|
Post by Zandrovia on May 14, 2011 12:05:09 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 14, 2011 13:38:32 GMT 10
A secret sequence of verses within the book of Psalms which speaks about Judgement Day
י [Yod] The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God. For the needy will not always be forgotten, Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.
ה [Heh] But the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.
ו [Vav] The LORD also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, A stronghold in times of trouble; And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You.
The Name of the Lord (clues)
יהוה = YHWH = "He who is, was, and shall be" = "Behold the nail, behold the hand"
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 17, 2011 6:59:05 GMT 10
There is very little empirical evidence that so-called "natural remedies" do anything other than line the pockets of the people who manufacture them.
Furthermore, one recent comparative study of which I'm aware showed that many "natural" products for sale in the US contain exactly none of the supposed active ingredient - and a goodly number contained entirely other ingredient/s from what was printed on the label.
I'll try to find the report and post it here.
Just because something comes out of the ground doesn't mean it's somehow less potentially toxic, or should be less prone to government regulation, than other forms of medication.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 17, 2011 12:24:22 GMT 10
There is very little empirical evidence that so-called "natural remedies" do anything other than line the pockets of the people who manufacture them. Come on George! You should have known this! Crestor ( Rosuvastatin) is the most widely prescribed drug to lower cholesterol, and yet it has not been proven to reduce the chance of heart attack or stroke. But that is just the tip of the iceberg: Docs prescribing ineffective drugswww.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=30161The Most Dangerous Drugs to Humanswww.suite101.com/content/the-most-dangerous-drugs-to-humans-a96972Glaxo fined $750M over 20 tainted or ineffective drugscontent.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/10/glaxo-fined-750m-for-20-tainted-or-ineffective-drugs/1Common Alzheimer's Drug Found Ineffectivewww.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/alzheimers-drug-_n_848039.htmlFurthermore, one recent comparative study of which I'm aware showed that many "natural" products for sale in the US contain exactly none of the supposed active ingredient - and a goodly number contained entirely other ingredient/s from what was printed on the label. Correct. However, you are selectively excluding all the ones that do indeed contain what the label states (unlike that box of corn flakes in the US which makes no mention of GM corn...), and also many neutraceuticals or herbs are independently tested/assayed. Also, many vitamins, minerals, herbs or nutrients are actually made of the same basic wholesale ingredients, since competing brands of say, krill oil, more or less use the same quality manufacturers for the basic ingredients, so you are actually talking of an extremely minute minority of natural products, and certainly not the well-known or most successful brands. Besides that, have you ever smelled St. Johns Wort ( Hypericum perforatum)? It is really great if used for a couple of weeks when you are very depressed. Well, you could not manufacture that smell George, so in a lot of cases you can actually tell the 'The real McCoy' even without laboratory tests. Just because something comes out of the ground doesn't mean it's somehow less potentially toxic, or should be less prone to government regulation, than other forms of medication. Just because Acetaminophen ( Paracetamol) is completely artificial and unconnected to a natural human body, doesn't mean it does not have serious side effects ("Paracetamol toxicity is the foremost cause of acute liver failure"), or that it is actually effective ("Paracetamol can relieve pain in mild arthritis but has no effect on the underlying inflammation"). Let me also add that Paracetamol is an over-the-counter drug, not something you need a prescription for, and it is less effective than over-the-counter Ibuprofen, which also has good anti-inflammatory properties, and is much safer. Natural substances are not being used today because they have absolutely no toxicity, but because THEY WORK, George. Ever thought of that? No amount of Madison Avenue hype could have otherwise kept these substances in the minds of healers throughout the centuries, since we have lived for thousands of years without television and its commercials. Do you know what they found in the pockets of "Ötzi the Iceman", a man who lived more than 5,000 years ago? " mong Ötzi's possessions were berries, two birch bark baskets, and two species of polypore mushrooms with leather strings through them. One of these, the birch fungus, is known to have antibacterial properties, and was likely used for medicinal purposes." (source)
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 17, 2011 14:21:42 GMT 10
With all due respect, George, on this one I have to strongly disagree with you. There is very little empirical evidence that so-called "natural remedies" do anything other than line the pockets of the people who manufacture them. On this point you are way off the mark. Natural medicine has been used for thousands of years, with no profit to be had, no manufacture just people using the natural world around them. The services of natural health practitioners were employed by Emperors and Kings and Nobles for years, and even now national health plans in places like Japan still cover natural health care. Do you really think that would have been the case if they did not work? Thousands of years is a pretty undeniable track record. Additionally, more and more research is proving that they do work (that is why they are making them illegal). The only reason we have not seen even more “official” research on the topic is because the Pharm companies control the research sector and researchers only study what the guys writing the checks tell them to. Furthermore, one recent comparative study of which I'm aware showed that many "natural" products for sale in the US contain exactly none of the supposed active ingredient - and a goodly number contained entirely other ingredient/s from what was printed on the label. I'll try to find the report and post it here. Then this is a consumer issue and a case for accurate labeling, not a criminal justification to make it illegal. Just because something comes out of the ground doesn't mean it's somehow less potentially toxic, or should be less prone to government regulation, than other forms of medication. What right does the government, any government have to regulate nature? And as you say there is little research, what harm then are they causing? Natural medicine is not toxic and certainly not compared to the poisons that Pharm companies are peddling. So why should people not have the right to make informed decisions about their own health and choose the options that best fit them? Alternative medicine is what is keeping a lot of people alive, and buy making it illegal you might as well just "pull the plug" as it were.
