Mesothelioma Information - Alternative Health Discussions

Alternative Health Related News & Discussions...

Mesothelioma Research has been established to provide you with as much in-depth and relevant information about mesothelioma, asbestos, and health related issues as possible. Here you'll find hundreds of mesothelioma & asbestos related news and discussion items collected from around the internet's popular discussion groups to aid you in your research....

Amazing Meeting II

Re: Amazing Meeting II -- Posted by Jan on 01-11-04 16:01

>Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
>From: WB no_one@nowhere.net
>Date: 1/11/2004 12:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

The subject isn't Jan, (chicken to post your own name).

Trolling again, get a life..

>>Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
>>>Health Fraud.'

>>Neither Barrett or Sampson are qualified, and bias, having little if any
>>credibility.

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_king_bio_pharma.htm

Re: Amazing Meeting II -- Posted by Doug on 01-10-04 05:04

"Anth" wrote in message
news:3fff37f5$0$61057$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
> Health Fraud.'
> I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
> doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed computer
> genius.
>

The word expert and genius have quite different meanings.
You may not be a genius, but could you call yourself a computer expert?

Barret is an expert on quackery, but I wouldn't call him a genius.

> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
> Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
> Should Be Defunded.
>
> How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
> chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
> organisation that will test it?
> Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
> progress of testing of alternative therapies.

The other problem is that even though money is available, there dosn't seem
to be too many studies being done.
In addition, quite a few of the alternative treatments violate some well
established scientific laws. The probability of these treatments actually
working approaches zero. From Barret's point of view, NCCAM would be
wasting money in an area for which is is impossible to get a pay back. This
money could be better spent else where.

>
> As for unproven :-
> While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying
that
> there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
> for treating cancer.
> In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
> conjunction with proven therapies.
> So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
> mainstream methods _is_ effective.
>

No, it means that the main stream treatments are effective and the toxins
are not.
You are trying to twist their words to get some sort of positive answer.
There comes a time when you have to say, "This sounded good, but it is
leading us no-where. Time to stop wasting time and resources on it and look
for something more promising." In business, they say "don't throw good
money after bad".

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Re: Amazing Meeting II -- Posted by Anth on 01-10-04 11:05

"Doug" wrote in message
news:1073729075.307173@pluto.global.net.au...
>
> "Anth" wrote in message
> news:3fff37f5$0$61057$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
> > Health Fraud.'
> > I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
> > doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed
computer
> > genius.
> >
>
> The word expert and genius have quite different meanings.
> You may not be a genius, but could you call yourself a computer expert?
>
> Barret is an expert on quackery, but I wouldn't call him a genius.
>
> > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
> > Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
(NCCAM)
> > Should Be Defunded.
> >
> > How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's
no
> > chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
> > organisation that will test it?
> > Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
> > progress of testing of alternative therapies.
>
> The other problem is that even though money is available, there dosn't
seem
> to be too many studies being done.
> In addition, quite a few of the alternative treatments violate some well
> established scientific laws. The probability of these treatments actually
> working approaches zero. From Barret's point of view, NCCAM would be
> wasting money in an area for which is is impossible to get a pay back.
This
> money could be better spent else where.

Some may, typically homepathy - advocates straining to find some kind of
scientific plausibility behind their rantings.
Take for example the 2 main theories, cancer and heart disease, 2 of them
could be tested without fuss.
Cancer may be with Dr Gonzalez, Dr Rath's isn't.

> >
> > As for unproven :-
> > While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying
> that
> > there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were
effective
> > for treating cancer.
> > In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
> > conjunction with proven therapies.
> > So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction
with
> > mainstream methods _is_ effective.
> >
>

> No, it means that the main stream treatments are effective and the toxins
> are not.
> You are trying to twist their words to get some sort of positive answer.
> There comes a time when you have to say, "This sounded good, but it is
> leading us no-where. Time to stop wasting time and resources on it and
look
> for something more promising." In business, they say "don't throw good
> money after bad".

Actually this is incorrect, the Toxin's in conjunction with mainstream are
more effective than mainstream alone.

