Media Advisory: Ontario Doctors Given the Green Light to Promote Quackery
August 12, 2011
Toronto, ON (August 12, 2011) – Ontario’s doctors could soon be pushed to promote unproven, ineffective, and potentially dangerous therapies, if a policy proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is approved. This is the conclusion reached by the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS), a division of the Centre for Inquiry Canada, after reviewing the CPSO’s draft policy on Non-Allopathic (Non-Conventional) Therapies in Medical Practice. The Policy is the most recent attempt by the CPSO to address the growing popularity of alternative medicine. Unfortunately, the draft policy is more politically polite than scientifically supportable, and could put Ontario’s patients at risk.
One of the stated aims of the updated policy is to respect patient autonomy,
but patient choice has little meaning if it is not informed by expert medical
advice based on sound scientific evidence. The policy is heavily slanted in
favour of alternative medicine and the language used even suggests equivalence
between conventional and non-conventional medicine. Given the woefully
unscientific nature of most of these therapies we find the suggested
equivalence completely misguided, and bordering on irresponsible. As well, the
use of the pre-scientific word “allopathy,” also suggests undue influence over the
CPSO of the alt-med community who have a vested interest in selling these
“The policy also moves toward muzzling doctors to keep them from expressing concern about these practices if such opinions are “non-clinical,” even if the alternative therapy is completely implausible,” said Iain Martel, a CASS member and lead author of CASS’s response, “and yet at the same time no such constraint is put on alternative practitioners to keep them from impugning conventional medicine and speaking out against successful, safe, and vital public health programs like vaccination.” What is even more striking is the contrast between the CPSO policy and the British Colombian version: the CPSBC considers it unethical for a physician to prescribe a non-conventional therapy if there is no good evidence of the therapy’s effectiveness.
With the large increase in public fascination with alternative medicine it is an imperative for Ontario physicians to educate their patients about the pros and cons of these treatments. If a non-conventional treatment is supported by evidence to the same standard as a treatment used in conventional medicine, then the non-conventional treatment may also be considered, but given the unscientific nature of most “alternative” modalities, this is not likely to happen. “Ontarians look to their physicians for sound advice, based on solid medical knowledge, but under this policy, they may instead be directed to such magical nonsense as reiki and homeopathy, or prescribed dangerous chelation therapy,” said Martel, “it’s a significant risk.”
For More Information Contact:
Michael Kruse, Co-Chair and Spokesperson
Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism
CPSO’s draft policy can be found here: http://www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/policies/consultations/non-allopathic-consultation-draft.pdf
Please Comment on the Policy here: http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/consultations/default.aspx?id=4310
CASS’s full response to CPSO’s draft policy can be found below (updated August 15 2011):
Comments on “Non-Allopathic (Non-Conventional) Therapies in Medical Practice”
About the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (“CASS”)
The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) is a national body of the Centre for Inquiry (CFI). The mandate of CASS is to critically examine scientific, technological and medical claims in public discourse. Working with our expert advisers, we address factual inaccuracies and misinformation in public debates by promoting evidence-based science. To achieve these ends, CASS works within the infrastructure of CFI to co-ordinate campaigns with them and other interested parties.
CASS has reviewed the CPSO draft policy, “Non-Allopathic (Non-Conventional) Therapies in Medical Practice”, and has a number of serious concerns about the policy. We understand that the aim of the new policy is to balance respect for patient autonomy with the need to protect the public from harm. Unfortunately, the draft policy leans far too heavily in the direction of the former, and is not sufficiently focused on the latter. In doing so, the new policy is unduly slanted in favour of non-conventional therapies. The loaded terminology used, and the painstakingly neutral language employed in comparing conventional and non-conventional therapies, suggests a false equivalence between the two. Given the woefully unscientific nature of most non-conventional therapies, we find such neutrality completely unwarranted.
In a message in CPSO’s Dialogue, Dr. Lynne Thurling states, “The bottom line is that we believe that the tenets of good medical practice apply to allopathic and non-allopathic care equally.” Unfortunately, this sensible principle is too frequently ignored in the text of the draft policy, where loose standards of evidence would allow the recommendation of non-conventional treatments that would never make it through the rigorous approval processes of conventional medicine. Indeed, the notion that non-conventional therapies that have been shown to be safe and effective exist is almost an oxymoron; such therapies would simply be added to the roster of conventional medicine.
