--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho <arhatafreespe...@...> wrote: > > Having been in Corporate Sales in Manhattan,
Selling my poems and treatises outside of Rockerfeller Center I had friends both in Advertising and > Pharmaceutical Sales. Especially my Asian friends doing caricatures and drawings in Times Square, and my other friends selling "pharmaceticals" around 42nd street. Sales is about making money - from idea to finished > product, it's about money. The buyer, should be about 'awareness'. Awareness, hopefully, > creates responsibility in a drugged out world! An endless loop of one hand serving > the other with an illusive caveat for taking the high road. Corporations sell needs that > may or may not be there - it comes down to the buyer and how that buyer uses the > product. 'Fast food brains' are their own worst karma. > Arhata > > > > > > > > > > > > > Requiring natural remedies to produce verifiable research is a bogus > > excuse to demonize their use. The politics of allelopathic medicine > > and the globalization Big Pharma push pills for profit and > > "alternative medicine" cuts into their bottom line. Since herbs and > > homeopathy, rely on history, case studies, subjective reports and > > trial and error to prove effectiveness, they are an easy target for > > Big Pharma, to cry, "snake oil." Anything that empowers people to > > treat their own ailments means a smaller piece of pie for the big guys. > > > > Drug researchers can produce quantifiable results but they can also > > cheat by ignoring test results they don't like. "Figures can lie and > > liars can figure." A drug company often pays for its own research, > > which amounts to the fox guarding the chickens. They push newer, > > "better" drugs to market as quickly as possible with all their > > attendant side effects and 5 years later the drug proves dangerous. > > It's a risk they are willing to take, squeezing every dime they can > > out of a market until it becomes obvious a drug is killing more people > > than it saves. It hypocritical to say that drug research, motivated by > > profit, is superior to any standard measuring the effectiveness of > > herbs that DON'T kill people and drugs that DO. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ .> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj <vajradhatu@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget the last study putsch: the TM is good for your > > > heart > > > > > marketing campaign. Luckily the BBC caught them on that one, as > > did > > > > > some physicians reviews. But it makes me wonder: should someone be > > > > > pointing all this out to the NIH? Should the NIH sue for fraud and > > > > > deception? I mean, these are our tax dollars they are, quite > > > > > actually, stealing. > > > > > > > > > > If you look at it, it's pretty clear what they're trying to do: > > cash > > > > > in on insurers who are already paying for treatments like MBCT for > > > > > depression. Once they can get into the medical system with their > > > > > product, they be able to rake in the $$$ with their over-inflated > > > > > mantra prices. > > > > > > > > I have done some letters to Senate and Congress regarding the NIH > > > > Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is a big > > > > money pit for poor research. I think it should be disbanded and > > > > research money for alternative therapies needs to be tied to more > > > > rigorous requirements. > > > > > > Just as a question, Ruth, given your background > > > and your feelings on this, what thype of "rigorous > > > requirements" would you suggest for studies done > > > on homeopathy? > > > > > > I'm asking out of curiosity because a friend of > > > mine is a homeopath, and has clued me in to some > > > of the recent attempts to demonize that practice > > > in the UK. Their stance, which makes sense to me > > > given what I know of the practice, is that "con- > > > trol groups" are an inappropriate form of "rigor- > > > ous requirement" because every patient in home- > > > opathy is treated differently, based on their > > > own *particular* symptomology. Two patients com- > > > plaining of the same primary symptom might be > > > treated completely differently given their > > > *other* symptoms. > > > > > > So what, in your opinion, would be a valid study > > > design for homeopathy? In the US, the AMA so > > > successfully demonized homeopathy that it is > > > difficult for it to gain acceptance. But in Europe > > > that is not true, because no such demonization took > > > place until recently. *All* pharmacies in France > > > and Spain sell both allopathic and homeopathic > > > medicines; *all* doctors prescribe both; *all* > > > patients give positive feedback on both. > > > > > > So I'm asking out of curiosity. I *understand* the > > > scientist's/ medical doctor's skepticism of home- > > > opathy -- we are talking substances so diluted in > > > strength that no trace of them can be found in > > > the pills prescribed. And yet they work, and work > > > consistently enough that most countries in Europe > > > rely on them as often as they do allopathic treat- > > > ment. So what kind of study would be "rigorous" > > > enough to validate this in your eyes, given the > > > limitation that there can't be any "control" > > > groups in the traditional sense? > > > > > > Thanks for pondering this, and for your reply if > > > you have one. I'm really not trying to "challenge" > > > you or put you on the spot, and I *agree* with > > > your assessment of the NIH Center for Complementary > > > and Alternative Medicine as it currently works. I'm > > > just asking because of my friend's interest in > > > homeopathy, and my own personal experiences with > > > homeopathic treatment, as prescribed for me by > > > full-fledged MD's in France and in Spain. It > > > worked. I can see no rational reason for *why* > > > it worked, but it did. Go figure. > > > >
