Eep! Christians! (Split from Christian Radio)
Pages
| Author | Topic: Eep! Christians! (Split from Christian Radio) |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 596
|
written Tuesday, February 21 2006 12:09
Profile
For opposing views on vaccination see:- http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2000/05/living_vaccin.html The opposing camp has:- http://www.whale.to/v/phillips.html DISPELLING VACCINATION MYTHS: An Introduction to the Contradictions Between Medical Science and Immunization Policy by Rev. Alan Phillips, Director Citizens for Healthcare Freedom Personally, I'm with the anti-vaccination camp. Neither of my children, who live in Africa, with poor sanitary conditions down the road, and polluted sea nearby, have been to the doctor for sickness. They are treated in line I guess with Synergy's world view. Homeopathic preparations of diseases have been used when any childhood diseases occurred. I'd like to make a big mention for the divine superjuice - breastmilk. Both were breastfed till at least three years old. I believe this makes for excellent immune systems, and natural immunization. Posts: 49 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, February 21 2006 12:14
Profile
Homepage
Treating symptoms instead of disease without acknowledging that that is what you're doing and accepting the consequences of it is either a mistake malpractice. The fact that rest and recuperation take too much time in our busy world aren't medical problems. They're societal. I'm guilty of refusing to slow down for a cold (or occasionally a fever), and that might make my colds and fevers last longer, but how is that a terrible failure as long as I know that that's what I'm doing? quote:Khoth has the smallpox vaccination problems right. We haven't had to make or use the vaccines in so long that we might not have any reliable vaccine now. The controversy over thimerosal in vaccines is very much based on debated evidence. I'm no longer quite up to date on the issue, but I believe thimerosal is no longer permitted basically because the regulatory agencies have thrown up their hands and accepted that public opinion is against thimerosal. The link between ethylmercury and autism has been rejected by health agencies, but nobody can prove anything either way. Whatever the consequences of vaccination may be, it's very clear that the consequences of not vaccinating are far higher. Remember when polio used to be a very real threat to everyone? Who is the youngest person you know suffering from paralysis from polio now? —Alorael, who doesn't think most first worlders will be hurt by the loss of thimerosal in vaccines. Its developing countries that lose access to large stocks of vaccines without an effective antimicrobial agent. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Tuesday, February 21 2006 14:56
Profile
Homepage
As far as I have heard, it is antibiotics, not vaccines, that are dangerous. The fact that they exist is very good. The fact that they are in everything is every bad (soap, chicken feed, etc). Antibotics are used so frequently that bacteria are starting to evolve immunity to them. This means they can't be used when you really need them. I believe there is evidence some strains of TB are resisting antibiotics. Admittedly, there's not much good to be said about flu vaccines. But its problems aren't general vaccine problems. Dikiyoba remembered reading a historical novel about a TB epidemic. They had some strange beliefs about the cause and treatment of TB. Now Dikiyoba always thinks of vampires whenever Dikiyoba thinks of TB. Edit: Grammar. [ Tuesday, February 21, 2006 14:57: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Tuesday, February 21 2006 16:24
Profile
Homepage
Ooh, this'll be fun... :D EDIT: Drat... I misspelled "QUOTE" somehow... quote:Quoted for creepiness. quote:I still don't like your sweater. :P quote:The Thorn? Jesus, or what? If religious tolerance is a God-given right, why don't you use it? And religious intolerance just sounds like pride-filled elitism to me. If religious intolerance is really your doctrine, I expect you will find a job with the next Inquisition. quote:I simply disagree... even pending the existence of a God, any god, I just can't agree with that. I'm sorry, but it's that simple. And TM's probably going to have a coronary when he sees the H-word used in a godly context. quote:The people who introduced me to christianity were Episcopalian, and I owe them a lot. Even though I was very uncertain about being confirmed, going through with it helped me realize that I just didn't agree. They never tried to convert me back, even though I know that they're aware of my atheism. As far as I know, they don't hold it against me at all. An Episcopalian upbringing was actually good for me... in the words of some comic (might've been Eddie Izzard), it's like Religion Lite. But seriously, I was able to see the good side of christian morals without being held to the bad ones. No guilt trips about missing church, no über-strict adherence to questionable commandments. They let me think for myself, and that's really the best I could've asked for. I'm beyond thankful that my family was Episcopalian and not Catholic... So in conclusion, DON'T DIS MY FORMER CHURCH!!! quote:That's why it's an analogy. That's what analogies do. quote:Quoted for being utterly ridiculous. [ Tuesday, February 21, 2006 16:26: Message edited by: Ephesos ] -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, February 21 2006 19:17