Patient autonomy is an important principle, but it must not be confused with the adage that “the customer is always right.” When it comes to healthcare, patient choice has little meaning if it is not informed by expert medical advice, based on sound scientific research. We believe that physicians have a duty to inform patients who may be considering non-conventional therapies that the vast majority of such therapies have either never been properly tested for safety or efficacy, or else have been tested and have failed. Neutrality here is not an appropriate stance.
We have detailed below the main concerns we have with the draft policy. Rather than suggesting revisions to the existing document, we direct your attention to the guidelines produced by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, available online at https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Complementary-and-Alternative-Therapies.pdf (and attached to this submission). These guidelines capture far more accurately, we believe, the appropriate stance to take toward these therapies. In particular, the BC guidelines clearly capture the essential point that non-conventional therapies are generally unproven, and that in such circumstances it is unethical for a physician to recommend or endorse such treatments.
1. Title and Terminology
The first objection we have to the draft policy lies in its title. This title introduces the terminology, to be carried throughout the document, of “allopathic” and “non-allopathic” therapies. This terminology, while commonplace in certain parts of the alternative medicine community, is rarely used within the medical community – with good reason. As the history of the term “allopathy” shows, the term sets up a false dichotomy of medical paradigms, incorrectly suggesting a genuine competition between theories. Its use has historically been derogatory, invoking a spurious criticism of conventional medicine. Furthermore, it distracts attention from the real distinction between conventional and non-conventional medicine: that conventional medicine is based on substantial clinical and scientific research, while non-conventional medicine is based largely on tradition and scientifically-flawed principles.
The term “allopathy” was coined in 1810 by Samuel Hahnemann, inventor of homeopathy. Hahnemann intended the term as a contrary to “homeopathy”. Homeopathy is defined as the treatment of like with like, i.e. a disease is to be treated with a remedy which causes the same symptoms as the disease itself. This is seen in the etymology of the term, derived from the Greek “homeo” = same and “pathos” = suffering. Allopathy, by similar formulation (“allos” = “different”), refers to the treatment of disease by a remedy that causes the “opposite” symptoms. In Hahnemann’s time, allopathy thus referred to the medieval medical practice of attempting to balance the four “humours”. Modern medicine, of course, follows no such principle, which would rule such mainstream practices as vaccination and radiation therapy non-allopathic, by definition.
Although Hahnemann’s term has always been rejected by mainstream medicine, it has frequently been adopted by chiropractors, naturopaths, and other opponents of conventional medicine, as a pejorative term. In this usage, allopathic medicine is solely concerned with the suppression of symptoms, whereas non-allopathic medicine treats the underlying cause. The term is thus a rhetorical weapon, used to advance an ideological claim. Moreover, the claim bound up in the term is fundamentally wrong; indeed, it exactly reverses the real situation. Whereas conventional medicine is frequently directed at discovering and treating underlying causes of illness – such as antibiotics to eliminate the microbial causes of infectious diseases – few non-conventional practices even address the real causes of illness. Homeopathy itself is purely concerned with symptoms, as shown by the homeopathic method of “provings”. And many naturopaths and traditional chiropractors are driven to reject modern theories of disease, in order to adhere to their vitalistic ideologies.
Finally, the terms “allopathic”
and “non-allopathic”, by falsely suggesting an ideological opposition between
competing medical paradigms, disguise the real distinction between mainstream
medicine and the scientifically-unproven “traditional” remedies that fall under
the label “Alternative and Complementary Medicine.” This is the distinction,
buried in the draft policy, between therapies that have been rigorously tested
and shown to be effective, and therapies which have either not been properly
tested, or which have been tested and shown to be ineffective. The draft policy
does note, “The categorization of specific therapies as non-allopathic is
fluid: as clinical evidence regarding efficacy is accumulated, certain
non-allopathic therapies may gain broad acceptance and thus be accepted in
allopathic medicine.” What this formulation leaves unmentioned is the key
that existing “non-allopathic”
therapies are those for which such clinical evidence does not exist, and for
which such evidence, in the vast majority of cases, is never likely to exist.
It is this distinction that should be front and centre, and driving the entire
Setting aside the problematic terminology, CASS also found problems in the definitions offered in the draft policy. Whereas, conventional (“allopathic”) medicine is defined as:
“the type of treatment, diagnostic analysis and conceptualization of disease or ailment that is the primary focus of medical school curricula and which is generally provided in hospitals and specialty or primary care practice,”
non-conventional therapies simply “differ” from conventional medicine in
“diagnostic techniques, theories of illness and disease, and treatment paradigms.”
