• Due to lack of activities, this forum is set to be closed at the end of this month (Aug 31), the forum has been set to read-only mode. Thanks for all your support over the years!

An AMA Invention/Instigation!

Status
Not open for further replies.

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
It's beginning to appear to me that this "classification" of conventional/complementary/alternative forms of medicine is purely an American Medical Association invention which, unfortunately, is spreading throughout the world.

The dark history of the American Medical Association, starting when Fishbein became its head, seems to indicate this:

http://www.newstarget.com/008845.html
http://www.illuminati-news.com/morris-fishbein.htm

Under Fishbein, we suddenly had a group that took it upon themselves to define what was to be accepted vs what was to be quackery. And such self-claimed purpose carries over to this day. The problem was that Fishbein and colleagues (and successors?) had no intention of finding out the truth, but only to make money and crush the competition. Do we think it's any different today?

Doctors from other areas of the world, except when under heavy American influence (which, unfortunately, is increasing), have no such distinctions about medical practices, and would be free to use what they think would work, or what they think they are most skilled in or familiar with, without fearing any "attack" on their methods.

As I would like to think right now, there is no conventional-alternative distinction between any "forms" of medicine. There is only the distinction of right or wrong medicine. There may be varying degrees in between (we're not omniscient), but definitely, no one can or should take it upon themselves to define what should be "accepted" or "conventional" and call the rest "alternative" or even "complementary."

What do you think?

Gerry
 

Mad Scientest

New member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Location
Illinois
These are two excellent sites. I have heard bits and pieces of these stories before but these articles tied them all together. It is a shame that so many blindly accept that the medicinal community is only there to help them and has only their best interest at heart. But a lie told often enough and long enough will be accepted as fact, particularly if the real facts are kept hidden. Now what would really be neat is to make copies of these articles and discreetly place them in the magazine racks at doctors’ offices. :twisted:


As I would like to think right now, there is no conventional-alternative distinction between any "forms" of medicine. There is only the distinction of right or wrong medicine.

That would be ideal, but this is not an ideal world, still if we could just start moving in that direct it would a big improvement. But this will require that a lot of people first become aware of the problem and then they must demand the legal changes that would allow it to happen.
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Here's an article by good ole Morris regarding homepathy. Unfortunately this article is propaganda, designed to cover up his multilevels of attack on homoepathy designed to crush the schools and hospitals and individual physicians. I will post some of that history if I can find it.
Arrow

HomeoWatch Home Page
The Rise and Fall of Homeopathy (1932)
Morris Fishbein, M.D.

Diseases are cured, not by eloquence, but by remedies well and duly applied, of which, if any sage and discreet man, though he have no tongue, know well the proper usage, he shall become a greater physician than if, without practice, he ornament well his language. -- Cornelius Celsus (21 B.C.-50 A.D.).

If scientific medicine today is withstanding nonchalantly the assaults of a myriad of systems, cults, and quackeries, it is merely repeating the history of other periods. The eighteenth century, for example, was predominantly a time of revolutionary systems and theories in medicine. There was the dynamico-organic system of Stahl, who believed that the soul was the supreme principle of disease. There was the mechanico-dynamic system of Hoffman teaching that life expresses itself in motion, and that all manifestations within the body are controlled by nervous spirit. The school of Montpellier taught that various organs possess individual life. Mesmer, prince of imposters, claimed that magnetic fluid poured from the hand, and the Brunonian system asserted that it was only necessary for a cure to determine the grade of disease in accordance with the strength or weakness of the active irritation, and to adjust the right proportion of strengthening or weakening medicines to the case. Further, there remained from previous centuries phlogistic and antiphlogistic theories, the view that all disease was caused by the impaction of debris and obstruction of the intestines, and half a dozen other assorted hypotheses.

At the end of the century, scientific medicine had little of its own to offer. Pasteur had not discovered the bacteria, Lister had not given us asepsis, chemistry was only beginning to be a science, and the other fundamental medical sciences -anatomy, pathology, biology, and physiology-had just begun to sort out their facts from a welter of hypotheses. Drugs were known in abundance, but there was nothing comparable to the scientific pharmacology of today. All sorts of mixtures and combinations were used without reference to the effects that the ingredients of a mixture might have upon one another. When a positive action was obtained it was credited to the mixture and not to the individual ingredient responsible. Such was the scene just before 1800. Upon this stage there stepped a remarkable figure, Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann, born at Meissen in Germany in 1755.
Early Years of Hahnemann

After studying at Leipzig and Vienna, Hahnemann graduated in medicine at Erlangen in 1779, but he became dissatisfied with the practice of his profession and retired for reflection and study. In 1790 there came into his hands a materia medica written by William Cullen of Lanarkshire. Cullen was professor of medicine at Glasgow and Edinburgh and founder himself of a system of medicine which emphasized the importance of the nerves, and assumed that the brain was indissolubly united with the soul. Cullen, however, was a practical man; his therapeutics were simple and he deplored the excessive bloodletting which was a feature of the medicine of the time. It had already been attacked by Le Sage in Gil Blas, by Moliere, and by many others Hahnemann read in the book by Cullen that Peruvian bark, the source of quinine, would cure malaria. This was true; quinine does cure malaria. But what did Hahnemann do with the observation? Unfortunately, he did not know that malaria is caused by a plasmodium which gets into the blood through the agency of the mosquito; the plasmodium was not discovered by Laveran until November 6, 1880. So Hahnemann evolved the theory that perhaps quinine cured malaria because it would produce symptoms like those of malaria if given to a healthy man. He tried it on himself and it did. With this idea fixed in his mind, he returned to the practice of medicine in 1796, and his remarkable hypothesis became the basis of the system called homeopathy, expressed in the phrase similia similibus curantur, "like cures like."