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on May 17, 2011 20:32:44 GMT 10
It's not a coincidence that people are living longer as humanity makes medical advances...
Is it not true that some are good and others are just rubbish? Some work, and some exploit the market feeding peoples desire for natural remedies? Many people are desperate for a cure, for an answer...
Since my stroke 9 years ago I've been left with a legacy of daily headaches... often migraines... I've tried everything, from giving up all sorts of food stuffs, taking different herbal remedies, many pharmaceutical drugs, cranial head massages... too many to mention.... so desperate have I been that I've spent what i could to find an answer... Do i feel exploited, taken advantage of....? Yes, by two bit herbal quacks.... AND doctors who've dosed me up on all sorts of corrosive pharmaceuticals....
Should herbal remedies be banned? No... of course not.... should more research be done.... yes. Do i think that many drugs, both natural and pharmaceutical have positive effects merely because of the persons positive belief that they have had a positive effect.... often.
There is no black and white, just shades of grey. If people can use whatever and feel better, then more power to them.... but people should also know that remedies of all kinds often don't work and that the treatment of your ailment is just part of an ongoing research programme for the Doctor/ herbalist etc who is dealing with you...
I'll toss my tuppence in the charity box!
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on May 18, 2011 2:43:11 GMT 10
I haven't heard of an EU ban on "herbal remedies" yet. I must admit that I'm completely agnostic when it comes to this topic, but as far as I understood the BBC source that was mentioned by the article, the whole issue is that said "remedies" will soon have to be sold with proper product informations about possible side effects and risks to the health of consumers, which is a fair requirement, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 18, 2011 5:19:25 GMT 10
I haven't heard of an EU ban on "herbal remedies" yet. I must admit that I'm completely agnostic when it comes to this topic, but as far as I understood the BBC source that was mentioned by the article, the whole issue is that said "remedies" will soon have to be sold with proper product informations about possible side effects and risks to the health of consumers, which is a fair requirement, isn't it? Well, I suppose it is if you wish to pay for $50 for 180 1000 IU softgels of Vitamin D 3, which can usually be purchased for something like $5 or less right now online. And if 120 caplets of the multivitamin/multimineral GNC Mega Men® 50 Plus now runs for about $33, and you don't even need a credit card to get a bottle if you live near a General Nutrition Center (GNC) store, and you definitely don't need an expensive prescription from your physician (at least in the US that is the case, but things in Europe may already be different, and not very free), I'm sure you won't mind if they will charge you something closer to $300 for the same product in the future, and perhaps an additional $80 for the doctor's prescription. So yes, it would be completely fair to make Vitamin C so expensive in the west that you'll eventually need a charity like Vitamin Angels just to prevent scurvy, and of course the organisation will not be able to work in the Third World anymore, so all those kids can just die, because who the hell actually wants them to live anyway. I personally don't think it is fair to treat healthy organic foods or herbs, their extracts, or derived nutrients that prevent a host of historically well-known ills, and optimise general health and well-being, like drugs, which are solely designed (man-made) by big pharmaceutical companies; which pay large sums for patenting drugs (to protect their otherwise non-exclusive formulas); must show — one hopes, but that doesn't happen either, since the FDA doesn't actually test anything — there is a benefit that far outweighs the potential side effects; and which also need to make lots of expensive commercials to boost otherwise sagging sales. I personally don't think it is fair to treat what is biologically indispensable, as something which didn't even exist until someone developed it, patented it, tested it (sort of), and marketed it. That would be like treating (indispensable) knowledge of basic arithmetic and geometry like topology or Fourier analysis.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 18, 2011 6:52:32 GMT 10
It's not a coincidence that people are living longer as humanity makes medical advances... Is it not true that some are good and others are just rubbish? Some work, and some exploit the market feeding peoples desire for natural remedies? Many people are desperate for a cure, for an answer... Since my stroke 9 years ago I've been left with a legacy of daily headaches... often migraines... I've tried everything, from giving up all sorts of food stuffs, taking different herbal remedies, many pharmaceutical drugs, cranial head massages... too many to mention.... so desperate have I been that I've spent what i could to find an answer... Do i feel exploited, taken advantage of....? Yes, by two bit herbal quacks.... AND doctors who've dosed me up on all sorts of corrosive pharmaceuticals.... Should herbal remedies be banned? No... of course not.... should more research be done.... yes. Do i think that many drugs, both natural and pharmaceutical have positive effects merely because of the persons positive belief that they have had a positive effect.... often. There is no black and white, just shades of grey. If people can use whatever and feel better, then more power to them.... but people should also know that remedies of all kinds often don't work and that the treatment of your ailment is just part of an ongoing research programme for the Doctor/ herbalist etc who is dealing with you... I'll toss my tuppence in the charity box! This is essentially my position. I take exception to any unsubstatiated assertion - be it about micronational achievements or the efficacy of medicinal herbs. If proper peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that a product works, then there's no issue. It's only when people make sweeping generalisations that my alarm bells start ringing. People may well have used certain herbs for medicinal purposes for tens of thousands of years because they seem to work. They may well also have been doing so purely out of cultural habit. If there's one thing I've learnt in my life it is to never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion - nor for stubbornly doing things that are manifestly detrimental to their own self-interest or just plain wrong - often for periods of many centuries. I do however find it interesting that when "natural therapies" advocates are struck down by any serious or potentially terminal illness, they almost always inevitably take full advantage of every available treatment modern medicine has to offer - to which they then owe their ongoing existence.