Profile
Bruce Mitchell quote:From the FAQ: The documented long term adverse effects of vaccines include chronic immunological and neurological disorders such as autism And bingo! We have a quack. There is no credible link between autism and any vaccination. Vaccine ingredients include known toxicants and carcinogens such as thimersol (a mercury derivative Ah, here we go! Thimersol as a 'mercury derivative' is much like claiming beef contains cyanide. They're chemically different enough that the claim is meaningless. Anyone worth their salt in chemistry knows this. The question is whether this quack is ignorant or simply fraudulent... In addition, some vaccine mediums used in the production of vaccines contain human diploid cells originating from human aborted fetal tissue, a fact that might affect many people’s vaccination choices—if they only knew this was the case. And bingo again! We have a fraud. No aborted fetuses have ever been used in the production of any vaccine. To state that they have is a bald-faced and shameful lie intended to further a factually bankrupt agenda. Establishing that the FAQ you gave is fraudulent took me thirty seconds of searching, to wit: if I wanted to, I could spend days rebutting all of their nonsense and lies, but I don't, because I have better things to do. There are risks entailed in vaccination, but the risks do not involve autism, mercury, or fetuses. These are shameful flim-flam scare tactics promoted by 'alternative medicine' quacks who make millions off of suckers in search of an alternative to working, clinically tested drugs. They're also the Bible of anti-vaccination liars. I direct anyone in search of a direct rebuttal to this nonsense to The Millenium Project [sic], which offers a lot of specific cases of this kind of thing up for criticism and deserved ridicule. Almost all of their individual contentions rely on lies, half-truths, or misuse of statistics. Meanwhile, the medical establishment has more than a century of success, alongside with the eradication or near-eradication of many diseases (consider that your children are no longer at risk for smallpox or, realistically, polio) and the reduction of former mass-killers into feckless 'childhood diseases', under its belt. Please take this into account and reconsider your position on vaccination. quote:You know, when my children get sick, I plan to have them treated like the millions of other people whose lives have been improved by modern medicine rather than administer them placebos in the hope that the natural rate of attrition doesn't kick in. But hey, different strokes. quote:Right, because feeding kids breast-milk is something completely novel. ... Synergy I like how Synergy completely ignores me and continues mumbling Christocentric new-age jargon unabated. ... Myntmo quote:(Because I don't have all the time on earth to pick through your entire post, and I find this the most worth responding to) I think that proclaiming your religion the truth of empirical fact is the stupidest thing you could possibly do. There is nothing empirical about received understanding; emirically your faith is worthless. I'm not challenging its worthiness on its own terms, because let's be frank, its own terms are your received understanding. If you did not have, or consider yourself to have, a personal relationship with a higher power, there would be no convincing body of evidence for the assertion that a God or anything like a God exists. So the difference between the two is not that one is accepting empirical fact and refusing to compromise to it. The difference is that one accepts subjective truth as empirical fact and refuses to accept any competing subjective truth the same way, whereas one rejects, or at least treats as equal, all subjective truths. So I no sooner have to accept the Trobrianders' ridiculous aversion to sex within marriage than I have to accept your ridiculous aversion to sex outside of it. Isn't that lovely? Nobody's God has to be any bigger than anyone else's for society to function. And for the record, your God is so uncomfortably close to Stalin or any other murderous, realpolitik-obsessed dictator that I could never worship it even if my received understanding or empirical fact indicated it existed. It would not be worthy of my worship, and I would sooner spend eternity in Hell than abject myself to its tyranny in this world or the next. [ Tuesday, February 21, 2006 19:36: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 596
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 00:56
Profile