This idea was not really original; it was essentially a revival of the old Paracelsian doctrine of signatures -- like cures like -- except that Paracelsus directed his attack toward the cause of the disease rather than at the symptoms. There are, in fact, some who assert that Milton, in his preface to Samson Agonistes, was alluding to the same thing as practiced in his time:

(Tragedy is) therefore said by Aristotle to be of power, by raising pity and fear, or terror, to purge the mind of those and such like passions; that is, to temper and reduce them to just measure with a kind of delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated. Nor is Nature wanting in her own effort to make good his assertion: for so in physic, things of melancholic hue and quality are used against melancholy, sour against sour, salt to remove salt humors.

The idea, therefore, was not new.
The Homeopathic Organon

After his return to practice, it became Hahnemann's chief interest in life to propagate his theory. He began at once to write extensively, and it is significant that he did not confine his propaganda to the medical profession but addressed the public as well. Furthermore, it is a fact that he received all students, all applicants for knowledge of his methods, whether or not they had been previously trained in medicine. Then in 1810, he presented to the world the homeopathic bible, Organon der Rationellen Heilkunde.

The Hahnemannian system of disease and its healing, as presented in this book, involved three main tenets: first, that diseases or symptoms of disease are curable by particular drugs which produce similar pathologic effects upon the healthy body; second, that the dynamic effect or force of drugs is increased by giving them in very small doses, even diluted to a decillionth of their original strength, and lastly, that chronic diseases are a manifestation of a suppressed itch or "psora."

Hahnemann seems to have known practically nothing of, or to have been unwilling to recognize, the existence of those definite changes in the human body that are associated with disease, and that are now included under the science of pathology. To him disease was chiefly a matter of the spirit. "Diseases," he said, "will not cease to be dynamic aberrations of our spiritlike life, manifested by sensations and actions." This spiritual theory, in which Hahnemann believed so implicitly, dominated subsequent homeopathic literature. The "dynamis" not only lay at the bottom of disease; it was also responsible for the power exerted by drugs in working cures.

Hahnemann's theory of "psora" or itch was essentially so preposterous that it began to be deserted even by confirmed homeopathists almost immediately. The "psora" was a miasm or evil spirit which pervaded the body and ultimately manifested itself on the surface in the form of an eruption, or as a nodular growth, or as some other form of skin disturbance. It was Hahnemann's idea that the outward manifestation was a salubrious mechanism for the relief of the inner condition.

The Organon said:

The only really salutary treatment is that of the homeopathic method, according to which the totality of symptoms of a natural disease is combated by a medicine in commensurate doses, capable of creating in the healthy body symptoms most similar to those of the natural disease.

Then,

By administering a medicinal potency chosen exactly in accordance with the similitude of symptoms, a somewhat stronger, similar, artificial morbid affection is implanted upon the vital power deranged by natural disease; this artificial affection is substituted, as it were, for the weaker Similar natural disease against which the instinctive vital force, now only excited to stronger effort by the drug affection, needs only to direct its increased energy; but owing to its brief duration it will soon be overcome by the vital force, which, liberated first from the natural disease, and then from the substituted natural disease, and then from the substituted artificial (drug) affection, now again finds itself enabled to continue the life of the organism in health.

In simpler terms, the conception was that the drugs induced a condition which was substituted for the actual disease, and that the body could easily get rid of the substitute. That, in brief, was the pharmacologic doctrine of homeopathy.
Proving a Drug

It will be remembered that Hahnemann arrived at his method of treatment by observing the symptoms caused by a dose of Peruvian bark. In 1771 Albrecht von Haller had first suggested the method of testing the virtues of drugs by trying them on healthy human beings. The method was revived by Hahnemann, and called "proving a drug." Not only did medical men test drugs upon themselves under this proving system, but all sorts of other proving tests were made by all kinds of more or less qualified individuals. The results, as might be expected, were remarkable. One decillionth of a grain of table salt was found by an imaginative prover to produce on himself 1,349 symptoms. And while the dosages of the early homeopaths often reached the heights of futility, the preparations they used were sometimes of a highly poetic and romantic nature. In a catalogue of homeopathic remedies appeared such strange substances as lachryma filia, the tears of a young girl in great grief and suffering, used for great grief and suffering in young girls. Then there was flavus irides, the yellow ray of the spectrum, there were extracts of three kind of pediculi, or lice, and anticipating the modern gland craze, there were extracts of all of the body glands then known. The strength of the drugs used may be estimated from the fact that a child in Gloucester County, Virginia, took $8 worth of homeopathic medicine at a single sitting, the entire supply of the family for a year, and, not knowing that anything ought to happen, didn't have a symptom!
The Success of Homeopathy