This doggedly neutral language suggests a determination on the authors’ part to reinforce the notion that these are equivalent, competing paradigms. However, it has already been seen that the real difference is between evidence-based and non-evidence-based approaches. Such neutrality is entirely unwarranted and it is dangerously misleading for the College to suggest otherwise.
Let us be clear what is being implied here: the definitions in the policy suggest that the difference between the theory that diseases such as measles, cholera, and smallpox are caused by germs, and the theory, still held by some chiropractors, that such diseases are caused by “subluxations” in the spine lies merely in the fact that the former theory is the one taught in medical schools. No mention is made of the fact that the reason why such “conceptualizations” of disease are taught in medical schools is that they have been validated beyond any reasonable scientific doubt by centuries of basic and applied scientific research. No mention, either, that the conceptualizations of disease found in many non-conventional therapies – especially those based on vitalistic notions – are based on archaic medical models that have been thoroughly refuted by modern science. It is highly irresponsible for a professional organization to pander to such pseudo-scientific views via the spurious equivalence implicit in these definitions.
2. Standards of Evidence
Although the draft policy includes, commendably, language requiring objective justification for all diagnoses and treatments, this language is frequently couched in terms that provide far too much latitude; potentially leading to the recommendation of treatments that are, in all likelihood, ineffective. The policy should make clear that the vast majority of non-conventional treatments have not been adequately tested, and that very few of them would survive such testing. In light of the poor track record of such treatments, the default position should be that they are not to be recommended. Instead, the policy allows, in many cases, for a diagnosis or treatment to be offered on the basis of very slim evidence. For example:
On diagnosis, the draft policy states that:
“If physicians also form a non-allopathic diagnosis, such diagnosis must be objectively justifiable, based on the clinical assessment conducted and other relevant information available to the physician.”
The problem with this requirement is that, as we saw earlier, many, if not most, non-conventional therapies (and diagnoses) are based on medical theories that are not merely unproven, but patently false. A diagnosis that the flow of one’s qi is blocked presupposes that qi exists, that it can be blocked, and that this can cause the symptoms observed; all of which is scientifically preposterous. Yet a physician may well claim objective justification for such a diagnosis, if such is the diagnosis suggested by an “authoritative” reference on acupuncture. Physicians should never suggest diagnoses that are based on scientifically implausible medical theories, and the Policy should make this clear.
b. Therapeutic Options
In the section on therapeutic options, the draft policy does require that there be a reasonable expectation of efficacy, and that this expectation “must be supported by sound evidence.” However, the draft policy goes on to suggest that this evidence can be very weak in many cases:
“The type of evidence required will depend on the nature of the therapeutic option in question, including, the risks posed to patients, and the cost of the therapy. Those options that pose greater risks than a comparable allopathic treatment or that will impose a financial burden, based on the patient’s socio-economic status, must be supported by evidence obtained through a randomized clinical trial that has been peer-reviewed.”
This suggests that the evidential standard is lower for therapies that are low-risk, even if they are probably less effective than a conventional, more rigorously tested therapy. Moreover, the standard even for risky or expensive non-conventional options is far lower than it might appear: a single clinical trial, even of high quality, is of limited evidential value in the absence of replication or other evidential sources. The proposed standard would allow for the cherry-picking of one favourable trial, perhaps in a sea of contrary evidence, to be counted as “sound evidence”.
The bottom line is that, in determining therapeutic options, the standards applied to non-conventional treatments should be every bit as high as those applied to conventional treatments. Those standards are far higher than suggested in the draft policy.
c. Ineffective and Unproven Therapeutic Options
Two further points are in order regarding the draft policy’s discussion of ineffective treatments and of treatments for which the effectiveness or risks are unknown. Regarding the former, an appropriate mandate to never propose ineffective therapeutic options is hollowed out by narrowing the mandate to options that have been “proven” to be ineffective. In science, we are told, it is impossible to prove a negative, thus rendering this rule effectively empty. A more appropriate mandate would be that treatments which are probably ineffective should not be proposed.
Regarding the far broader category of treatments for which effectiveness and risk are unknown, the draft policy veers toward incoherence. Given that the vast majority of non-conventional treatments fall into this category (or the probably ineffective category), the expectation of caution and suggestion of clinical trials appears incongruous with the generally more permissive policy in the earlier paragraphs. Perhaps the caution suggested here is more appropriate: where risk and efficacy are unknown, the cautious and ethical approach must be to refrain from proposing such treatment.