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 18, 2011 6:59:07 GMT 10
...it would be completely fair to make Vitamin C so expensive in the west that you'll eventually need a charity like Vitamin Angels just to prevent scurvy... ...or you could just eat an orange.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 18, 2011 9:23:50 GMT 10
...or you could just eat an orange. Oranges aren't always available in all places, and they aren't always practical/economical to eat either. Besides that, while the 70 mg of Vitamin C in your average-sized orange may be sufficient to prevent scurvy, what makes you think that level of Vitamin C is sufficient for optimal health, which requires a lot more? Also, a poor diet either because of poverty, or the ever-increasing impracticality of eating three good and nutritious meals, should be no impediment for maintaining a reasonable level of good health, unless you think health or wellness is some sort of luxury only the rich are entitled to. Our medicated — or shall I be blunt and call it drugged? — society also fails to comprehend just how many diseases could be prevented simply by meeting optimal nutrient requirements, and this requires unrestricted and economical access to good vitamins, minerals, amino acids, healthy fats, herbs, probiotics, etc. In addition to that, where is the real science or logic in a medicine almost entirely based on substances that were never meant for the human body to begin with, and are no different than the daily pollution we are already heavily exposed to? Are you suggesting that extraterrestrial/extrabiological medicine is the way to go, and what is the rationale to that besides the legal-economic one that only makes Big Pharma richer, and most human beings sicker?
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 18, 2011 9:47:24 GMT 10
I take exception to any unsubstatiated assertion - be it about micronational achievements or the efficacy of medicinal herbs. If proper peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that a product works, then there's no issue. There is almost no such thing as peer-reviewed scientific studies of natural substances or herbs, as this would be very expensive to be accomplished, and currently any research being done is pharmacological, not biological, since Big Pharma has more economic reasons to sponsor such research. Also, when big money is at stake, so-called "peer-reviewed" is no different than bovine eschatology (BS), if not outright fraud. Corporations have yet to produce any single genuine scientific advancement about our knowledge of the human body, how it works, and how things go wrong, and unfortunately governments are not providing the grants that could finance some good research into biological/natural cures that are not being financed by for profit/patent/monopoly corporations. If there's one thing I've learnt in my life it is to never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion What makes you think you are not indulging in a similar kind of delusion about exobiological medicine? Biological medicine, based also on herbs, but also other nature-based substances, says that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Exobiological medicine says that two apples plus two oranges equals four oranges... It doesn't, and if anything it is exobiological medicine which doesn't make sense, because to use a mathematical metaphor, they want to add up apples (natural systems) and oranges (artificial/petrochemical/GM systems), and expect to come up with something different than a logical fruit salad.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 18, 2011 10:22:24 GMT 10
It's not a coincidence that people are living longer as humanity makes medical advances... But are people actually living longer, or pseudoscientists are lying with statistics, which really show that more infants are surviving to the age of five, and thus more people, on average, are living, rather than being dead? Can you see that if you expand the number of children who live beyond the age of childhood, you also increase the number of people reaching old age, at least on average? That however, doesn't mean at all that people are living longer than their ancestors. Should herbal remedies be banned? No... of course not.... should more research be done.... yes. Who will pay for it without any real economic incentives? Governments are pulling the plug even on basic primary and secondary education lately, so what makes you think they will volunteer even your tax dollars for the good of mankind? Also, it is still legal according to Common law for a person to cure himself, believe it or not! Statutory law has not improved medicine, but only increased state fascism. Statutory law has also not repealed Common law at least in the US and Canada, and the original purpose of the Herbalists' Charter, which was granted by King Henry VIII, was to protect the poor, a very authentically Christian purpose, unlike the medical philosophy today, which protects the rich, and makes the poor even more poor... Believe or not, people have a right to take care of themselves (amazing but true), and anybody meddling legally with that will pay the Ultimate Fine at the end of this era, because that person is meddling with a very fundamental human right.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 18, 2011 12:26:23 GMT 10
Really Cesidio!