The physicians who were attempting to follow the wavering path of scientific medicine through the mass of medieval superstitions which beset it at that time suddenly found themselves placed on the defensive. Compared to the general medical practice of the age, the system of Hahnemann, though quite fallacious, had two things in its favor: it replaced mixtures of powerful drugs in large doses by small doses of simple ones. Thus a widely used prescription was Rush's Thunderbolt, developed by Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence. It gave ten grains of jalap and ten of calomel at a single dose. A patient who had just tried it thereafter craved weak medicine. Moreover, homeopathy carried with it, as any new and revolutionary system always does, a powerful appeal to the lay imagination. Professors Meyer-Steinheg of Jena and Sudhoff of Leipzig, two of the world's greatest medical historians, assert that the influence of Hahnemann was, on the whole, certainly for good. He emphasized the individualization of the patient in the handling of disease, he stopped the progress of half a dozen or more peculiar systems of treatment based on a false pathology, and he demonstrated the value of testing the actual virtues of drugs by trial. It is probably true that any criticisms which might be brought against him in the light of later and better knowledge apply equally well against a large part of the other medicine of his time. Moreover, we must not hold against him the vagaries and exaggerations into which some of his disciples drifted.

What was the immediate success of homeopathy? In 1821, in Leipzig, the first homeopathic journal was published, the Archives of the Homeopathic Method of Curing Disease. In Austria, where homeopathy appeared in 1819, it was forbidden by an imperial decree, but it nevertheless made progress and the decree was revoked in 1837. It reached Italy and Denmark in 1821. Quinn, a physician, introduced the method into Great Britain in 1827, but shortly thereafter medical opposition became strong and practitioners of homeopathy were denied the right to practice. This prohibition, after a long contest, was revoked, and by the eighties homeopathy was prospering. A homeopathic hospital was opened in 1887 in Liverpool on an endowment by Henry Tate, a sugar refiner. The first homeopathic dispensary had been opened in 1841, the second in 1867. In 1885, it was reported that the English dispensaries treated 78,881 patients, or 1,516 a week. At the dedication of the hospital in 1887 a conference of homeopathic practitioners was held, and the hope was expressed that a homeopathic surgeon would soon arrive to take care of work referred by homeopathic practitioners.
Homeopathy in the United States

But nowhere did homeopathy flourish as it did in the United States. It was apparently brought to this country in 1825. The first homeopathic medical college was organized in Philadelphia in 1848, the next in New York in 1858. About 1880 the homeopathic practitioners were at the height of their influence. Many tales might ' be told of the battles within the medical fraternity to determine whether the homeopathic or the regular party should control. Indeed, there are whisperings of a session of the American Medical Association at which a phalanx of homeopathic practitioners assaulted the platform and dragged the speakers bodily from their perch. Homeopathic schools appeared in abundance. In 1880 there were in the United States, 72 regular medical colleges, 12 homeopathic colleges, and 6 eclectic colleges. In 1890 there were 93 regular, 14 homeopathic, and 8 eclectic. In 1900, there were 121 regular, 22 homeopathic, and 10 eclectic. And in 1900 the homeopathic practitioners, assembled in Washington, D. C., dedicated a monument in granite and bronze to:

Samuel Christian Frederich Hahnemann,
Doctor in Medicine.

Hofrath
Leader in the Great Medical Reformation
Of the
Nineteenth Century
And
Founder of the
Homeopathic School.

The Decline of Homeopathy

But from that year the influence of homeopathy began to decline steadily, its schools to close their doors or to merge with regular medical schools, and its practitioners to practice in increasing measure what they called "allopathic" medicine. What happened to bring about this remarkable and sudden change? Undoubtedly two influences, both brought to bear on medical education, induced the ultimate collapse.

The first educational number of The Journal of the American Medical Association was published on September 21, 1901. It listed the medical colleges in the United States, the type of education and preliminary entrance requirements enforced in each school, and its provisions for didactic and clinical teaching. It showed that there were 124 regular medical schools, 10 eclectic schools, and 21 homeopathic schools, and it pointed out their qualities and their deficiencies. The poor schools began to wilt and fade-and many of the homeopathic schools were poor ones. By 1905 their graduates were fewer in number than in any year since 1880. In 1907, there were but seventeen homeopathic schools left; in 1908, but sixteen; in 1909, fourteen; in 1912, ten; in 1915, eight; in 1921, five; and in 1925, there remained but two, and one of these carried a low classification. Altogether during 1923, there were just forty-nine homeopathic graduates.

At the end of 1931, homeopathic medicine continued to be taught only in the New York Homeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital of New York, and in the Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital in Philadelphia. In the former institution 348 students were registered, and there were 77 men and 3 women graduates. In the Philadelphia institution there were 502 students and 93 graduates for the year. However, in these institutions the medicine that is taught is not homeopathic medicine in the old sense of the word, but modern medicine with some reflection of the history of homeopathy.