3. Additional Concerns
a. Line 97-100, line 223-226:
“The College expects physicians to respect patients’ treatment goals and decisions, even those which physicians deem to be unfounded or unwise. In doing so, physicians should state their best professional opinion about the goal or decision, but must refrain from expressing non-clinical judgements.”
“Clinical concerns must always be highlighted, however physicians must refrain from expressing personal non-clinical judgements or comments about the therapeutic options, or the patient’s health care goals or preferences unless that input is specifically requested by the patient.”
In these passages, it is unclear which “non-clinical judgements” are being excluded. We are concerned that they may be interpreted as imposing tight limits on physicians’ ability to state their honest, scientifically- sound, objections to pseudo-scientific medical theories and ideas. While physicians should refrain from expressing personal judgements about their patients holding such views, it would be morally and intellectually dishonest for a physician to withhold a view as to the merits of such bankrupt theories as homeopathy, even when the expression of such a view goes beyond the strictly clinical realm.
The apparent attempt to prevent physicians from expressing legitimate scientific skepticism about non-conventional medical practices and theories is particularly troubling, given that their non-conventional counterparts feel no such compunction in spreading misinformation about legitimate medical practices such as vaccination, as well as in misrepresenting the scientific standing of dubious non-conventional practices. Any policy that stands in the way of correcting this torrent of misinformation does a great disservice to the important goal of public medical literacy and may facilitate harm to patients.
b. Line 176-177:
“…have a demonstrable and reasonable connection, supported by sound clinical judgement, to the diagnosis reached;”
“diagnosis” here is ambiguous: since the draft policy allows for the formation of a “non-allopathic diagnosis”, this clause might be thought to refer to such diagnoses. This would be problematic: since a non-conventional diagnosis may well have little bearing on reality, having a treatment option that is demonstrably and reasonably connected to it is hardly comforting. “Diagnosis” should read “conventional medical diagnosis”.
c. Line 247-249:
“Where physicians are unfamiliar with the non-allopathic therapy in question, they must indicate as much to the patient, and explain that they are consequently unable to comment on the matter.”
This requirement, while seemingly innocuous, would prohibit a physician from advising a patient that, since the vast majority of non-conventional therapies are without merit, it is highly likely that the unknown new therapy is similarly without merit. Moreover, where an unproven therapy obviously conflicts with established medical knowledge, even a physician unfamiliar with the therapy is in a position to offer dissuading advice. (The requirement to indicate the limits of the physician’s knowledge is, however, clearly appropriate.)
d. Footnote 13:
“This may include directing patients to journal articles, scientific studies and/or websites or providing them with more general resources, such as the contact information of regulatory colleges which govern practitioners of the desired therapy.”
The regulatory colleges for non-conventional medical practices (as well as related websites) are, regrettably, very poor sources of reliable information, and would be a poor recommendation.
e. Line 278-279:
“there is a reasonable expectation that the care provided will be clinically effective.”
The standard of “reasonable expectation” is clearly lower than the standard of “on the basis of evidence, and sound clinical judgement” from the prior clause. Since one of the primary dangers from the use of non-conventional medicine is the harm that may result from the use of ineffective therapies in place of effective conventional therapies, the standard of evidence required should be no lower for efficacy than it is for risk. Furthermore, the required evidence must indicate that the efficacy is at least that of conventional alternatives.
Despite the advancement of science and the ability to verify the efficacy of clinical interventions, there remain a number of hold-outs from our pre-scientific ancestors that either have not been shown to work or have been shown not to work. Homeopathy is an example of such a therapy that has not been sufficiently studied and, where sufficient studies exist, has been shown not to be effective. Despite this lack of evidence for efficacy, the general public makes extensive use of “complementary and alternative therapies” either alongside or, more worryingly, in place of conventional, evidence-based treatments. In 2006, a survey found that 76% of Canadians had used at least one alternative therapy in their lives and it was estimated that Canadians spent around $7.84 billion between the latter half of 2005 and first half of 2006 on alternative therapies ($174 per user).
Physicians in Ontario have an opportunity to promote the principle of evidence-based medicine and start to reverse this potentially dangerous trend. This principle is espoused in many policies at the College. We ask that you re-focus on this principle and reconsider the slide toward an ad populi capitulation in your draft policy on non-conventional medicine.
see for example:
Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Dec;54(6):577-82.