The average human lifespan is higher now than at any time in human history.
That is an empirical fact.
There are also more people alive on Earth today than at any time in the last 2 million years.
That too is an empirical fact.
A little less hysteria, please!
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on May 18, 2011 20:07:02 GMT 10
"where is the real science or logic in a medicine almost entirely based on substances that were never meant for the human body to begin with, and are no different than the daily pollution we are already heavily exposed to?"
(Forgive my technophobic inability to quote small parts).... I think the use of the word 'meant' in the text above points to the differences in thinking. We could get bogged down in language and even the 'who' or 'what' intended humans to consume different substances... were we 'meant' to fly? 'Meant' to float around the earth in no atmosphere? It's all a question of your beliefs, and far be it for me to question anyones beliefs...
"Are you suggesting that extraterrestrial/extrabiological medicine is the way to go, and what is the rationale to that besides the legal-economic one that only makes Big Pharma richer, and most human beings sicker?"
Questioning natural remedies does not make one an advocate for the opposing pharmaceutical remedies... Big business across a range of sectors control markets, resources, workforces makes a lot of people sicker. Saying I don't like to drink Evian doesn't make me an advocate for Coca Cola.
"Who will pay for it without any real economic incentives? Governments are pulling the plug even on basic primary and secondary education lately, so what makes you think they will volunteer even your tax dollars for the good of mankind?"
The capitalist system tells me that the good of mankind is secondary to economics.... unfortunately. If I want to bring a product to market, the R&D is done by the company wanting to bring that product to market, not government agencies that could be accused of being in the pay of the big pharma companies if they found unfavourably against natural remedies.I'm not anti herbal.... I use many herbal remedies, but there is a lot of unsubstantiated waffle wherever there is money to be made.
Take care y'all
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 18, 2011 23:05:03 GMT 10
I haven't heard of an EU ban on "herbal remedies" yet. I must admit that I'm completely agnostic when it comes to this topic, but as far as I understood the BBC source that was mentioned by the article, the whole issue is that said "remedies" will soon have to be sold with proper product informations about possible side effects and risks to the health of consumers, which is a fair requirement, isn't it? www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/europe-to-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.htmlwww.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/05/09/fears-that-eu-rules-on-herbal-medicines-may-put-patients-in-danger-91466-28657790/The point of the new rules are to make it so expensive that only Pharm companies could afford it, and then since they can not patten mother nature, they have little incentive to do so. The Natural Health section frees people from the system and competes with Pharms and that is why they want to stop it, it has NOTHING to do with safety. And why such concern over SAFE herbal remedies when they not require Doctors and Pharm representatives to be honest about the dangerous and deadly side effects of what they peddle? Even the label requirements are really stupid when the information is widely available and by requiring extensive labeling you are already creating a problem for most herbalist. Secondly, most of these initiatives like in the US want to make supplements and herbal treatments illegal unless they go through the trials for approval by the FDA (or European equivalent) which again is just asinine. Such testing and application for approval comes at an enormous cost that most people can not afford, will require YEARS for the approval process, and then is most likely to be denied because everyone knows that the FDA works for the Pharm companies and they will not approve anything that competes with them. For the things that do get approved, it will raise the prices to a point where most people simply can not afford them. And you have to understand that not only is natural health a matter of preventing disease, but many people's lives actually depend on it. Of course, then there is the freedom of religion problem and the fact that this is, once again, attacking indigenous communities who still practice the old ways so where do they fit in to this? This is a central key of life for Zandrovia so I find this very disturbing and worry about how many people are going to be affected, maybe even killed, by such corrupt legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 18, 2011 23:32:52 GMT 10
I would also like to point out one major problem that I see with what everyone else is saying, is you keep talking about "a product". There is no product, people are so far gone in the consumer mind set that the only way they can related to the natural world now is by trying to package it and call it "a product". I also do not see where everyone is getting their claims that people are living longer today. If you go back just a couple of generations it was quite common place to see people living for a century, now it is a very, very rare thing. The problem with these phoney statistics are they simply look at the rates of death verses birth and average them out and ignore the fact that a large number of the deaths occurred because of war or the occasional outbreak of plague. This does not mean that people could not/would not have lived long lives it just meant there was a lot of war. For those who survived these wars, or did not fight at all, their lifespans were a lot longer before the industrial revolution than they are now. And while I do not agree with a lot of things that Governor Tallini has to say, he is making some very valid points on this issue. Namely, we are seeing a ton of research that now shows that most (no, not all, but most) modern medicine is actually doing more harm than good. But all of this aside....I think the key point that everyone is overlooking is a sovereignty issue. It is my right to choose whatever course of treatment that I want, how is it anyone's business? And why should I be forced to give up the care and treatment that works for me, whether someone else approves of it or not? So do we now have to be regulated by an approved food plan and eat pre-packaged, government stamped meals as well? Do we need to have our reading lists and music preferences “tested” and stamped for approval to before we can access them? Regardless of how you feel about the herbal issue, the real point of the matter is about freedom and the lack there of. Now I will get off of my soapbox for the day