In the meantime, gatherings of homeopaths view with interest attempts made abroad to read into the knowledge of the present the homeopathic theories of the past. The demand among young men for opportunity to study medicine is far greater than the number of places available in American medical schools. Hence institutions that give reliable four-year courses are bound to be crowded with students regardless of any strange notions that they may teach, provided they, at the same time, have complete qualifications in medical science. When the homeopathic graduate takes his place in the community he practices regular medicine.
The Death of Homeopathy

Publicity is a powerful tool. Students who observed the gradual decline of homeopathy began to seek regular schools; in fact, many a young man who had been doctored in his early youth by a homeopathic physician was advised by that very physician not to enter a homeopathic college. The fact is, indeed, that homeopathy died from within. The very disciples of Hahnemann, and most of the more enlightened practitioners of homeopathy since Hahnemann's time, when they came into practice, found their system unavailing in the face of serious illness. They then availed themselves of the right of every practitioner of medicine to use any treatment that may be for the good of his patient. They informed themselves of scientific medicine and prescribed drugs in doses that would work. The American Institute of Homeopathy, the official organization, finally adopted the definition: "A homeopathic physician is one who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special knowledge of homeopathic therapeutics and observes the Law of Similia. All that pertains to the great field of medical learning is his, by tradition, by inheritance, by right." This was essentially a desire to allow homeopathic practitioners to prescribe "old school" drugs in old school doses. It was a confession of inadequacy and failure.

While homeopathy, as a school, though not the individual homeopathist, had stood still and clung to its law of similars and to Hahnemann's unprovable theory, scientific medicine had been sweeping onward with steady, sure progress. Before such a fact as the inevitable response of the heart to an adequate dose of digitalis, any theory of dynamics and vibrations which called for splitting that dose into decillionth parts was bound to evaporate. Before the rapid effects of the satisfactory administration of mercury and "606," measurable by a Wassermann test, theories of "psora" and similars could not exist. The effects of efficient dosages are, as Celsus asserted, positive, sure, visible, convincing. They need no argument, they speak for themselves. Thus, by 1900, all that remained of the original homeopath was the law of similars and the method of using them. Otherwise homeopaths were prescribing diphtheria antitoxin and forgetting belladonna; they were practicing surgery; they were using full doses of drugs when they wanted to get action. It came down to this: that a homeopath was just like any other physician, except that he gave what were essentially nothing but placebos in minor conditions. When the regular medical schools began to raise their standards, the homeopathic schools had to do the same or confess their inferiority. And when they did the same, they lost their students, who had been attracted chiefly by their lower standards, and had to close their doors anyway.

Thus passed the homeopathic system. Thus, in fact, pass all systems in the practice of medicine. Scientific medicine absorbs from them that which is good, if there is any good, and then they die. Perhaps osteopathy has taught us something by its stress on massage; perhaps even Eddyism has made itself valuable by showing the value of suggestion in conditions affecting the mind. Others, such as chiropractic and Abramsism, teach only the ease with which delusions may be foisted on the public. The history of homeopathy is distinct and peculiar. It records the propounding and acceptance of a theory which, in itself wrong, nevertheless influenced the steps of a beginning science into paths that were right.

_____________________

Dr. Fishbein, who served for 25 years as editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, was probably the most vigorous crusader against quackery who ever lived. The above passage appeared in 1932 in the homeopathy chapter of his book Fads and Fallacies in Healing: An Analysis of the Foibles of the Healing Cults, with Essays on Various Other Peculiar Notions in the Health Field, published by Blue Ribbon Books in New York City.

HomeoWatch Home Page

This article was posted on October 31, 2001.
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Ah, found a good one. A report written by Dan Ullman, who taught one of the first homeopathic classes I attended in 19976. He has been a leader in the Homeopthic educational movement. This article will reveal what Fishbein was really up to.

http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
 

RubyTuesday

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
I called for side-by-side testing on another thread. Either homeopathy is as effective for the treatment of, say, cancer or it is not. Either homeopathy is better than chemotherapy or it is not.

How do we, as a society, bring about a compelling need for this type of testing? Who will submit to this testing?
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
Mad Scientest said:
As I would like to think right now, there is no conventional-alternative distinction between any "forms" of medicine. There is only the distinction of right or wrong medicine.

That would be ideal, but this is not an ideal world, still if we could just start moving in that direct it would a big improvement.
Only in America. :roll:

In the rest of the world, doctors have virtually no problem using what the AMA calls "alternative" along with what the AMA calls "conventional" or "mainstream."

European doctors have no problem incorporating laetrile, shark cartilage, or Gerson in their cancer chemotherapy. Japanese doctors have no hesitation using acupuncture or herbs in their "conventional" practice. Chinese doctors, long well versed in TCM, have no problem incorporating "western" techniques like vaccines and antimicrobials. In the Philippines, our doctors, although aware of the American conventional/alternative definition, have no trouble incorporating herbs, reflexology, acupuncture, immunonutrition and even iridology if it adds to their capacity to heal patients or diagnose disease.

That is why I now think that the conventional/alternative classification is just an American invention. And it is something that must not be allowed to propagate. For the US, exposing the true nature of AMA's actions against what they deem to be competition (chiropractic, homeopathy, and others that they label "alternative" if not "quackery") should be a start on the road to what is now being called "integrative" medicine (another American invention :? ).

As far as I can see, the rest of the world has been practicing this "integrative" medicine all the while that the AMA has been busy labelling this or that as "quackery" -- shown by the two web pages to be simply the continuation of the conspiracy started by Fishbein and colleagues to crush any competition that threatened their potential wealth.

