’t have to try it to know that…
I would have pointed out the obvious too, had I not been beaten to it. I do think, though, that it’s a matter of the way one is accustomed or conditioned to eat (see my previous post). Try abstaining from red meat a few years, and then see how a burger tastes. BTW, what’s this "the real deal" stuff? As far as I can tell, neither beef nor Boca burgers were in the original human diet. vitality
Response:
I seem to recall that your earlier comment was to the effect that was that everything that doesn’t have artificial ingredients or unhealthy fats tastes like ‘fiberboard’, or something.
Loosen up a bit there… Try abstaining from red meat a few years, and then see how a burger tastes.
Yeah, right… BTW, what’s this "the real deal" stuff? As far as I can tell, neither beef nor Boca burgers were in the original human diet.
First I don’t give a rats ass about what was in the original human diet. Second, take this quiz: Was the Boca burger invented as a substitue for beef, or the other way ’round? Jet Silverman To email me, remove the x.
Response:
"…the orginal human diet"? Do tell us what that was.
I suggest you check out: The Paleolithic Diet Page: http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/ Don.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good. I’m not saying they are not good, just not as good as the real deal. Oh, now you’re NOT saying they’re not good? ;) I seem to recall that your earlier comment was to the effect that was that everything that doesn’t have artificial ingredients or unhealthy fats tastes like ‘fiberboard’, or something. I don’t have to try it to know that… I would have pointed out the obvious too, had I not been beaten to it. I do think, though, that it’s a matter of the way one is accustomed or conditioned to eat (see my previous post). Try abstaining from red meat a few years, and then see how a burger tastes. BTW, what’s this "the real deal" stuff? As far as I can tell, neither beef nor Boca burgers were in the original human diet. vitality
"…the orginal human diet"? Do tell us what that was.
Response:
A new study reported in the popular press today finds that minocycline (a tetracycline class antibiotic known for its penetrative effects– often used in acne) has dramatic effects on rheumatoid arthritis– nearly stopping the disease in almost half of early sufferers. This is a far better result than NSAIDS, which don’t modify the disease, and such esoteric therapies as gold and methotrexate, which make only very modest differences, and are very toxic. It’s long been known that tetracyclines have odd effects beyond their antibiotic activities. They inhibit metalothionine proteases, and they inhibit angiogenesis. There has been a long underground treatment of arthritis with these drugs, with some doctors theorizing an actual organism which causes arthritis. But the results have been ignored and poo-pooed, since the "bug" has not been found. There is also an overlap between arthritis patients and "Lyme disease" sufferers, some of whom have long been known to respond to tetracyclines so far as their arthritic symptoms, even though their "Lyme disease" sometimes couldn’t be proved. A lot of quackery charges have been aimed by all sides in these cases. Now, however, no matter what the mechanism, the results cannot be ignored. Everybody with RA probably deserves a good long trial of minocycline. Possibly other kinds of arthritis also will benefit. Beware side effects. Minocycline gets into inner ears, and has long had a reputation for causing dizzyness. It’s also a trigger for pseudotumor cerebri (high pressure in the brain ventricles), particularly in women of childbearing years (it’s a hormonal thing) and people taking the drug Accutane, or large amounts of vitamin A. This problem isn’t too serious, and goes away when the drug is stopped, but the headaches can be frightening and can mimic a brain tumor quite well. Watch for them. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
I think, Doc, that your true colors are starting to show a bit. Typical of an M.D. to imply that the only answers are to be found in medicine or science. I believe that there is an old saying that goes "When science finally climbs to the top of the mountain, it will find that religion has been there all along." This is NOT to say that religion is the answer either. I was just pointing out what appears to be sterotypically a "doctor’s point of view."
"That is not to say the answer is religion, either," but you think that it’s at the top of the mountain that science is climbing all along? Gee, I can see what is stereotypically your point of veiw: muddled thinking. You haven’t a clue what you believe about the truth. Except perhaps that you don’t like the concept. Nobody’s persecuting nutritional doctors. They are all free to earn MD’s, DO’s, ND’s, and then practice. What too many of them really want, however, is to do anything they want with anybody, without going through the required safety courses. LOL. It ain’t gunna happen. Let me know when they let you fly a Learjet without that piece of paper. Steve Harris, M.D. You don’t need a piece of paper to know how to or be able to fly that Learjet, or a Gulfstream IV for that matter. You can get that
knowledge in other ways and not only from the "traditional" or "established" course(s). Sure, but who’s gunna believe you? BTW, the "required safety courses? Who set those standards of safety? Doctors?