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 19, 2011 0:22:00 GMT 10
(Forgive my technophobic inability to quote small parts).... I think the use of the word 'meant' in the text above points to the differences in thinking. We could get bogged down in language and even the 'who' or 'what' intended humans to consume different substances... were we 'meant' to fly? 'Meant' to float around the earth in no atmosphere? It's all a question of your beliefs, and far be it for me to question anyones beliefs... Human beings were definitely not meant to fly, but one could also argue that we were not meant to ride horses either, and these were being used long before we started using cars. The big difference between the two modes of terrestrial transportation, the car and the horse, is that the first requires capitalism as an economic system to sustain car-building, and to power cars, and communism to pave all the roads, and to extract all the oil that the capitalists are not paying for, and all the damage to the environment and our freedoms which they are also not paying for. The second mode of terrestrial transportation, however, doesn't require all that government or corporate intervention. The first mode of transportation requires roads made of crude petroleum, petroleum-derived liquid mixtures to power cars, and petroleum and natural gas are needed to make most car plastic parts. The second mode of transportation, while it still produces some greenhouse gases, runs entirely on eco-friendly grasses, and requires little more than stones for road-paving. It seems to me that for all the convenience of the modern car, horses are definitely a more ecological, economically-friendly, and human rights-friendly mode of transportation, and there are also no long term sustainability problems with horses like overproduction of greenhouse gases, socio-economic disparities, and forms of economics which place municipal and for-profit corporations at an advantage with respect to human beings, which Cesidian law assumes to be divine beings in disguise. In the same way, a system that depends almost exclusively on services provided by conventional medicine and surgery is not as sustainable or desirable as a system which uses natural medicine in most cases except, of course, battlefield injuries or other kinds of traumas. Just as cars and car-builders are monopolising all our choices with regard to terrestrial transportation, conventional medicine is monopolising all our health choices. It doesn't have to be that way, and other ways are more sensible and decent. Questioning natural remedies does not make one an advocate for the opposing pharmaceutical remedies... That is true, but lawmakers are not leaving natural medicine practitioners alone. You have also not responded to my concern regarding human rights, for since Henry VIII we do have a right to cure ourselves independently of any health practitioner, or with the help of any health practitioner of our choice. If I want to bring a product to market, the R&D is done by the company wanting to bring that product to market, not government agencies... "R&D" is required for industrial revolution-driven, petroleum-based products. It is not at all required for natural products which have been used for a long time, and which do not require extraction processes, or the help of governments to enrich capitalists. Even your language reflects your overwhelming bias in favour of exploitation, and it is intrinsically against a mode of thinking which could restore our environment in the long term, and mitigate current socio-economic and human rights problems. I use many herbal remedies, but there is a lot of unsubstantiated waffle wherever there is money to be made. The same "unsubstantiated waffle" really applies to conventional medicine practices and products, but you are ignoring all the evidence. In truth, no single surgical procedure has ever been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the US agency which is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through regulation. Also, the FDA requires Big Pharma companies to basically regulate themselves, and when one considers that most human beings, and small companies producing herbal-based supplements, are not allowed to do the same by any agency of the federal government of the United States, this is really something that is normally called "dereliction of duty". It is also quite clear that just as the Feds - favour car-makers;
- favour road-building and maintenance at public expense, for largely privately-driven profit; and
- even favour oil companies fiscally, and despite the damage they wreck on ecosystems and the environment.
The Feds also favour battlefield medicine, even when it is not needed, and at great public not private costs. If you are in favour of human choice (read 'democracy'), rather than lack of choices (read 'fascism'); in favour of human rights, not human rights abuse; in favour of the environment, and the long term preservation of ecosystems and natural species. Then the choice is clear, and the choice neither completely excludes cars or trauma surgery when absolutely needed. Cancel out the despotism exercised by current governments, and what are you left with? Think about it for a moment. Well, you are basically left with horses and herbs, not cars and drugs. Horses and herbs go quite well together, and they don't feed Islamic fundamentalists, or other people practicing all sorts of false or extreme religions and philosophies.
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on May 19, 2011 1:20:57 GMT 10
I agree that it is a question of freedom and if you want to pick bits and bobs and use them, why the hell not.... I'll get round to the next post by Governor Tallini when i get back from the dentist.... but thanks for the reply.