Gerry
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
Arrowwind said:
Ah, found a good one. A report written by Dan Ullman, who taught one of the first homeopathic classes I attended in 19976. He has been a leader in the Homeopthic educational movement. This article will reveal what Fishbein was really up to.

http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
Thanks for the link. A colleague told me that the AMA was formed as a counter to homeopaths. You've just given me a reference. :wink:

So contrary to the illuminati-news article, the AMA was not founded simply as a social and scientific organization, but rather, to suppress homeopathy.

More evidence that the true nature of the AMA, from its very beginning, is simply to crush any competition which threatens their earnings (which mainly comes from drug comapnies?)? (So what's new? :? )

And more evidence that the conventional-alternative classification all started in the US? (Well, Hahnemann was booted out in Germany, but that was apothecaries/pharmacists vs doctor.)

Gerry
 

EarlyBird

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Location
Northern Ky.
American Inventions

Evidently, word of mouth, by people who have had
success with other than Allopathic medicine, will be
the main force.

Also, people telling their Allopzthic Drs. what Alternative
methods they've used in their healing processes. Only
when their wallets begin to suffer [probably], will most
begin to look into any Alternatives.

I prefer the term, "Integrative." personally.
The media COULD help, but doubtful it will. Again, the
money factor, as it's big Pharmas who pay for TV ads. :roll:
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Gerry said "Hahnemann was booted out in Germany, but that was apothecaries/pharmacists vs doctor."

But Gerry, itsn't this still true? As long as the doctor complies with the pharmacy dictates as per FDA regulation, and well all know the FDA employess ans well as paid politicians have multiple pharmceutical stock and employment histories, we are still really under the same supression Hannemann was.

If every medical doctor was homeopathically trained it would devastate the pharmaceutical industry.

Early Bird - I have a hard time with the concept of integrated medicine. This will merely put the alternative remedies into the hands of pharmaceutical control. Now in Germany a bottle of B6 costs over $20! Its an outrage. After all this is what they are after through the workings of CODEX and regulation of vitamins and herbs as they have attained in Germany and other European countries, Australia etc. Its coming our way eventually unless we fight like hell.

This is why I am so inpressed with the laws that have come out of Idaho for the practice of Naturopathy and for Alternative Healthcare Practitioners. It stops these guys dead in their tracks. Except for the CODEX thing. They will have to do something about that on a state level. Fourtanately Idaho has enough freedom fighter types to pull some stuff off. Not like a lot of other states who's population is asleep as freedom slips away.

Arrow
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Ruby said "I called for side-by-side testing on another thread. Either homeopathy is as effective for the treatment of, say, cancer or it is not. Either homeopathy is better than chemotherapy or it is not. "

Guess you never got that book "The homeopathic Approach to Cancer" by
Ramakrishnan. The studies have already been done. Why don't you read them.

Traditionally, homoepathy has not had a good track record with cancer, escpecially advanced cancer but many homeopaths will tell you of an occassonal cure. The work of this man has revolutonized the practice of homoepathy in the approach and application of remedies to bring higher stats for cure, even in those the allopaths nearly poisoned to death already with chemo and radiation. In fact his stats are quite high. Makes the American Cancer Society and all their funding of toxic projects look foolish.

Homeopaths around the world are just begining to catch on to this type of application. It will take time.

Give up your rant about double blind studies with homeopathy. It will never happen. This system of this medicine is not conducive to fitting into that type of mold and no homeopath in their right mind would get involved in it.
If you don't think like a homeopath you are not capable of understanding and that I can not give you in a chat forum.
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
Arrowwind said:
Gerry said "Hahnemann was booted out in Germany, but that was apothecaries/pharmacists vs doctor."

But Gerry, itsn't this still true? As long as the doctor complies with the pharmacy dictates as per FDA regulation, and well all know the FDA employess ans well as paid politicians have multiple pharmceutical stock and employment histories, we are still really under the same supression Hannemann was.
You're right.

But what I meant was that in the case of Hahnemann, it wasn't his fellow doctors who booted him out. It was a case of doctor vs pharmacists or drug companies. We still have that now. But worse, we have doctors going against doctors, with the backing of the state. So while the booting out of Hahnemann could be seen as the start of the "war," it is only in America that this war went to the extent of pitting doctor against doctor, or as now seen, "alternative" vs "conventional."

The history shows that the AMA was formed first (to suppress homeopathy), and then it got the backing of the state, influencing the state to form the FDA and go after what the AMA itself labelled as quackery.

Just how I'm beginning to see things. 8)

Gerry
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
It would be interesting to know what Xania has to say about this kind of issue in the UK. Alternatives have not been easy to come by there, but homeopathy had been fairly unhindered there, I think.

Where is Xania, anyway?
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
Arrowwind said:
It would be interesting to know what Xania has to say about this kind of issue in the UK. Alternatives have not been easy to come by there, but homeopathy had been fairly unhindered there, I think.
I have the Reader's Digest book, "Alternative Medicine" -- whose foreword was written by Prince Charles himself, endorsing the search and use of really effective remedies. So I thought there was no problem in the UK, unless Prince Charles saw it a problem that he had to endorse such a book.