A response to Belisarius:- I am not interested in arguing medical evidence or lack thereof. I have read stories about humans and terrible reactions to vaccinations. There are other websites with human stories about this too. Anyone can spend days rebutting anything. I believe there is a flat world organization, who, with scientific method, prove that the world is flat. Let’s present the different camps – and let people decide for themselves. You are doing a good job presenting one side. Whilst I agree that there are plenty of people who prey on the alternative or complimentary medicine market, there is also the opposite. Such as drug companies who make millions off of suckers with supposedly working, clinically tested drugs. I say “supposedly” because there is a lot of money involved and fast-tracking of drugs and fame would be attractive to these large drug companies. Another website to look at apart from the Millenium Project may be http://www.wddty.co.uk/ What Doctors Don’t Tell You says it is one of the few information services that can justifiably claim to solve people’s health problems - and even save lives. We tell you in plain language what works, what doesn’t and what may harm you in both orthodox and alternative medicine so that you can make informed choices. Does the medical establishment have more than a century of success? Iatrogenic Disease (= doctor caused disease) is the third highest killer in USA says http://www.drwhittaker.ca/iatrogenic_disease.htm But no doubt, according to you this website belongs in the Millenium Project. In respect to my position on vaccination, I am more inclined to go along with the camp that says:- Regarding the wide-spread epidemics that decimated populations at the beginning of the 20th century, modern research indicates that epidemics such as diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus died a natural death in the 1940's and 1950's without the assistance of vaccines. How else could the epidemics have ceased in Europe as well where there was no mass vaccination program as in the United States? Studies today point to the fact that the decline of infectious diseases such as diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, are due to better health conditions, better nutrition, and an abatement of the overcrowded conditions in metropolitan areas. As well as:- In justifying the continued push for vaccinations the medical and research establishments uses the often repeated argument that if it were not for vaccinations the developed countries would still be plagued by the major disease epidemics of the past. One of their favourite examples is polio. They often speak of the epidemics of paralytic polio cases occurring among infants in the early part of this century and in particular during the late 1940s to early 1950s, and they would have us believe that polio vaccination had saved us from this terrible scourge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only did the polio vaccine have nothing to do with the decline of paralytic polio (or polio in general), evidence shows that vaccinations for this and other diseases - notably diphtheria, triple antigen (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) and smallpox - were responsible for its increase. The decline of cases not caused by vaccination began to disappear in the West with improvements in hygiene and sanitation and most of the decline occurred well before the widespread use of polio vaccination. As well as info from the “trenches” from my wife:- It’s amazing how whilst at the childcare at the local gym, she learns of all these children who have been vaccinated against it all, and continue to get measles, etc. The mothers roll their eyes at how their children still get the diseases. I am unclear what you mean by “because feeding kids breast-milk is something completely novel”. Are you being sarcastic and saying something like my suggestion of breastmilk is hardly new or that groundbreaking. If so, I’d have you consider the damage that modern medicine has done in the past 100 years by ignoring breastfeeding and promoting formula. Supposedly babies killed by formula feed companies (and supported by medical authorities) in developing countries number in the millions. The companies undermined breastfeeding. Source: http://empathicparenting.org/course/section2/lesson2/page1.html Most modern mothers do not breastfeed for that long at all. That is sad and I believe compromises people’s health for their whole life. There are definite immunization abilities from breastmilk. :rolleyes: Posts: 49 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 01:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:Blaming the medical profession for everyone who dies of iatrogenic disease is a little unfair, considering that most people whose deaths are attributed to iatrogenic causes are people already in long-term hospital care, who are very sick, very old, or both, and who would mostly be dead already if it weren't for modern medical techniques. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 02:08
Profile
Breastfeeding was in eclipse for a decade or two, a couple of generations ago. For many years now, though, it has been heavily promoted by the mainstream medical establishment. So much so that, when our daughter was newborn, I started summarizing what we were being told by all the doctors and nurses as "breastmilk makes kids bulletproof". In fact, they made it sound so good that I couldn't figure out why they would always use constructions like, "If you choose to breastfeed ...". Why the "If", I wondered. It seemed like a no-brainer. It turns out that breastfeeding can be extremely difficult. You might think that millions of years of evolution would make it work easily for practically everyone, but no. Babies need to learn how to do it, and some don't seem to learn very well. In past ages, they would simply have died; today, if the kid isn't getting enough breastmilk in after a few days, they get a bottle. And from there there's usually no going back, since the mother's milk production is stimulated by consumption. If the kid doesn't take enough out, the milk stops coming. There is also a learning curve for mothers; it can be