I'll be refusing meds by the way... ... well maybe a guinness and whiskey chaser in the pub next door if it hurts!
I'll get back.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 19, 2011 13:49:59 GMT 10
I would also like to point out one major problem that I see with what everyone else is saying, is you keep talking about "a product". There is no product, people are so far gone in the consumer mind set that the only way they can related to the natural world now is by trying to package it and call it "a product". Very good! The FDA wants to treat natural health education and coaching as medical claims, which is not really "legal" because you have to add words like "diagnose", "treat", or "cure" to what you are doing to turn it into the practice of legal (aka forensic) or conventional medicine. Natural health practitioners do not really attempt to diagnose, treat, or cure. Did anybody know this? They heal by intent (such as with religious or shamanistic healing), they detoxify, balance, harmonise, educate and coach about wellness. The FDA also wants to turn pharmacognosy, which is the study of medicinal products in their crude or unprepared (mostly natural) form, into pharmacology, which is the study of how chemical substances (mostly artificial) interact with living systems (always natural). How can you equate the two? Pharmacognosy matches apples with apples, while pharmacology tries to bring apples and oranges together. The most extreme case of pharmacology, of course, is radical genetic modification (GM). With this, not only genes from different species are brought together, but sometimes they unite fish genes with strawberry genes. How can one call the product "natural", if in these cases you don't even know whether you have a plant or a fish anymore? Also, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) requires accurate labels with the sales of herbs and other natural supplements, so why don't boxes of corn flakes in the US clearly state that the box contains nothing but GM corn, which is clearly not natural corn? Why shouldn't GM corn not be considered a drug, and why do natural cherries become a drug simply because someone truthfully states they have anti-inflammatory, antioxidant effects? Why this (highly selective) double standard? It is clear there is a big difference between biological and exobiological medicine: na·tur·op·a·thy: a system of therapy that relies on natural remedies such as water, mud, air, heat, sunlight, exercise, rest, often supplemented with various kinds of massage or mechanical treatment, fasting, proper diet, supplements, herbs and prayer, so as to detoxify or normalise the body, so as to restore health, wellness, or the vital force.
med·i·cine: the science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind. I also do not see where everyone is getting their claims that people are living longer today. If you go back just a couple of generations it was quite common place to see people living for a century, now it is a very, very rare thing. The problem with these phoney statistics are they simply look at the rates of death verses birth and average them out and ignore the fact that a large number of the deaths occurred because of war or the occasional outbreak of plague. Right. Once upon a time, they had high infant mortality, plagues, and almost never ten consecutive years of peace. When you added up the average lifespan, while many people lived into their nineties, and got to that age in great shape to boot, the great number of earlier deaths still brought the average lifespan down. This is still the case in the Third World, in fact, where infant mortality is still high despite modern vaccines (I believe modern hygiene is working more effectively than most vaccines!), and plagues and wars are still frequent. The lifespan in those countries is extremely low, yet they also have some people who live into their eighties and nineties, and in healthy, not invalid form.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 19, 2011 14:54:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on May 19, 2011 23:15:04 GMT 10
Gov. Tallini "Even your language reflects your overwhelming bias in favour of exploitation, and it is intrinsically against a mode of thinking which could restore our environment in the long term, and mitigate current socio-economic and human rights problems."
Now, now! No need for such attacks! Thou shalt not judge and all that! I could fly off the handle but I've seen enough of that in my lifetime... consider the cheek turned.
What I'm saying is that the EU has rules and laws... we may not like the current system but unfortunately the western world has been hoodwinked into believing the need for such controls... for good or ill. The EU has rules which it says is to stop people being exploited by explaining their consumer choice.... you may say that the Pharmas get round this by not explaining clearly and by lies, and that natural remedies are discriminated against.... ... ...welcome to the world. You crusade on that issue, and I crusade on others I FEEL important. The rules of the game are thus... you don't have to listen and you have the freedom to plough your own field, be it with tractor or horse. I have many pagan friends who use natural remedies and we also use them in our small pocketed micronation... we also use some mainstream meds... the ones we've used and found work. I've also been pickpocketed or 'exploited' by natural remedy pedlars who use peoples desperation to pedal nonsense. I've also had days and days stolen by modern medicine, which is free in the UK, albeit inefficient in many ways in N.Ireland.