What better endorsement can one get other than one from a head of state? :wink:

Gerry
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Yep. It's known that the royal family had a house physician that is a homeopath. Its also been reported that the Queen Mum did ozone therapy well into her old age.
 

morgan33

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Location
Australia
Its also been reported that the Queen Mum did ozone therapy will into her old age.
Hehe - and here I was thinking she was just well preserved by all the gin and tonic! :lol:

I called for side-by-side testing on another thread. Either homeopathy is as effective for the treatment of, say, cancer or it is not. Either homeopathy is better than chemotherapy or it is not.

How do we, as a society, bring about a compelling need for this type of testing? Who will submit to this testing?
What is all this insistence on testing, double blind studies etc? What works for one person might not work on another. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT - a concept allopathic medicine doesn't quite grasp with it's "One size fits all" approach.

My homoeopathic lecturer had quite a bit of success with treating cancer etc - he even did a weekly clinic treating AIDS sufferers, and ended up reversing their HIV status in many instances in addition to eradicating all AIDS symptoms and normalising T-cell counts.

One cancer victim wrote him from interstate - her doctors said she was too far gone for treatment, and would only live 3 months with or without it. She answered all his questions, sent photos of the affected breast oozing blue/black matter. Based on this information, he treated her with Lachesis (made from snake venom) and cured it. The doctors were quite surprised at her "spontaneous remission" and she sent him a xmas card every year :lol:

I sent a friend to him that was newly diagnosed with breast cancer, and spoke to him afterwards - he said he would not be able to save her, as she had accepted the doctors prognosis that she was going to die and that they could do little to postpone it. He gave her some remedies to help with her depression, hoping against hope that she might feel well enough to decide to fight it, but she literally laid down and died.

Two late stage breast cancer victims - same practitioner - only one of them refused to see herself as a victim. How do you put variables such as this in a double blind study?

If I ever developed cancer (and have had a precancerous condition which I successfully reversed) I doubt that I would be interested in such testing, as it would only be conducted by those trying to damage alternative medicine - alternative practitioners know what works for them and do not need an outside authority putting them under the microscope.

Here in Australia I have had an Ob/Gyn give me homoeopathic remedies for morning sickness as well as various herbs and vitamins being recommended by other doctors for various conditions - but such enlightened medicos are a minority.
 

Mad Scientest

New member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Location
Illinois
he said he would not be able to save her, as she had accepted the doctors prognosis that she was going to die and that they could do little to postpone it.

It is amazing all that one can done with just ones mind. Had a neighbor who was certain that she was going to die in her mid 40’s, so she did. :(

[Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours.]
 

morgan33

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Location
Australia
Minds are amazing things!

Here in oz, the indigenous people had a way of disposing of people who transgressed their laws and customs - it is called "pointing the bone". Once the bone was pointed at the transgressor with the appropriate ceremony they would usually die in a matter of days. Only the power of the mind was used.

Certainly explains the placebo effect! However homoeopathy certainly works without this - I have successfully treated many horses, goats, dogs and cats as well as friends and family!
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
morgan33 said:
Here in Australia I have had an Ob/Gyn give me homoeopathic remedies for morning sickness as well as various herbs and vitamins being recommended by other doctors for various conditions - but such enlightened medicos are a minority.
Is American (medical) influence already that strong in Australia that such enlightened medicos are a minority? As for your doctor, did s/he consider giving homeopathic and herbal remedies something out of the ordinary?

My point is that other than American influence, there's hardly any "division" between or among the medical practices. Doctors are usually free to use whatever works if they are knowledgeable and/or skilled in it, and do not bother with conventional/alternative labels. This purely American invention of defining medical practices as conventional/complementary/alternative/integrative should be stopped. Most have been doing integrative medicine anyway except if they're American influenced. If the American "labels" are dropped, we will easily see right medicine come out and wrong medicine discarded.

I do remember that it was from Australia that the use of levamisole for canine heartworms was studied in the '70s. This was "suppressed" (from my point of view) by the American system because they were pushing for the expensive thiacetarsamide regimen, now replaced by melarsomine. But melarsomine treatment is hardly affordable in the Philippines (some 5000 pesos (about US$100) or more -- very expensive for dog owners here). So we've used levamisole, which is only 1/100th of the cost -- some 4 pesos a pill to be taken for two weeks, totalling less than 60 pesos a treatment. And it's been really effective! And this isn't even "alternative"! :?

What is all this insistence on testing, double blind studies etc? What works for one person might not work on another. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT - a concept allopathic medicine doesn't quite grasp with it's "One size fits all" approach.
I think that if we will look closely at this, we will also see that this is just an offshoot of the AMA's usurpation of the power to define what is quackery and what is not. So even this is also an American invention.

My apologies, though, for calling all this "American" -- I think it's more accurate to call it an AMA invention or instigation. 8)

I'll try to change the title of the thread. :wink:

Gerry
 

Marcus

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Well, Morgan, it is great to have someone other than me posting about homeopathy!

I am not so sure that the conventional/alternative conflict is fully an American issue. Hahnemann was nearly crucified for his work not just amongst pharmacists but also by other doctors. He was not well liked and I suppose they were often jealous as clients would line up surrounding his house for treatment. But it is also known that he treated the wealthy during the day and the indigent for free at night while he lived in Paris.