No, in the US, a group of people called "the State legislature", or another called "Congress." Dig it. The folks who make laws in representative democracies. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
<snip "That is not to say the answer is religion, either," but you think that it’s at the top of the mountain that science is climbing all along? Gee, I can see what is stereotypically your point of veiw: muddled thinking. You haven’t a clue what you believe about the truth. Except perhaps that you don’t like the concept.
Look at the quote, Doctor. I said that there was a saying that said… nevermind. I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings, which I obviously did by making those statements. You then attack me by saying that my thinking is muddled and that I don’t know what I believe about the truth. Well, so much for "debate". I know exactly what I believe, and I believe that you are a big baby. I search for the truth, that is why I ask questions. Dig THAT. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nobody’s persecuting nutritional doctors. They are all free to earn MD’s, DO’s, ND’s, and then practice. What too many of them really want, however, is to do anything they want with anybody, without going through the required safety courses. LOL. It ain’t gunna happen. Let me know when they let you fly a Learjet without that piece of paper. Steve Harris, M.D. You don’t need a piece of paper to know how to or be able to fly that Learjet, or a Gulfstream IV for that matter. You can get that knowledge in other ways and not only from the "traditional" or "established" course(s). Sure, but who’s gunna believe you?
So, this is about believability now? Or is it about what works? Or both? BTW, the "required safety courses? Who set those standards of safety? Doctors? No, in the US, a group of people called "the State legislature", or another called "Congress." Dig it. The folks who make laws in representative democracies.
So these people that make up the representative democracies are all doctors? Or just us "normal" people who can’t think for themselves? Dig THAT. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
The question is: who should pay for studies of non-patentable treatments? The answer is–we don’t need studies on non patentable treatments because they have been around, in the case of herbs, for hundreds of years.
So has astrology. So have lots of things. That doesn’t prove efficacy and it doesn’t show how best to use the stuff. The people who sell them won’t. When’s the last time you heard of a vitamin company paying for a big vitamin study? What? So they could get their ass kicked?
Make up your mind. Either the stuff doesn’t work, in which case you shouldn’t be defending it, or it does, and a study would show it. Since this would *increase* sales, why would anyone have their "ass kicked?" These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "After all, this is still the land of opportunity. If you know where to look." – Jack Douglas
Response:
writes: The problem in this business is; it’s a monopoly, so the usual safeguards don’t apply, and having a business running medicine isn’t exactly good for the patient who should in theory come first. Medicine is no more a monopoly than archetecture or real-estate or flying or driving or anything else you need a license to do.
Medicine, as represented by doctors, is very much a business monopoly construct. Doctors have made a bed, sleep in it, and are protected from all external dissent. Almost no other entity is free from independent appraisal. One political party is called a dictatorship. One religion is termed fanatical. But one healthcare view is termed a "truth." Police forces are no longer allowed to investigate themselves, neither are spy agencies, automobile mechanics, or fishermen. Without contesting opinion there can be no such thing as truth. Ultimately, all decisions regarding real truth are arrived at by public discussion, not by authoritative fiat. The fact is that many people disagree with the current "truth" and would like some credible alternatives. Doctors are not addressing this need. In fact, they are distinctly counterproductive. A parallel health construct needs to be established where methods of the Wholistic paradigm can be properly vetted and communicated to the public. Doctors can no more perform this role than a Christian can be representative of the Moslem faith. There is nothing stopping a doctor from accepting the wholistic paradigm and fulfilling the requirements needed to become a naturopath or a clinical herbalist or a NIHM. We accept converts. To say that there is currently no monopoly is simply wrong. If there were no monopoly, neither Scudamore nor I would be writing on this matter, and doctors would not be defending themselves. ___ jmt — Never go along with the system. Always question. Tainted-blood activist … Janet Conners
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: There is a fine line between business practice and a conspiracy. If the drug medical industry conspire to change the laws to suit drugs and not herbs, is this just business practice or a conspiracy? Answer: No. The advantage of drugs under patent law is a property of patent law which was present in American law long before the drug industry was what it is today. If this is a conspiracy, it’s one that wasn’t made up for any reason that had anything to do with drugs. The problem in this business is; it’s a monopoly, so the usual safeguards don’t apply, and having a business running medicine isn’t exactly good for the patient who should in theory come first. Medicine is no more a monopoly than archetecture or real-estate or flying or driving or anything else you need a license to do. Nobody’s preventing anybody from getting a licence, bucko. You think I was born with mine? I’m the first doctor in my family in America, as far back as the geneology goes, which is back to the 17th century in some lines. The question is: who should pay for studies of non-patentable treatments? The answer is–we don’t need studies on non patentable treatments because they have been around, in the case of herbs, for hundreds of years. So has astrology. And all those other religions (which I class much of herbology as– religion. And myth). If you don’t have studies, you can’t tell if claims are true or not. All you can do is start another "school."