Heirs M, Dean ME. Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4.
McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ. Homeopathy for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 1.
Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2.
Esmail, N. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Canada: Trends in Use and Public Attitudes, 1997-2006. Public Policy Sources, Number 87 / May 2007.
#1 Angela Squires (Guest) on Friday September 02, 2011 at 2:59am
Having survived breast cancer despite the efforts of medicine to kill me by fortunately non-fatal screw-ups I speak today. I hate medicine as applied to breast cancer. If men were getting their testicles and penises amputated this cancer would be prevented; as in non-existent like tuberculosis in the west..
Unfortunately women are second class citizens, medically as well as in every other aspect of life.
If I sound bitter, it is because I am and rightly so.
#2 Michael Whittenburg (Guest) on Monday September 12, 2011 at 7:06pm
What an odd thesis to advance: that a lack of motivation alone prevents the development of a cure for a disease. One would think the millions of female doctors and researchers of the world would solve the problem if the men proved insufficiently motivated. The fact that cancer is horrible and the fallible human beings who treat it make mistakes is clearly proof of a greater conspiracy.
#3 Angela Squires (Guest) on Monday September 12, 2011 at 8:22pm
Thanks Michael - it is not a thesis but a rant for your information. The fact that you did not recognize this and felt motivated to respond with sarcasm is an indication of your lack of empathy and dick-headedness!
Breast cancer (bc) has been around a long time but has increased exponentially over the last 50 years such that 20 years ago it was 1 in 15, currently 1 in 8 women have a chance of developing it. Until 2008 no research into the possible environmental causes of bc was even being done by the BC Cancer Foundation in their new $125 million facility.
It is only in the last 20 years or so that there have been a substantial number of female researchers or most importantly money for bc research.
It is primarily men who use women’s bodies as marketing tools for advertizing in magazines, on billboards etc: Women’s magazine content slant has not changed in 40 years; it still treats women as toys for men. Young women are still being socialized to please men and now sexualized as young as 3 years old! Unfortunately this is being done with the willing compliance of females because the Media message that objectifies women is so pervasive.
Having had men offer my breastless body sex as if they are doing me a favour but not aspire to get to know me as a person first speaks volumes.
I hope I never meet you in person because I would bite your face and more off :-)
#4 Dave Hunt (Guest) on Tuesday September 13, 2011 at 5:35am
I recently had a biopsy for prostate cancer. I never thought of blaming women for the continued existence of this cancer but now I think of it…......
#5 Michael Whittenburg (Guest) on Tuesday September 13, 2011 at 6:12am
Dave, you’re going to get us all bit right in the, erm, bits. She just told you that men don’t get cancers of the male organs and/or lose them. Lance Armstrong who?
I am kind of hoping for her next diatribe she’ll bring this around to something relevant to the topic of the page, but I rather doubt it.
#6 Sherie Angevine (Guest) on Monday September 26, 2011 at 1:31pm
Are any of you reading this site aware of the large volume of research evidence linking sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) with a growing number of cancers in males and females - not just cervical?
As a former Ottawa public health nurse (late sixties)with a keen interest in epidemiology, I’ve been monitoring the literature on HPV and cancer since 1996 and circulating it to a number of professional contacts.
Chlamydia in its three forms is also believed to be responsible for a number of chronic human diseases and I also monitor that work in progress.
Canadian governments allocate less than 1% of Canada’s GDP to medical research - fortunately, other countries have taken the lead in investigating pathogens for the role they play in chronic disease causation.
I refer people to Dr. Paul Ewald’s book “Plague Time” as an introductory text for those who have little knowledge of this subject.
Additionally, if you Google the free online source of medical abstracts know as PubMed, you will find summaries of the latest peer reviewed reports.
Why certain immune competent people are able to resist infection more readily than others isn’t clearly understood, but one’s good mental health is believed to be an influencial factor. If patients believe that they are going to obtain positive results through non-traditional, treatment means, that belief may help them in some manner - possibly their acceptance of conventional therapy.
That said, the development of therapeutic vaccines and other antimicrobial agents are believed to be the way to real cures.
Meanwhile, the currently available HPV vaccines may prevent more than one cancer. I urge everyone to take advantage of the HPV vaccine licensed for your age group - and that applies to males as well as females. Unfortunately, Canadian governments have yet to fund HPV immunization for males, although some developed countries do.
