The Official Health and Fitness Thread
- Thread starter 4th Liner
- Start date
hockeyfan1
New member
In 2009, Shiv Chopra blew the whistle on the corrupted Health Canada bureaucracy and it's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry:
Chopra chronicles intrigue, manipulation and deception as Health Canada managers ? at the behest of their political bosses ?
worked to please their drug company clients. Among other things, he accuses management of:
Ignoring a central tenet of the Food and Drugs Act requiring
manufacturers to provide evidence of safety before approval
Ignoring and sidelining scientists who refuse to approve drugs without evidence of safety
Approving veterinary drugs containing carcinogens and hormones that have detrimental health effects
Refusing to revisit approved drugs after new evidence showed they were unsafe
Ignoring or manipulating scientists? reports on certain drugs
Forbidding scientists to speak to anyone about their work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742145/
Chopra chronicles intrigue, manipulation and deception as Health Canada managers ? at the behest of their political bosses ?
worked to please their drug company clients. Among other things, he accuses management of:
Ignoring a central tenet of the Food and Drugs Act requiring
manufacturers to provide evidence of safety before approval
Ignoring and sidelining scientists who refuse to approve drugs without evidence of safety
Approving veterinary drugs containing carcinogens and hormones that have detrimental health effects
Refusing to revisit approved drugs after new evidence showed they were unsafe
Ignoring or manipulating scientists? reports on certain drugs
Forbidding scientists to speak to anyone about their work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742145/
hockeyfan1
New member
Green Tea: Anti-Inflammatory properties...good news for Rheumatoid Arthritis sufferers:
...a new study has found that green tea can help curing debilitating autoimmune disorder rheumatoid arthritis.
Researchers from Washington State University have found a phytochemical called epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), which is a molecule with anti-inflammatory properties found in green tea.
They found EGCG as a high potential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis as they can very effectively block the effects of the disease without blocking other cellular functions.
Lead researcher Salah-uddin Ahmed said that the existing drugs for rheumatoid arthritis are expensive, immunosuppressive and sometimes unsuitable for long-term use, thereupon green tea is the best option available.
He added that this study has opened the field of research into using EGCG for targeting TAK1, an important signaling protein through which proinflammatory cytokines transmit their signals to cause inflammation and tissue destruction in rheumatoid arthritis.
http://www.lifeextension.com/news/lefdailynews?NewsID=24909&Section=Disease[/color]
...a new study has found that green tea can help curing debilitating autoimmune disorder rheumatoid arthritis.
Researchers from Washington State University have found a phytochemical called epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), which is a molecule with anti-inflammatory properties found in green tea.
They found EGCG as a high potential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis as they can very effectively block the effects of the disease without blocking other cellular functions.
Lead researcher Salah-uddin Ahmed said that the existing drugs for rheumatoid arthritis are expensive, immunosuppressive and sometimes unsuitable for long-term use, thereupon green tea is the best option available.
He added that this study has opened the field of research into using EGCG for targeting TAK1, an important signaling protein through which proinflammatory cytokines transmit their signals to cause inflammation and tissue destruction in rheumatoid arthritis.
http://www.lifeextension.com/news/lefdailynews?NewsID=24909&Section=Disease[/color]
McGarnagle
New member
L K said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-licensing-of-natural-remedies-a-joke-doctor-says-1.2992414
The marketplace episode on this was unbelievable. I had no idea how little oversight there was for homeopathic "medicine".
hockeyfan1
New member
The most comprehensive study ever undertaken: the Swiss government's report on the efficacy of homeopathic and complementary medicine:
The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.
In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government..
The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution.
The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy."
The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-_b_1258607.html
The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.
In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government..
The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution.
The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy."
The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-_b_1258607.html
The Swiss report represents a biased review largely by homeopaths who changed the rules of evidence in order to declare that homeopathy works. Other homeopaths then present this review as unbiased and definitive. This is behavior that would make even the most unscrupulous pharmaceutical rep blush.
This is also, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. This represents a general strategy apparent in the world of CAM ? to present themselves as the experts so that they can pack panels with proponents and then advocate for changing the normal rules of scientific evidence in order to produce highly biased assessments of CAM. Further, they portray skeptics (meaning those who advocate for consistent and rigorous scientific methods) to be biased so that when they point out that the emperor has no clothes they can be dismissed.
The Swiss report on homeopathy represents an embarrassing failure for the Swiss government. They should suspend any decisions based upon this report and put together an new scientific panel to perform a fresh and legitimate review of homeopathy. Or, they don?t have to reinvent the wheel ? they can just review the UKs thorough and rigorous report and adopt its findings. Homeopathy is witchcraft and deserves no government support of any kind.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-swiss-report-on-homeopathy/
This paper analyses the report and concludes that it is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed. Specifically, it contains no new evidence and misinterprets studies previously exposed as weak; creates a new standard of evidence designed to make homeopathy appear effective; and attempts to discredit randomised controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence. Most importantly, almost all the authors have conflicts of interest, despite their claim that none exist. If anything, the report proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs, and its authors appear to have breached Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences principles governing scientific integrity.
http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13594/
This is also, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. This represents a general strategy apparent in the world of CAM ? to present themselves as the experts so that they can pack panels with proponents and then advocate for changing the normal rules of scientific evidence in order to produce highly biased assessments of CAM. Further, they portray skeptics (meaning those who advocate for consistent and rigorous scientific methods) to be biased so that when they point out that the emperor has no clothes they can be dismissed.