I think, Doc, that your true colors are starting to show a bit. Typical of an M.D. to imply that the only answers are to be found in medicine or science. I believe that there is an old saying that goes "When science finally climbs to the top of the mountain, it will find that religion has been there all along." This is NOT to say that religion is the answer either. I was just pointing out what appears to be sterotypically a "doctor’s point of view." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, have herbs been used on AIDS for hundreds of years? The federal government is run by big business. I know you like urban myths but you don’t really believe the government gives a shit about us, and is out to find the truth. LOL. Maybe not. But what makes the goverment any less worthy of trust than your average herbalist, who is also out to make a buck. If you trust only pure altruists in this life, you’re going to have a long dry spell finding people to associate with. LOL yourself. God, what a load of baloney. What are they going to do when they find vitamins make drugs look silly? Carry on "delaying". LOL Answer: not at all. Have statin drug knocked niacin out of the market in treating high cholesterol? No. Doctors use niacin all the time. Other vitamins will find their places. If you have a solution, I’d like to hear it. No you wouldn’t unless it was to confuse things. Change the laws back out of a medical monopoly so the herbalists and other doctors can practice on a level playing field and stop persecuting nutritional doctors, and the whole charade of clinical trials will fall on its ass. Nobody’s persecuting nutritional doctors. They are all free to earn MD’s, DO’s, ND’s, and then practice. What too many of them really want, however, is to do anything they want with anybody, without going through the required safety courses. LOL. It ain’t gunna happen. Let me know when they let you fly a Learjet without that piece of paper. Steve Harris, M.D.
You don’t need a piece of paper to know how to or be able to fly that Learjet, or a Gulfstream IV for that matter. You can get that knowledge in other ways and not only from the "traditional" or "established" course(s). BTW, the "required safety courses? Who set those standards of safety? Doctors? Respectfully submitted, Steven McConnell
Response:
A new study reported in the popular press today finds that minocycline (a tetracycline class antibiotic known for its penetrative effects– often used in acne) has dramatic effects on rheumatoid arthritis– nearly stopping the disease in almost half of early sufferers…<snip
Is this a single study? Has any study been done on other inflammatory/autoimmune diseases like lupus or IBD?
Response:
Did this report compare minocycline to any other form of treatment?
No, it didn’t. What about glucosamine? And, do you know of any side affect
glucosamine may have? No, I don’t. Steve Harris, M.D.
Response:
A new study reported in the popular press today finds that minocycline (a tetracycline class antibiotic known for its penetrative effects– often used in acne) has dramatic effects on rheumatoid arthritis Did this report compare minocycline to any other form of treatment? What about glucosamine? And, do you know of any side affect glucosamine may have?
Allopaths long ago gave up comparing drug & gizmo treatments with alternative treatments. Medical monopolies cannot, by design, associate with Alternative practitioners. It’s a business thing. — Never go along with the system. Always question. Tainted-blood activist … Janet Conners
Response:
To think I could have just saved the money I spent on those Boca Burgers
I have never tasted a Boca Burger, but I *know* it is nowhere near as good as a real ground up dead cow burger. Jet Silverman To email me, remove the x.
Response:
To think I could have just saved the money I spent on those Boca Burgers I have never tasted a Boca Burger, but I *know* it is nowhere near as good as a real ground up dead cow burger.
Boca Burgers aren’t quite as tasty as beef, but they’re not half bad. (See, I actually tried them rather than deciding in advance that they weren’t any good. Even Consumer Reports rated the "Chef Max’s" version as tasty.) These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "After all, this is still the land of opportunity. If you know where to look." – Jack Douglas
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.