tricky. And extremely painful. Many mothers have no trouble at all with breastfeeding, but many mothers who are very keen to breastfeed their babies end up relying on formula despite their best attempts. Formula was never actually that bad, though; it really just lacks antibodies. The problem is only that it is expensive, so poor babies on formula may not get enough formula. In a lot of US grocery stores, it is kept behind counters, instead of on the shelves, and you have to ask for it. If it is put out on the shelves, it is heavily shoplifted. I have this directly from the store clerks whom we had to ask for formula when we couldn't find it on the shelves. My wife kept up breastfeeding for about nine months, but there was never enough for our daughter to live without formula supplement. This was okay, though, since she got enough to get a lot of antibodies. WIth regard to 'studies' showing things about the efficacy or hazard of immunization: what studies? Plenty of studies are the sheerest crap, and totally worthless as evidence of anything. Conducting a study with credible implications is incredibly difficult. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:20: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 07:46
Profile
Homepage
quote:You've got to be kidding me. This site is so blatantly intended to scare people into buying its products that anyone with any shred of discriminating skepticism will immediately disregard its self-promotion and look elsewhere for the facts. I'd refute its claims, but I'd rather not have to pay the sity money in order to see them! The page on iatrogenic disease is interesting. Note how it cites news articles towards the bottom of the page. It's interesting how thoroughly those news articles are edited to make them sound more scary than they are. "Study: Tools left in 1,500 patients yearly" is a real AP report, but, for instance, in the paragraph that says, "Most patients needed additional surgery to remove the object," the actual report follows it up with, "but sometimes it came out by itself or in a doctor's office. In other cases, patients were not even aware of the object, and it turned up in later surgery for other problems." Sure, the factual content is more or less the same, but the emphasis is entirely different, and emphasis is the difference between genuine reporting and alarmist scare tactics. I'd rather have my information undiluted, personally. EDIT: But I think it's fair to say that this statement is an exaggeration: "Cancer is an industry, as environmental watchdog Dr Samuel Epstein famously pointed out. It is an industry that has been created by the drug companies, and one that generates billions of pounds of profits for them." Cancer has not been created solely by "the drug companies." [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:03: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 10:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:Personally, I'm most terrified by this statement of Bruce's. The implication is basically that debate and discourse are worthless, and should be abandoned. This kind of statement is used by people whose job it is to obfuscate and confuse in order to facilitate power. Certain White House Press Secretaries come to mind. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 11:21
Profile
Homepage
Anybody can debate anything, but that still doesn't make it true. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 11:23
Profile
Homepage
Wow. You avoid forums for a day in order to get a project finished, and suddenly people are debating vaccination. Thuryl, to complete what you asked, I went and quickly looked up some references. For a general idea of what lies behind those questions (they were based on some material from a theology and worldview course), see Romans 1:18-32 , 2:14-15 , and 3:19-26 for starters. I can find more if you want me to. quote:I talked with a theology professor over that one, especially in light of Romans 2:15. I got a whole lot of "deep" gabbering about how all wrong results from sin and that even feeling guilty for doing something right is the result of total corruption, blah blah blah. My (totally fallable) understanding is that we know when things aren't the way that they're supposed to be. I took that hint directly from the theology course note pack, and did not fully think through its full philosophical implications when I posted it. I simply made a wrong assumption about acceptablilty and understanding. So, my foul there. And, yeah, let's call it a difference of principles. Synergy: are you involved in Christian Science (the religion) or something? quote:Christianity is not as much a variation on Judaism as the alleged fulfillment of it. Once the system of the Law was completely satisfied for all time(the Mosaic Law, surprisingly enough, expects people to fail. that's the entire point of the sacrificial system), the way that people approach the system had to be changed. The damnation was always there, it's just that only the Jews were originally held fully accountable because they were the example and had direct access to God and the atonement sacrificial system. After Christ, God holds Everyone fully accountable because everyone can get in on the system of grace, because He took care of all of the punishments and sacrifices that are demanded from breaking the law, and because there are no more sacrifices, you don't have to go through the Jews, so now the system is open to everyone. Yay for run-on sentances. Complicated? Yeah. But not that complicated. -------------------- The Silent Assassin has decided to go cold turkey. That is, his lunch today will consist of turkey and swiss on wheat. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 596