The Swiss report on homeopathy represents an embarrassing failure for the Swiss government. They should suspend any decisions based upon this report and put together an new scientific panel to perform a fresh and legitimate review of homeopathy. Or, they don?t have to reinvent the wheel ? they can just review the UKs thorough and rigorous report and adopt its findings. Homeopathy is witchcraft and deserves no government support of any kind.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-swiss-report-on-homeopathy/
This paper analyses the report and concludes that it is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed. Specifically, it contains no new evidence and misinterprets studies previously exposed as weak; creates a new standard of evidence designed to make homeopathy appear effective; and attempts to discredit randomised controlled trials as the gold standard of evidence. Most importantly, almost all the authors have conflicts of interest, despite their claim that none exist. If anything, the report proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs, and its authors appear to have breached Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences principles governing scientific integrity.
http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13594/
bustaheims
Well-known member
Bullfrog said:
That's not true. They're very effective at separating people that don't trust modern medicine from their money.
(To be fair, some natural/homeopathic remedies are useful in temporary relief from certain symptoms, but none of them address the cause.)
hockeyfan1
New member
Steven Novella, ORAC, Stephen Barrett, James Randi et al., what do these "quackbusting" pseudo-skeptic minions have in common? Plenty, for themselves:
Statement of the Case:
The Doctor's Data v Barrett, Federal Court case is well designed. To me, with one exception which can be fixed, it addresses the big picture of what should rightfully be called "The Quackbuster Conspiracy." The attorneys writing the case looked carefully at what was actually happening, realized that what Barrett, et al, were doing was a pattern, and as such, had all the earmarks of an organized conspiracy. The real beauty of the case is in what happened AFTER the case was filed and Barrett's minions reacted with what is known on the internet, as a "Googlebomb," increasing, with Intentional Malice, the damage done to Doctor's Data, taking control of the internet search engines on the subject. These fools actually bragged that they, in full and open conspiracy, were going to create much greater defamation.
Doctor's Data is a CLIA-certified scientific and medical laboratory in St. Charles, Illinois, in the business of analyzing blood, tissue, and other samples for health care practitioners. Plaintiff was the lab of choice for many physicians until Dr. Stephen Barrett and his minions began defaming Plaintiff on their websites, accusing the lab of intentionally applying fraud and fraudulent results by applying proper reference ranges to specimen analyzes, and conspiring with the physicians, from who they receive the specimen, to commit fraud.
Factual Allegations Applicable to all Courts:
Barrett and his associates operate numerous internet websites, including inter alia, the websites referenced in this complaint...
Defendants operate the aforesaid websites and others to attack what they unilaterally deem to be unscrupulous health care practices by anyone whose beliefs or methods differ from their own.
For unjust and conspiratorial reasons, Defendants have taken to attacking the laboratories, including Doctor's Data, upon which many health care practitioners rely for laboratory analyses.
Generally, the users of and visitors to said websites are, inter alia, members of the public, who are researching and investigating forms of medical treatment for themselves or loved ones, members of the public shopping for a new health care provider who come across one of said websites through Google or other internet search engines; members of the public interested in medicine and health care issues who come across said websites through Google and other internet search engines; investigators for state medical boards looking for evidence of wrongdoing by practitioners licensed in their jurisdiction; and zealots who have adopted and embraced Barrett's and the other defendants propaganda.
Defendants encourage users of and visitors to said websites to bring lawsuits against individuals and entities engaged in the practice of alternative or complementary medicine. To effectuate this goal, they created and ostensibly rely on a "Legal Advisory Board" which sounds official, smart and neutral, but is actually a list of lawyers soliciting potential clients interested in "filing lawsuits on behalf of quackery victims."
Defendants have created and ostensibly rely in whole or in part on technical advisors in their effort to encourage users of and visitors to said websites to bring lawsuits against individuals and entities engaged in the practice of alternative and complimentary medicine.
Barrett and all other defendants caused and continue to cause damage to Doctor's Data by having made and continuing to make false or misleading statements...
The aforesaid false or misleading statements were made in the course of self-promotion...for the purpose of among other things, soliciting donations in their war against whatever persons or entities they choose to attack as quacks...
Barrett and the other defendants have diluted and continue to dilute the value of Doctor's Data trade name and trademark and besmirch it's reputation by having made and continuing to make false or misleading statements...
A classic example of the fear-mongering, public brainwashing and ruination of reputation that these pseudo-skeptics foist not only upon the public but against reputable institutions. They never quit, these jerks!
FOR SHAME!!