> --
> "The emperor is naked!"
> "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
>
> to email me
> Please remove "all your clothes"
>
> Doug
>

Dr Barret wouldn't touch Dr Rath's because he knows it could hammer his
credibility.
(I'd take the health route over the credibility any time)
Anth

Re: Amazing Meeting II -- Posted by Doug on 01-10-04 11:59

"Anth" wrote in message
news:400022d6$0$61054$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> "Doug" wrote in message
> news:1073729075.307173@pluto.global.net.au...
> >
> > "Anth" wrote in message
> > news:3fff37f5$0$61057$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > > Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide
to
> > > Health Fraud.'
> > > I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills)
that
> > > doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed
> computer
> > > genius.
> > >
> >
> > The word expert and genius have quite different meanings.
> > You may not be a genius, but could you call yourself a computer expert?
> >
> > Barret is an expert on quackery, but I wouldn't call him a genius.
> >
> > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
> > > Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
> (NCCAM)
> > > Should Be Defunded.
> > >
> > > How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's
> no
> > > chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
> > > organisation that will test it?
> > > Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
> > > progress of testing of alternative therapies.
> >
> > The other problem is that even though money is available, there dosn't
> seem
> > to be too many studies being done.
> > In addition, quite a few of the alternative treatments violate some well
> > established scientific laws. The probability of these treatments
actually
> > working approaches zero. From Barret's point of view, NCCAM would be
> > wasting money in an area for which is is impossible to get a pay back.
> This
> > money could be better spent else where.
>
>
> Some may, typically homepathy - advocates straining to find some kind of
> scientific plausibility behind their rantings.
> Take for example the 2 main theories, cancer and heart disease, 2 of them
> could be tested without fuss.
> Cancer may be with Dr Gonzalez, Dr Rath's isn't.

OK, I will have a stab at this, even though I'm not sure exactly what you
mean.
I had a quick look over the web sites of these two. To begin with, Rath can
quickly be dismisses as a loony. The reason is the conspiracy angle. Small
conspiracies can work, world wide ones do not. Profit is made from
successful drugs and treatments, and more profit is made from making these
affordable.

Dr Gonzalez, A quick look over his work and all does not seem right. The
bit about detoxification set the alarm bells ringing.
Now I could be wrong, but with these types of treatments, when you shine the
spotlight of science on them they tend to melt away and become
insubstansial.

>
> > >
> > > As for unproven :-
> > > While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying
> > that
> > > there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were
> effective
> > > for treating cancer.
> > > In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
> > > conjunction with proven therapies.
> > > So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction
> with
> > > mainstream methods _is_ effective.
> > >
> >
>
> > No, it means that the main stream treatments are effective and the
toxins
> > are not.
> > You are trying to twist their words to get some sort of positive answer.
> > There comes a time when you have to say, "This sounded good, but it is
> > leading us no-where. Time to stop wasting time and resources on it and
> look
> > for something more promising." In business, they say "don't throw good
> > money after bad".
>
> Actually this is incorrect, the Toxin's in conjunction with mainstream are
> more effective than mainstream alone.

Or it could be just bad lab work.

> > --
> > "The emperor is naked!"
> > "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
> >
> > to email me
> > Please remove "all your clothes"
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
> Dr Barret wouldn't touch Dr Rath's because he knows it could hammer his
> credibility.
> (I'd take the health route over the credibility any time)
> Anth
>

Perhapse he just wants to get better.
After reading Rath's web site, I wouldn't want to touch her treatment
either.
I too would take health over creadability, but looking at Dr Rath's site, I
don't think it will give you health.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Re: Amazing Meeting II -- Posted by Anth on 01-10-04 13:32