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 11:34
Profile
Re. Quoting websites and studies. My quoting of websites is for your consideration, not held up to be absolute truth. This obviously does not seem to work very well. All I know is that I experiment in my life based on my research. Re. Information and Money. I don’t know about you but doctors are expensive. They charge a lot for advice. My bet is that paying for some info like at WTDDTY is far less expensive than a doctor – and you’d probably get a wider amount of info/options/research. Then there are plenty of free websites to discover. Re. Scary Tactics. Yes, this is not ideal. It does cause controversy and so sells. It makes people sit up and listen and consider, and thence take a stance. Re. Iatrogenic Disease. All I am saying is that it seems to exist. That is enough for me to put serious doubt on the success of modern medicine. Re. Anyone can spend days rebutting anything. & The implication is basically that debate and discourse are worthless, and should be abandoned. I don’t hold your implication to be true. I do feel that words often lead to conflict and a locking of horns. I am more for sensing suffering and acting as best you can. More about doing the walk than talking the talk. What comes to my mind is saintly people. Re. Breastfeeding. Yes, it is difficult for many and painful. Then there’s all that pressure from the media and their partner for the woman to be immediately glamorous. The extended family set-up, the village, has been broken down. There are no elder women there, to hold the newly breastfeeding woman’s hand and show her the way. Generally speaking, the partner of the new mother as well as the new mother does not want saggy breasts due to breastfeeding. There’s the pressure of the mother getting back to work to support the family. Women feel they will be tied down, etc. All these contribute to the lack of persistence in breastfeeding. But it is a massive investment in your child’s health and the bonding with your child. Close to 100% of mothers giving birth in birth centres or at home breastfeed successfully. The same would not be the case of hospital births. I have seen a video of a newborn baby –without any help – move itself up to the women’s breast and start suckling successfully. Will a hospital allow this extended unpressured uninterfered time immediately post-birth? As far as I know you make light of medicine’s anti-breastfeeding stance until about 20 years ago. As far as I know, it was a massive 50 year struggle to get medicine to endorse it. As far as I know, formula was always bad, especially so in the past. Is millions of death not bad? Posts: 49 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 11:57
Profile
Homepage
(Quotes from Bruce) quote:I'm certainly not going to argue that the structure of the modern health care system is admirable (not in most countries, anyway). And I'll agree that the medical establishment makes mistakes and is not always right. But even if you don't like the centuries of research the medical establishment has to offer, what in the world is there about some guy with a web site that makes him worth listening to? quote:No, it's dishonest and manipulative. quote:Um... okay. So, what are you doing, saintlywise, to walk the walk? quote:Where in the world did this absurd-sounding statistic come from? I'm willing to believe breast-feeding is less common in hospital births, but come on, man. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 12:09
Profile
Infant formula has been deadly in Third World countries where it was mixed with contaminated water, where people were too poor to afford enough of it to keep a baby healthy, and where endemic diseases make the antibodies in breastmilk vital. Some manufacturers, particularly Nestle, seem to have been pretty ruthless in their marketing of formula despite these conditions. If you get enough of it, and live in a healthier environment with clean water, there is nothing wrong with formula. I learned physics in grad school, not physic; but I think the main thing I learned there was just how enormously harder it is than I ever thought it was, to be right about anything. Trying to extrapolate future results for my family, based only on the tiny data set of my own previous experience, now seems reckless to me. About hospital births. In Massachusetts, four years ago, they took our daughter away for about an hour for a bunch of tests very shortly after birth. Thereafter she was all ours, and they sent us home four days later; so I don't think we needed more time for breastfeeding. Normally it would have been two days in hospital, but we had a Caesarian section. And that is a significant difference with hospital births. Obviously they don't do C-sections at all, outside hospitals (lay off, Macduff); but in upscale American hospitals, they do really a lot of them. In ours it was about 25% of all births. On the one hand, after quite a few hours of labor there were signs our daughter was in trouble, and I'm very glad we had a Plan B to go to. On the other hand, the very high rate of C-sections is probably driven by liability concerns at least to some extent. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:17: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 13:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think you're missing the concept of percentage rates. Modern medicine helps overwhelmingly more often than it hurts. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 13:39