Statement of the Case:
The Doctor's Data v Barrett, Federal Court case is well designed. To me, with one exception which can be fixed, it addresses the big picture of what should rightfully be called "The Quackbuster Conspiracy." The attorneys writing the case looked carefully at what was actually happening, realized that what Barrett, et al, were doing was a pattern, and as such, had all the earmarks of an organized conspiracy. The real beauty of the case is in what happened AFTER the case was filed and Barrett's minions reacted with what is known on the internet, as a "Googlebomb," increasing, with Intentional Malice, the damage done to Doctor's Data, taking control of the internet search engines on the subject. These fools actually bragged that they, in full and open conspiracy, were going to create much greater defamation.
Doctor's Data is a CLIA-certified scientific and medical laboratory in St. Charles, Illinois, in the business of analyzing blood, tissue, and other samples for health care practitioners. Plaintiff was the lab of choice for many physicians until Dr. Stephen Barrett and his minions began defaming Plaintiff on their websites, accusing the lab of intentionally applying fraud and fraudulent results by applying proper reference ranges to specimen analyzes, and conspiring with the physicians, from who they receive the specimen, to commit fraud.
Factual Allegations Applicable to all Courts:
Barrett and his associates operate numerous internet websites, including inter alia, the websites referenced in this complaint...
Defendants operate the aforesaid websites and others to attack what they unilaterally deem to be unscrupulous health care practices by anyone whose beliefs or methods differ from their own.
For unjust and conspiratorial reasons, Defendants have taken to attacking the laboratories, including Doctor's Data, upon which many health care practitioners rely for laboratory analyses.
Generally, the users of and visitors to said websites are, inter alia, members of the public, who are researching and investigating forms of medical treatment for themselves or loved ones, members of the public shopping for a new health care provider who come across one of said websites through Google or other internet search engines; members of the public interested in medicine and health care issues who come across said websites through Google and other internet search engines; investigators for state medical boards looking for evidence of wrongdoing by practitioners licensed in their jurisdiction; and zealots who have adopted and embraced Barrett's and the other defendants propaganda.
Defendants encourage users of and visitors to said websites to bring lawsuits against individuals and entities engaged in the practice of alternative or complementary medicine. To effectuate this goal, they created and ostensibly rely on a "Legal Advisory Board" which sounds official, smart and neutral, but is actually a list of lawyers soliciting potential clients interested in "filing lawsuits on behalf of quackery victims."
Defendants have created and ostensibly rely in whole or in part on technical advisors in their effort to encourage users of and visitors to said websites to bring lawsuits against individuals and entities engaged in the practice of alternative and complimentary medicine.
Barrett and all other defendants caused and continue to cause damage to Doctor's Data by having made and continuing to make false or misleading statements...
The aforesaid false or misleading statements were made in the course of self-promotion...for the purpose of among other things, soliciting donations in their war against whatever persons or entities they choose to attack as quacks...
Barrett and the other defendants have diluted and continue to dilute the value of Doctor's Data trade name and trademark and besmirch it's reputation by having made and continuing to make false or misleading statements...
A classic example of the fear-mongering, public brainwashing and ruination of reputation that these pseudo-skeptics foist not only upon the public but against reputable institutions. They never quit, these jerks!
FOR SHAME!!
bustaheims
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
Well, sure, if you want your stomach lining to bleed. I prefer to take a derivative of of natural indigo dye, commercially marketed as Tylenol.
Highlander
Active member
The real question what aids in "Preventative Medicine". There are hundreds of pharmacutical drugs that do more damage than good. Also their are thousands of quack remedies, many made to separate people from their money. So it seems the leading factor to good health is improving the immune system, the leading thing we can do is take the best probitics available, stop smoking, cut down drinking, get exercise
Eat a ton of sprouted veggies: broccoli, sunflower, pea, etc etc. ad some Spirulina to the mix and blend it into a Vitamix, drink at least one a day. Make sure you get magnisim in some form, preferably slow release.
Somehow learn to cut out or at least cut down stress, as I truly believe this is the major reason for bad health.
Now I find cutting down the alcohol and getting exercise to be very hard to maintain, but at least I do the rest most of the time.
One tip; research NAC (especially Pharmanac), my Doctor/Pharmacist put me on NAC three years ago and I have not had one broncial problem since (this is from a guy who used to suffer two or three bronchial problems a year). Stuff took me of my rescue inhalers as well.
Just my two cents worth.
Eat a ton of sprouted veggies: broccoli, sunflower, pea, etc etc. ad some Spirulina to the mix and blend it into a Vitamix, drink at least one a day. Make sure you get magnisim in some form, preferably slow release.
Somehow learn to cut out or at least cut down stress, as I truly believe this is the major reason for bad health.
Now I find cutting down the alcohol and getting exercise to be very hard to maintain, but at least I do the rest most of the time.
One tip; research NAC (especially Pharmanac), my Doctor/Pharmacist put me on NAC three years ago and I have not had one broncial problem since (this is from a guy who used to suffer two or three bronchial problems a year). Stuff took me of my rescue inhalers as well.
Just my two cents worth.