I realise this is a majorly important subject to some, but you do your argument few favours by accusing me of 'supporting bias' and 'exploitation'. I wish you well with your quest.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 20, 2011 0:01:42 GMT 10
If in African countries like Angola and Zambia life expectancy, at today's 'global worse' scenario means "under 40", then how could the average life spans of classical Rome actually be 28? It doesn't make sense George. Under such a scenario, most people would not be able to have children, and most children would very likely become orphans of a parent or both at an early age. I also don't see the likelihood of a "Roman Empire" under such a scenario. It is often said that three most important things about real estate are location, location, location. Even if one assumes that male parents could not be really counted on in classical Roman times because of high male mortality, and I have great doubts about that, knowing the high regard Roman matrons placed on their pater familias, then the only rational explanation for such low average life spans cannot be underdeveloped medical science, but rather war, war, war. If the historical data is reasonably accurate, another factor may also be at play, which every worshiper of the (false) religion of scientism ignores. "Pagans in the Roman Empire had a very different view about the value of human life than we do today. Infanticide was legal and encouraged in ancient Greece and Rome. Other pagan societies, such as the Carthaginians, went so far as to kill their children as religious sacrifices to their gods." ( source) Even if you take into account the factor above, however, the low average lifespan was still not primarily due to, well, "iatrogenic causes". Rather, the low average life expectancy of antiquity seems to explain, rather well, why Christianity became such a successful religion in such a short time, and why ancient paganism wasn't really a tree-hugging religion, but a barbaric one in which infanticide was seen almost as much as a male privilege, as the "right" to an abortion today is seen as a female one.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 20, 2011 0:16:51 GMT 10
I realise this is a majorly important subject to some, but you do your argument few favours by accusing me of 'supporting bias' and 'exploitation'. I wish you well with your quest. Thank you for addressing a small fault of mine, because perhaps I did use language which seemed like an ad hominem attack, even though my intent was not to do so, and not even to negate the European/global realities you mention, but to simply say that there is a better way. Just as good pagans today no longer commit infanticide as Greek and Roman pagans did, either because they don't believe in this anymore, or simply because of the force of civil laws that discourage it, I also think that the medicine of the future can be more scientifically objective and more humane. There is a good part to conventional medicine, and there is a good part to natural medicine; it is important to recognise what is good in both, and to diminish what is bad in both. The reason I genuinely believe medicine can be extremely better is not irrational either, because through my book I have already transformed religion into something far more rational than it ever was.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 20, 2011 6:08:11 GMT 10
What I'm saying is that the EU has rules and laws... Germany had rules to, those rules and laws that lead to the showers with the death, torture, and imprisonment of thousands of Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, and those of Polish descent. While I understand what you are saying, and respect a nation's right to make rules of law (and of those to choose their own homeland which such laws leave no room for them) there is a point where a line is crossed, when human rights are sacraficed in the name of such laws. Rules such as these are an attack upon the most fundamental of human rights. It is also a very, very slippery slope. Where does it stop? When you allow them to take one freedom, even if it does not matter to you, you are handing them all of your freedoms, all of your rights. And under such facists controls, how do micronations continue to function? And before I break out into a moving song about freedom and cultural revolutions I think I shall leave it at that, lol
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 20, 2011 6:12:00 GMT 10
If in African countries like Angola and Zambia life expectancy, at today's 'global worse' scenario means "under 40", then how could the average life spans of classical Rome actually be 28? It doesn't make sense George. Under such a scenario, most people would not be able to have children, and most children would very likely become orphans of a parent or both at an early age. I also don't see the likelihood of a "Roman Empire" under such a scenario. Cesidio, you're talking nonsense again. Pre-modern life expectancies - and the general state of health - can and have been accurately, empirically determined as a conseqence of the many hundreds of thousands of ancient skeletal remains that reside in scientific institions around the world. Your speculation concerning the viability of Ancient Rome on the basis of the best estimate of the average life expectancy of its people is just plain silly. We know that both occurred in reality, ergo your argument is specious.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on May 20, 2011 8:47:55 GMT 10
Your speculation concerning the viability of Ancient Rome on the basis of the best estimate of the average life expectancy of its people is just plain silly. We know that both occurred in reality, ergo your argument is specious. Or maybe the figures mentioned in the article are specious, George. They can't figure out exactly how much Vitamin D you need to stay really healthy, and you tell me they can determine pre-modern life expectancies accurately based on 2000-year-old skeletal remains? The truth George, is that they can't even date very ancient samples with any reasonable degree of confidence: www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htmIn fact, they can't even determine the population of the United States with any degree of confidence, and we are talking about living bones, not dead ones: www.gnocdc.org/articles/censustrust.htmlThe figures for life expectancies in Roman times are probably closer to the 40-year-old mark; I wouldn't trust any figure significantly below that, at any time in history for Homo sapiens sapiens, and the figures in the article are pure malarkey, based on unwarranted scientific omnipotence. All the gains in longevity are largely in average longevity, not absolute longevity, and can probably be entirely justified — if physicians were actually interested in the truth, not in simply playing golf on weekends, or having long exotic vacations — by spectacular improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and serious underestimations of death actually due to iatrogenic causes. Even anecdotal evidence points to this simple fact: my great grandfather lived to be 97, and died for the dumbest reason — an hernia, because he was still working in the fields tilling the soil by hand at that age —, not because of cancer, or heart disease, or any of the other things you usually die of these days. My grandfather lived to be 81, and poof.., he died of prostate cancer. My father lived to be 75, and the death certificate says he died of cardiorespiratory arrest, due to chronic obstructive airway disease. The trend is pretty clear, and these are actual figures, not theoretical speculation, George. I hope to reach at least the age of 90; I hope to buck the trend above. However, if I succeed in living that long, it will be because I successfully avoided a lot of direct physical trouble (I can't avoid psychological trouble in my profession as pioneer), and because of a radically different diet than my ancestors. I will DEFINITELY not reach the age of 90 because of the marvelous developments of conventional medicine. I'm not holding my breath for those guys, George. Every time I met those guys, someone was dying, not kicking the grim reaper.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 20, 2011 9:50:43 GMT 10
This is just getting silly.