Profile
Homepage
The reason doctors are expensive is because they undergo expensive training so what they say is based in reality. It may be shocking, but in many cases doctors who are paid wholly by the government in countries with socialized medicine give the same recommendations as American doctors. Now, let's look at iatrogenic diseases. 106,000: Non-error, negative effects of drugs Drugs have toxicity. Doctors know that. Patients know that too, because they are required to give informed consent. If the drug is approved (non-error), the toxicity is lower than the risk of the disease. 80,000: Infections in hospitals How many are from invasive procedures that have a known risk of infection? 45,000: Other errors in hospitals "Other errors" include what? But even if this and all the lower ambiguous groups are real iatrogenic deaths, that's a quarter of the amount stated. I have low confidence in this page. I particularly like "First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients." Another doctor once said, "I don't like to send patients to the ICU [Intensive Care Unit]. They die too often there." Unsurprisingly, patients hospitalized for serious conditions may die, and they may die under the care of physicians, which makes the death potentially iatrogenic. —Alorael, whose question about Hell still wasn't answered. 'Damnation' was and is very different in Judaism, particularly in light of the limited duration. If "[Christ] took care of all of the punishments and sacrifices that are demanded from breaking the law," why is the punishment for breaking the law by sinning now harsher than ever? Everyone is still expected to sin and repent! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 18:16
Profile
There is a procedure they perform in surgery which has an 80% mortality rate. That means that 8 out of every 10 people they perform it on will be dead within a few days. This is because it requires the surgeons to relocate half of the gastrointestinal tract - to outside the body, because there's not enough space within the abdominal cavity to go around and they have to reach the pancreas, which is readily the nastiest organ in the human body. It's soft and fragile, like a waterlogged, large-holed sponge. Mess with it wrong, and it will fall apart on you - spreading bile throughout the body and causing sepsis and almost certain death. They then have to remove the tip of the pancreas, stuff the intestines back in (very carefully, mind), and sew one of the larger incisions seen in regular procedures up as quickly as possible. Why do they do that? Because it is the only way to destroy a certain kind of pancreatic cancer which, upon discovery, is guaranteed to be fatal within months. And most people, faced with a 20% shot at living out the remainder of their natural lives in excellent health against an 80% chance of swift death or a 100% shot at living a couple dozen torturous weeks, will go with the former. ... Nowadays doctors view open-incision surgery with a sort of disaste. If it's possible to perform it with laproscopic equipment, they tend to; this involves sticking a few holes in the patient so as to accomodate a camera and miniscule operating equipment, filling the appropriate cavity with gas, and operating. They actually have a set now for heart surgery that beats in unison with the heart - so from the perspective of the physician, making and sewing incisions is as smooth on one of the more volatile of the body's organs as smooth as doing the same to an arm or leg. Laproscopy reduces time of operation dramatically, makes operating a lot cleaner and safer, and in many cases doesn't involve an incision at all. Which naturally means that some day there will someday, when the practice is more ubiquitous, be a tremendous community of frauds hawking books saying that it induces cancer and autism and the grippe and you can only trust a surgeon if he cuts you open and exposes massive areas of your body to infection, and millions of dollars made by 'traditional' surgeons at the cost of public sanitation and the health of their clients. ... I find arguing with someone who refuses to regard evidence unless it supports his side of the argument, as a result of either deliberate or ignorance-driven error, impossible. I share the above, and any further information or rebuttals on this topic, in the interests of entertaining and edifying this community with the facts of modern medicine at its respective best and worst. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 18:19: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 596
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:23
Profile