It’s unfortunate that a gender split has arisen in the field of cancer treatment and research - based on the literature, cancer in males and females is likely to arise from the same cause.
Think of tuberculosis and how it infects non-pulmonary sites in males and females. Some of you may not even know about extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
When I share this information with those who have suffered a personal experience with cancer, the response from them is usually hostile, so I can well understand why governments and physicians are reluctant to explain this field of study to Canadians - although, certain legislation should have compelled them to be more open and informative by now.
I suggest that you raise this matter with your physician and your political representatives. Such action may spawn a more healthy climate for medical research in our country!
#7 Angela Squires (Guest) on Monday September 26, 2011 at 3:08pm
Thank you Sherie for this timely information.
“It’s unfortunate that a gender split has arisen in the field of cancer treatment and research - based on the literature, cancer in males and females is likely to arise from the same cause”.
Exactly. I have explained to males my concern that oestrogen and oestrogen mimicking substances are rife in our environment. Not only are they a highly suspected contributor to breast cancer but also are the suspected cause of the at least 25% motility reduction in sperm, leading to difficulty conceiving for aspiring parents and concern for the long time survival of the human race.
I’m sad that males make the comments they have about my post; it indicates a lack of knowledge and sensitivity that unfortunately appears endemic. Mind you they probably have little success with females, life skills or professionally. I know lots of decent men who appreciate intelligent women for our brains not our bodies.
#8 Sherie Angevine (Guest) on Monday September 26, 2011 at 3:54pm
About eight years ago, two teams of highly regarded Canadian researchers reported finding HPV DNA in sperm cells.
They recommended that all donor sperm be tested for HPV, but the Liberal government, acting through Health Canada chose to leave the decision making in that regard in the hands of the Canadian Standards Assoc., who, I was later informed, did not support that move. It would have been interesting to know of the training of those in the CSA who took that stance on such a challenging emerging field of study.
Even today, only a small number of Canadians publish work in that field.
Since then, and before, several other international researchers have reported HPV DNA in sperm cells.
Some suggest that birth defects and infertility may be caused by sperm that have been damaged by HPV.
Animals, too, suffer from papillomavirus infections that are reported to cause cancer and benign tumours.
I know of other Canadians who are as convinced as you that unnatural hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals in our environment are responsible for a wide range of human diseases, but if their view is correct, the outcome for humans is grim.
Should the literature I read be closer to the real answer, it may be possible to eliminate most chronic diseases in a short period of time - depending on how much funding is provided to the researchers who work under difficult conditions without much public recognition.
I sense that my additional comments on this thread may not meet with your approval, but please consider the possibility that pathogens continue to plague our species, even though we have, to some extent, conquered those that cause acute infections.
The pathogens I’ve read about in relation to chronic diseases are latent acting - often over decades.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
#9 Kelly (Guest) on Monday February 06, 2012 at 11:17am
I am a biochemist. This last year a chemist colleague of mine who was having severe chronic skin problems chose to resort to “applied kinesiology” for allergy testing. In her desperation, she ignored the scientific literature that shows that the odds of this method correctly identifying an allergy are no greater than that of random guessing.
If a well educated, intelligent scientist can be sucked into the world of ineffective “non-conventional” treatments, what chance does the general public have? Particularly if this legislation is allowed to pass and doctors cannot properly educate their patients.
#10 Pinto (Guest) on Saturday March 17, 2012 at 11:36pm
This is a really prfeowul video about a subject that a great many people feel strongly about and feel powerless to change. The inherent structure of our healthcare systems absolutely have to change. How is it possible that the human race has lost touch with humanity when caring for the sick? Where have the healers who look at the body as a whole gone? Why do we have to go to specialists when our bodies are under systemic attack? I lost my mother to Uterine Cancer 5 years ago. From begining to end, it was a heart-wrenching, horrific process filled robotic doctors, uncaring nurses and, worst of all, treatments that treated nothing. Change has to come, there is no longer anyway we can ignore this problem.
#11 Maria (Guest) on Monday March 19, 2012 at 6:28pm
just because you have not heard of ozone doesn’t mean that it does not exist or that it is not vaualble. besides, what makes you an expert on alternative medicine other than ignorance of the many beneficial therapies that have helped millions world wide? as our medical system falls apart and the horrible side effects of drugs are revealed, the lawyers are having a field day. eventually only natural cheap healing therapies will be available. Drug medicine will be bankrupted even though vaualble.