Identifying the sex and the age-range of person at their time of death - as well as their state of general health, and any major diseases that they may have suffered from during their life - by examining their skeletal remains, is a blindingly simple thing to do for any forensic medical professional.
No "dating of ancient samples" is required.
There is NO debate on this point.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on May 20, 2011 16:41:25 GMT 10
The bottom line with all of this is that there are more people today living far longer, healthier lives, with vastly more access to personal comforts, leisure time and outright freedom than at any time in the last 2 million years.
For all but pretty much the last 100 years in that vast timespan, life for the majority of human beings was nasty, brutish, tedious and short.
The discovery of bacteria and viruses, and the means to more-or-less manage their tendency to kill vast numbers of people at an early age was, in my opinion, the singlemost important advance in human history. It was a product of medical science - not witch doctors, herbalists or other practitioners of magic and mumbo jumbo.
There is indeed a golden age;
We are living in it.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 21, 2011 1:37:47 GMT 10
The bottom line with all of this is that there are more people today living far longer, healthier lives, with vastly more access to personal comforts, leisure time and outright freedom than at any time in the last 2 million years. For all but pretty much the last 100 years in that vast timespan, life for the majority of human beings was nasty, brutish, tedious and short. The discovery of bacteria and viruses, and the means to more-or-less manage their tendency to kill vast numbers of people at an early age was, in my opinion, the singlemost important advance in human history. It was a product of medical science - not witch doctors, herbalists or other practitioners of magic and mumbo jumbo. There is indeed a golden age; We are living in it. Wow, I don't know what to say that. Either life in Australia is just so dramatically different than it is in the US or you are totally out of touch with reality, no offense intended. Where is all of this leisure time and freedom? Certainly not in the US where people are working 40-80 hours a week, (plus the 2-4 hour commute) get 4 hours of sleep a night, and are so stressed and over-worked that most people drop dead before reaching retirement. A gilded cage, is still a cage. And freedom? Really? If we had all of this freedom, why are having this discussion? Let's look at some of the most recent laws in the US: - They want to ban vitamins.
- Indiana's supreme court just ruled that they do not recognize the constitutional right against unwarranted search and seizure and that the police can now enter your home without any reason or cause and without a warrant and you do not have the right to refuse to open the door.
- Laws are in the works to make it illegal to grow a garden in your backyard, you can not sale anything you make from it either.
- Arizona made home Bible studies illegal.
- Arkansas does not allow its residents to attend any type of class for any purpose from a school anywhere else in the world, only those approved in their state.
- The CDC has been given the right to force you to take whatever vaccines they want to force on you, regardless of their harm, and to do so legally at the point of a gun.
- Republicans in Mississippi have strong support to make inter-racial marriage a crime and most justices of the peace in the south already refuse to allow you to marry.
- A judge ruled in Washington that you have no expectation of privacy beneath your clothes in public.
- You are only allowed to withdraw a certain amount of your own money from your own bank account without going to prison.
- I won't even get started on the whole Ruby Ridge thing.
And what is technically "legal" is so heavily regulated, fined, and expensive that it makes it nearly impossible for most people. Corporations are the only ones free in the US, for example, they have the legal right to use an unlimited amount of money for the expressed purpose of influencing elections where as an individual will be in serious trouble if they give beyond a tiny regulated amount to a campaign they support. They say you have the right to protest, however, if you peacefully protest the WTO or Monsanto, you go to jail. And then how about my freedom to have clean water and clean air? Americans are held hostage and terrorized by Corporations and are trapped in a wage slavery system which is destroying their health and literally working people to death. Try asking someone in the lower class in the US who has to work 3 jobs just to try to pay the rent how free they are, how much "leisure" time they have. And look at the deaths and injuries that modern medicine has caused, when was the last time Vitamin D caused autism or brain damage? When did people taking garlic have to worry about liver damage as a side effect? What little research that has been done, does prove that natural remedies work and without the dangers and side effects of conventional drugs. Look around you at the facts, George, your "Golden Age" is killing everyone! (Sorry for the rant, but wow, I could not believe someone actually said that. I just need to leave this topic alone because I think we live in totally different worlds.)
|
|