Modern medicine was very resistant to complementary/alternative medicine – now it is incorporating it as best it can = good progress. I continue to question whether modern medicine helps overwhelmingly more often than it hurts. I’d say in true emergencies, this is very true. However, I feel that in the field of pregnancy and birth this is especially not true. Does expensive training mean you are suddenly based in reality? I don’t believe this. Part of the issue of iatrogenic for me is that doctors tend to look more at the body and less at the psyche and the lifestyle. If more emphasis was put on training doctors to be more holistic, more preventative, it would be good. There is a lot wrong with formula. It is WHO’s third choice for babies –after mother then wet nurse. There are numerous benefits and magics about breastmilk that formula cannot supply. “Close to 100% of mothers giving birth in birth centres or at home breastfeed successfully. Where in the world did this absurd-sounding statistic come from? I'm willing to believe breast-feeding is less common in hospital births, but come on, man.” Don’t remember the source. The book is packed away in some unknown box at present, as we will be moving soon. If you read/learn about the difference in woman empowerment between the two (hospital vs. home), you may realize how it does not sound absurd. I said I experiment with my own life based on research (= from the collective pool of knowledge, not just my tiny data from my own experience). Is this not what everyone is doing, more or less consciously? What have I done to walk my talk or walk my walk? I am currently experimenting with my family with attachment parenting (www.searsparenting.com). Both my children were born at home, one was an unassisted birth. My wife has done extended breastfeeding. I have slung both my children for years. I am homeschooling my children. I believe I am contributing to true world peace by doing all this. I have already written a lengthy book on world peace, which I feel unworthy to take further till I’m much further along my road of experimentation. I still have a lot to do. Scary tactics are dishonest and manipulative = not ideal. What in life is not manipulative? Who in life is not to a greater or lesser extent dishonest and manipulative. What in the world is there about some guy with a web site that makes him worth listening to? Sorry, don’t understand this comment. The fact that your child was taken away for one whole hour after birth is very indicative of why your wife had problems breastfeeding. It is this crucial period that is so interfered with by modern medicine that enables breastfeeding. As far as I know, animals in captivity also fail to breastfeed well – because of the unnatural birth circumstances. Birth for most women is not an emergency. It is a natural process. Interference in pregnancy and birth creates a domino effect. Doctors oversee birth who are male and who have never witnessed a natural birth – they are programmed by their own birth, their training, etc., to see trouble. The act of giving birth in a hospital is a very unnatural event, and many women find it disempowering (to say the least). “I find arguing with someone who refuses to regard evidence unless it supports his side of the argument, as a result of either deliberate or ignorance-driven error, impossible.” So do I. That is what I refer to as locking horns. Are you sure you are right? I am not sure whether I am right, nor am I sure you are right. Posts: 49 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2002 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:33
Profile
Homepage
Doctors have a good track record of curing what diseases I get. I will trust them until I get screwed. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:39
Profile
Actually, childbirth used to be the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age. Modern medicine, while admittedly not the best system, has drasticly reduced this. Having worked in a hospital, I understand your concern about pathogens in that setting. Life (and death) happens and people get sick. Not everyone gets better. Nothing can be done to eradicate illness, not should there be. The mysteries of death, and gradual acceptance thereof, is actually one function of clergy that I hold in esteem. (Topical) -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 22:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:Heavens above. If reducing human suffering through preventing and curing disease isn't a worthy goal, what is? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 23:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:Aha, now we get to the crux of things. It sounds like you are very invested in your viewpoint. quote:As I already stated, I am willing to believe breast feeding is more successful in a home environment. The part I find absurd is the "nearly 100%" part. quote:This link redirects to another website which says nothing (that I can see, anyway) about "attachment parenting." A bit of a sloppy reference. I take it this is some kind of pop psychification of attachment theory? quote:I'm quite speechless. Edit: quote:Quoted for agreement. The worst thing about life is its inability to accept death. Edit: Thuryl, I suspect Salmon was just talking about the complete eradication of illness, not its amelioration or the reduction of suffering. [ Wednesday, February 22, 2006 23:11: Message edited by: Slartucker ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 23:21
Profile
quote:Yes. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, February 22 2006 23:24
Profile
Homepage
Okay, so if the eradication of disease isn't a desirable goal even in principle, what's the ideal amount of disease that should exist? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |