Holistic Doctors, and medicine

quote:

---

One complaint against NDs is the lack of training. MDs on the other hand have very rigorous training. You want me to believe that someone with all that rigorous training just decided to stop using his critical thinking skills, which should be part of his trade.

---

Yup.It isn't terribly common, but we see it occasionally in MD's. We even see it in scientists, though this is quite rare.Linus Pauling had his wacky ideas about Vitamin C, and John Mack, the Harvard Psychiatrist who went off the deep end with his alien abduction stuff are two famous examples from the scientific community.(AbE: sorry, only Pauling was a scientist. Mack is a MD only)Remember that Medical Doctors are not scientists. The practice of medicine is a practical art, not a science. Doctors, like engineers (who are also not scientists but, like MD's apply a lot of science in their work) seem to be particularly prone to being blind to their own bias. I think this is for several reasons:The are generally of above average to very high intelligence. They are used to being among the smartest persons in any gathering, they get high test scores their whole lives, they make correct decisions and solve problems many times, every day. This makes them discount the danger of bias, and the simple fact that they might be completely wrong or fooling themselves.They are not trained in the scientific method. Many laypeople have this vague notion that scientists and MD's are sort of the same, education-wise, only one works in a lab with beakers, and the other is in a hospital or an office and deals with sick people. The truth is, straight up Medical Doctors get no education in hypothesis testing, which is what you need to become a good scientist. Conversely, hypothesis testing is the entirety of the graduate and post doctoral training of a scientist.The 'peer review' that they have is not anywhere near as rigorous as that in science Scientists base their work on the work of others, so it is extremely important to every scientist that everyone is producing quality research. A scientist's work is challenged and criticized by his collegues on a nearly daily basis. MD's, by contrast, aren't, to put it bluntly.

quote:

---

Disagreeing with the status quo is not uncommon and is sometimes fruitful.

---

Not when it is based in untested claptrap, PD.There is a difference between "challenging the status quo" with innovative, groundbreaking research findings" and making unsupported claims.

quote:

---

I would more readily believe that the MD with his own line or book knows exactly what he's doing and is just jumping on the gravy train. He knows exactly how to word science to keep from getting in trouble.

---

No disagreement here.I will add, though, that he doesn't have to include much science at all, since this thread demonstrates the public currently doesn't seem to care much if their healthcare is science based or not.

quote:

---

There are MDs who have added naturopathy to their training. Does that mean they find every concept viable, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't prevent the MD from using that which he considers viable given his training and experience.

---

I would guess that many of those MD's simply want to jump on the gravy train that is unregulated medical practice.They also are benefiting from the touchy-feely New-Age flavor that Naturopathy has successfuly marketed.

quote:

---

I don't buy that MDs that support natural just had a brain fart. I also don't consider it reasonable to judge that I don't use critical thinking skills when dealing with nutrition. I haven't advocated that all treatments or concepts are acceptable to me.

---

The thing is, PD, it doesn't matter if a treatment is acceptable to you. We already know that you find "acceptable" at least one treatment that has not been shown to be effective for anything.Do you believe that any treatment and therapy which has not been rigorously tested and shown to be effective and safe "has a place" alongside those that have?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Biological homeostasis is what I understand my ND to mean by balance. Again, I can't account for every ND.

---

Why can't you, though?"Balance" seems to be a very important, central concept of Naturopathy, so why shouldn't it be a very clearly-defined term among the majority of Naturopaths? Why wouldn't the definition be universal, or nearly so, among Naturopaths, if "balance" is what every Naturopath is supposed to be helping people attain?Why does your ND get to define Naturopathy, and why do you continue to ignore all these other examples from Naturopathic websites we've been quoting from?

They are saying that homeostasis is a process. It is the process of maintaining balance. The vital force is a power. The power to self-heal. I don't see them equating homeostasis with vital force. They're equating homeostasis with balance, which makes sense with the whole stasis thing.

quote:

---

Er, the incentive is to prove that it is safe and effective, so that one can sell it.

---

quote:

---

Do you still think that untested treatments "have their place" right alongside tested treatments in healthcare?