"Doug" wrote in message
news:1073753964.474919@pluto.global.net.au...
>
> "Anth" wrote in message
> news:400022d6$0$61054$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > "Doug" wrote in message
> > news:1073729075.307173@pluto.global.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Anth" wrote in message
> > > news:3fff37f5$0$61057$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > > > Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide
> to
> > > > Health Fraud.'
> > > > I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills)
> that
> > > > doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed
> > computer
> > > > genius.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The word expert and genius have quite different meanings.
> > > You may not be a genius, but could you call yourself a computer
expert?
> > >
> > > Barret is an expert on quackery, but I wouldn't call him a genius.
> > >
> > > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
> > > > Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
> > (NCCAM)
> > > > Should Be Defunded.
> > > >
> > > > How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when
there's
> > no
> > > > chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
> > > > organisation that will test it?
> > > > Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow
the
> > > > progress of testing of alternative therapies.
> > >
> > > The other problem is that even though money is available, there dosn't
> > seem
> > > to be too many studies being done.
> > > In addition, quite a few of the alternative treatments violate some
well
> > > established scientific laws. The probability of these treatments
> actually
> > > working approaches zero. From Barret's point of view, NCCAM would be
> > > wasting money in an area for which is is impossible to get a pay back.
> > This
> > > money could be better spent else where.
> >
> >
> > Some may, typically homepathy - advocates straining to find some kind of
> > scientific plausibility behind their rantings.
> > Take for example the 2 main theories, cancer and heart disease, 2 of
them
> > could be tested without fuss.
> > Cancer may be with Dr Gonzalez, Dr Rath's isn't.
>
> OK, I will have a stab at this, even though I'm not sure exactly what you
> mean.
> I had a quick look over the web sites of these two. To begin with, Rath
can
> quickly be dismisses as a loony. The reason is the conspiracy angle.
Small
> conspiracies can work, world wide ones do not. Profit is made from
> successful drugs and treatments, and more profit is made from making these
> affordable.
>

Why is Dr Rath a loony? He has a sound theory behind his work (the unified
theory of heart disease)
He has experiments proving vitamin c/nutrients prevents atherosclerosis in
animals and a pilot study in humans as well as many testimonials.

> Dr Gonzalez, A quick look over his work and all does not seem right. The
> bit about detoxification set the alarm bells ringing.
> Now I could be wrong, but with these types of treatments, when you shine
the
> spotlight of science on them they tend to melt away and become
> insubstansial.

Just because protocol has something that is alien to your thought doesn't
mean it's wrong.
It can either mean it's wrong or your thinking is limited and it's right.

> >
> > > >
> > > > As for unproven :-
> > > > While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS
saying
> > > that
> > > > there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were
> > effective
> > > > for treating cancer.
> > > > In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used
in
> > > > conjunction with proven therapies.
> > > > So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction
> > with
> > > > mainstream methods _is_ effective.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > No, it means that the main stream treatments are effective and the
> toxins
> > > are not.
> > > You are trying to twist their words to get some sort of positive
answer.
> > > There comes a time when you have to say, "This sounded good, but it is
> > > leading us no-where. Time to stop wasting time and resources on it
and
> > look
> > > for something more promising." In business, they say "don't throw
good
> > > money after bad".
> >
> > Actually this is incorrect, the Toxin's in conjunction with mainstream
are
> > more effective than mainstream alone.
>
> Or it could be just bad lab work.

It could be, unlikely due to studies, maybe not..

>
> > > --
> > > "The emperor is naked!"
> > > "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
> > >
> > > to email me
> > > Please remove "all your clothes"
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> > Dr Barret wouldn't touch Dr Rath's because he knows it could hammer his
> > credibility.
> > (I'd take the health route over the credibility any time)
> > Anth
> >

> Perhapse he just wants to get better.
> After reading Rath's web site, I wouldn't want to touch her treatment
> either.

(Dr Rath is male)
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/

> I too would take health over creadability, but looking at Dr Rath's site,
I
> don't think it will give you health.
>

I do, and there's pretty much nothing to lose but a few dollars.

> --
> "The emperor is naked!"
> "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
>
> to email me
> Please remove "all your clothes"
>
> Doug

Start Of Discussion

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Continued »

Corning to Record $200 Million After-tax Charge for Asbestos Settlement; Company Reaches Agreement with Claimants
Business Wire - March 28, 2003
Business Editors CORNING, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 28, 2003 Corning Incorporated today announced that it has reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against Corning and Pittsburg... (Read More)

Sealed Air Announces Approvals of Agreement in Principle
Business Wire - December 6, 2002
Business Editors SADDLE BROOK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 6, 2002 Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE:SEE) announced today that the Company's Board of Directors has approved the terms of the previously announced agreement in principle with the Committee of Asbestos Personal Injur... (Read More)