In France many Medical doctors study homeopathy as part of their regular training. I have read that over 50 percent of doctors practice homeopathy in one fashion or another there. There are different ways to apply the remedies. There is also a whole world of remedies that are used in Europe that are not common to US homeopaths, and also a whole different world of homeopathic remedies used in India, largely developed out of East Indian Herbology.

In India homeopathy is very popular and Mother Theresa used it extensively. A small amount of medicine can treat hundreds of people if correctly divided. Yet in the medical hospitals in India although there is greater reception to homeopathy and auraveydic medicine there is still some resistence as many of the doctors are European trained and such "primitive practice and witchcraft" is not generally taught in common medical schools. Yet it is true there is greater acceptance in Europe.

Ramankrishnan works in a hospital in India and has full access to all the benefits there of. All his patients are examined with conventional types of exam to monitor cancer remission or progression. If a remedy shows not to be working via x-ray or what ever test then the remedy is changed. This has been very contriversial for homeopaths in the west as all remedy selection is based on signs and symptoms that perceived in the traditional way. But with cancer often the homeopath has not many signs or symptoms at all. Ramakrishnan has opened up a whole new avenue of application that has literally shocked the western homeopath and did cause quite a ruckus when the book first came out. As with allopaths homeopaths can divide up according to opinions and philosophies also. Now there are a number of Ramankrishnan type practitioners in the US.
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
More ugly history

I've been digging up more on the track record of the AMA. It IS a one-sided research, looking only for the bad. But I think the so-called "good" does not need to be searched because it's what most are exposed to.

Here are some sites I came across:

http://www.relfe.com/history_1.html
http://www.relfe.com/history_2.html
http://www.relfe.com/history_3.html

Seems like the emboldened text are all about dangers of vaccination. But what is significant to me here is how the AMA was in no way taking care of the public's health. Some issues also on fluoridation.

Just scanned and saved the pages... haven't read them in detail, yet.

Gerry
 

RubyTuesday

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
It is a shame that so many blindly accept that the medicinal community is only there to help them and has only their best interest at heart.
Why do you blindly accept that all things Alternative Medicine are there only to "help" and have your best interests at heart? Do you not think there are ALSO crooks and shysters in the health food supplements industry? Why are you so accepting of everything that's "natural" and not every bit as discerning in the natural arena as you think you are when it comes to conventional meds?

I simply don't understand the lack of discernment in BOTH modalities--Conventional and Alternative. Both camps, if you will, are rife with greed and arrogance. Both camps want to take your money as quickly as possible. Both camps claim to be better than the other. Both camps lie and cheat and cut corners.

I would no more take Gerovital (GH3) without fully researching the ingredients than I would take Vioxx. Yet people embark on a campaign to "feel better" and take all manner of chemicals without batting an eye, SOLELY BECAUSE it was sold online by a health food supplement manufacturer rather than Big Pharma. While they're at it, they BELIEVE all the hype applied to these non-Big Pharma products.

This makes absolutely NO SENSE! What does societal imprimatur or market share or agency sponsorship have to do with ANYTHING? This is YOUR BODY you're trying to care for, yet Alternative Medicine advocates behave as if the ONLY THING necessary to ensure their continued health and longevity is that the product NOT be made or endorsed by Big Pharma.

Alternative Therapies--Separating the Wheat From the Chaff
weblink:www.cancerguide.org/wheatchaff/wheatchaff.html

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills--A Brief Tutorial
weblink:tinyurl.com/nl2qp

Now, having said all that, my POV will be perceived as heretical while YOUR rant will have heads nodding in agreement. Yet neither of us has been any more vociferous in expressing our POV than the other.

What do you make of that?

Well, what I make of it is that Alternative Medicine is a POLITICAL STAND. In other words, it doesn't matter whether Alternative Medicine is true or healing. It's that it fits with one's POLITICAL leanings which, more and more, I see as far LEFT. I'll wager that 90% of the readers on this board and HSI are liberals.

So please don't bemoan the politics of American medicine. You--I use the term editorially because you're Everyman--are part of those politics because you refuse to see the lack of discernment in your decisions regarding your body and how to take care of it.

Not everything Conventional is evil and not everything Alternative is pure as the driven snow. Even if you agree with this statement, you don't post as if you agree with it.
 

RubyTuesday

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
This purely American invention of defining medical practices as conventional/complementary/alternative/integrative should be stopped.
Picture yourself as a claims adjuster for an insurance company. The insured pays $220 per month for coverage.

Insured is diagnosed with diabetes. But instead of undergoing conventional treatment for this well-understood disease, he decides to do ozone therapy, oil pulling therapy and drink colloidal silver every day.

Cost of ozone = $150 every 15 days
Cost of oil pulling therapy = $30 per month for oil of choice
Cost of drinking colloidal silver = $24.95 per month on auto ship from Ms. Lucy

Do you think the insurance company should pay for this protocol, assembled by the insured himself?

If you don't think the insurance company should pay for this protocol, then you have no argument because every American is free to eschew Conventional Medicine and go his own way. No one's going to tie the insured down and inject him with insulin. In fact, the insurance company would prefer that you not make a claim at all and simply "do your thing."

If you think the insurance company should pay for this protocol, why do you think so?

If you think the insurance company should pay for this protocol, it's easy to see why the various courses of treatment are divided into "conventional," and "alternative" and "complementary." It's based on who's footing the bill, which can be substantial no matter which course of treatment is followed.

Of course, if you think the insurance company should go broke from reimbursing every type of treatment, no matter if it's backed by studies or not, there's really nothing to talk about. After a couple of years of doing this, there will be NO insurance companies in existence to worry about.
 

bifrost99

Beloved Mentor
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Original Poster
RubyTuesday said:
I simply don't understand the lack of discernment in BOTH modalities--Conventional and Alternative. Both camps, if you will, are rife with greed and arrogance. Both camps want to take your money as quickly as possible. Both camps claim to be better than the other. Both camps lie and cheat and cut corners.
You actually point out another aspect of the problem. And it also exists only because there is the discerned "both camps."

Why should there be any "camp" at all in medicine? This is simply the instigation of the AMA. When we have doctors and "patients" working for their own good, then there's only one "camp": our health. As it is, because the AMA instigated the labels for "camps," we have a baseless "war" going on and the only casualties are the patients and the truth.

If there's only one "camp" -- one medicine -- based on patient's health, then the right medicine would easily stand out and the wrong medicine discarded.

Do you think the insurance company should pay for this protocol, assembled by the insured himself?
Insurance is part of the problem! It gives the patients false impression that they're not paying for treatments, or that they're paying a lot less for treatments. It also limits the choice of patients to more expensive, but not more effective, ways of treatment and diagnosis, like cancer chemo, cholesterol drugs, hypertension drugs, MRI and CAT scans, etc. And worst of all, it encourages treatment instead of prevention!

I wonder why you chose the therapy for your diabetes example. I would have chosen diet change and exercise, along with chromium supplements -- lots cheaper, though nothing to be paid by insurance. But even considering the option you mentioned, is it as expensive as the ineffective (for type 2) insulin shots or insulin-like drugs, or whatever it is AMA protocol does to diabetics? I heard the joke that once a doctor diagnoses diabetes, he immediately makes a phone call to buy some real estate or a Mercedes -- because of what he'll be milking (through insurance?) out of such patient for the rest of that patient's life. :? I think those US insurance companies should wisen up and realize that paying for right medicine will be a lot cheaper for them. (This reminds me of the story that Chinese doctors of old were paid when the families they retain are healthy. And they're NOT paid if someone gets sick. Whether this is true or not, I think that's how medicine -- and insurance -- should be practiced/applied. :D )

In countries like ours (Philippines), we don't really get much in the way of health insurance. Or rather, not many can afford the type of health insurance in the US. In effect, we pay for our own health. And this is probably one reason why doctors here are willing to use the most effective therapies, which are usually the cheapest, even if such are labelled "alternative" by the AMA.

I am not familiar with insurance dues. But with the $220 per month you mentioned, I'd rather spend that on good food, needed supplements, and exercise time. :wink: Health is the best insurance against disease, so I'd rather invest on health than health insurance (which is actually disease insurance).

If people think as if they have no disease insurance, they would go by the prevention route (right medicine!) more seriously, and in case they do get sick, they would seek out the really effective treatment, which is usually cheaper, and discard the more expensive wrong treatments.

Just more thinking. 8)

Gerry
 

Mad Scientest

New member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Location
Illinois
By all means an insurance company should be allowed deicide what it will and will not pay for.
Yet I do not know of too many people with diabetes that have been cured by using conventional treatment, thus the insurance companies are going to be paying out to these individuals for the rest of their lives, or at least until they drop their coverage. The prospect of long-term payouts does not make for a happy insurance company.

So it would seem to me that it would be in the best interest of an insurance company to search out and fund any cure “that shows promise”. Because the sooner a person is truly cured of a disease the sooner that person will be back to adding money to the companies bottom line rather then taking from it.

But what if by change an insurance company found someone who could cure diabetes, but was using an unconventional treatment, and what if they were willing to pay for this treatment because in the long run they realized it would save them money.
Do you think the FDA, or some other alphabet soup agencies, would say “Sure go ahead, send your clients to this guy and let us know how it works out.”? Or do you think the response might be something more like this. “How dare you even think about the possibility of sending this person to someone who is not genuine trained certified licensed doctor how else can he get the latest approved methods of treatment” even if they do not work every well.



Insurance is part of the problem! It gives the patients false impression that they're not paying for treatments, or that they're paying a lot less for treatments. It also limits the choice of patients to more expensive, but not more effective, ways of treatment and diagnosis, like cancer chemo, cholesterol drugs, hypertension drugs, MRI and CAT scans, etc. And worst of all, it encourages treatment instead of prevention!


Right on Gerry! But idea of insurance is so ingrained into our society that it would be impossible to remove.
 

RubyTuesday

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
And this is probably one reason why doctors here are willing to use the most effective therapies, which are usually the cheapest, even if such are labelled "alternative" by the AMA.
What are some therapies that Philippino doctors use that are "most effective" but are considered "alternative" by U.S. standards?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top