---

Never did.In a perfect world, we could say that nothing that hasn't passed rigorous testing should ever be used or consumed by humans or our food supply. Unfortunately it isn't a perfect world. Money, media, politics, and public demands influence the outcome.The average populace has suffered through the results of scientific tests and have watched these results change again and again. Eggs have been in and out of favor over the years. The low fat diet that doctors and nutritionists touted and my husband and I followed for 18 years apparently hasn't really been proven to help people live longer. Unfortunately the only thing that was low fat was the diet. Once we stopped the low fat diet our weight went down. Several Theories of Heart Disease OriginDrugs that were tested and deemed safe, but pulled after long term effects are found to be detrimental or unforeseen side effects appear. This is the culture we are in right now. People will exploit those concerns to make money and/or gain power.The FDA has approved a contraceptive for continuous use. (Lybrel) I read an article, I think it was in MAMM, that expressed concern by MDs dealing with women's health. The studies were only for a year, they have no idea the long term effect of a woman not having a period for over a year. Cancer is obviously one concern and iron build up is another. We really don't know if the risks outweigh the health benefits long term.Scientists may determine that we can do something, but who has the job of deciding whether we should?The drawing card for CAM is that most of the natural remedies have been used for 100's if not 1000's of years with supposedly no ill effects and supposedly work. Good personal testimony is just as strong as bad personal testimony.I do agree with the key principles expressed at NCCAM. I have no intention of taking up the cause for every naturopath or naturopathic site. I've already made it known several times that rules and regs need to be established for this profession because I don't feel that we should lose access to these types of principles; but we need a way to weed out the quacks.I agree that the treatments and concepts should be tested by scientists, if they haven't already, to see if they work as intended. We don't necessarily have to understand why it works. That may come with time.I also agree that supplements need some sort of regulation to ensure consistency. I don't agree that everyone can realistically get all their needed nutrition from their food supply. It would depend on how much nutrition the food actually contains and that's not consistent either.People have voiced that they want a choice of natural over synthetic. I agree that natural may not always be better or safer, but the same goes for synthetic. The point is to have a choice.There are always going to be people who go to extremes, whether too much or too little. There's nothing we can do about that. There are always going to be "quacks" taking advantage of weakness, anger, fear, or confusion. We deal with them when they pop up.CAM is going through a process. Only time will tell how treatments and concepts that work will be incorporated into modern medicine.You deem me to be without reason because of one concept that you disagree with; but I find no risk in trying. That's your prerogative. I've never worried to much about public approval. Right now I'm healthy and I feel good. I've had a good life and should I die tomorrow, I have no regrets.That's all I really have to say on this topic.

I hate The Battle of the Semantics.So here goes nothing. "Vital force" in naturopathy is clearly a "quantity" and/or a real, measurable "force". It is the same thing as prana/qi.In naturopathy, "balance" aka "homeostasis" aka "vital force", is a load of horse apples.

What medical science has or has not done is irrelevant.This is the crux of the matter: This is patently untrue.

Do they really think it is measurable? I think they mean to say that homeostasis is a product of the vital force. I'm not conviced they are equated. Your quotes seem to contradict each other. Who decides what naturopathy's definitions are? But I don't really care eough to argue it further.You did get at least one thing right:

If there is more than one active ingredient, and you only extract one of them, you are bound to get results other than intended. The lesson here is to extract all the active ingredients and reject the non-active or detrimental ones.

quote:

---

Never did.

---

Of course you did, right here in message #110:

quote:

---

Please don't lump all alternatives in one quack box. There are quacks, just as there are MD's who are quacks or incompetent. There are also naturopatic doctors who have clinical experience and can and have helped people get healthier.

​

People get cancer and even though proven techniques are used, some get better and some die.

​

Each has their function. Keeping humans in working order isn't a perfect science.

---

You are saying here, it seems to me, that Naturopathy "has its place" right alongside science-based medicine.We have already discussed how much of Naturopathy is not science-based, most notably the prevalence of homeopathy.

quote:

---

The average populace has suffered through the results of scientific tests and have watched these results change again and again. Eggs have been in and out of favor over the years. The low fat diet that doctors and nutritionists touted and my husband and I followed for 18 years apparently hasn't really been proven to help people live longer. Unfortunately the only thing that was low fat was the diet. Once we stopped the low fat diet our weight went down.

---

Yeah. What's your point? That science doesn't have perfect knowledge? No shit.As we learn more we are able to correct and adjust and refine our conclusions, and that may include reversals on occasion.Most of the reason Americans are overweight is because they eat like pigs and sit on their asses all day.Science's contribution, as administered through conventional medicine, to disease curing, prevention, and nutrition has alleviated enormous amounts of suffering in the word; far more than any CAM ever has.If CAM was so wonderful in comparison, that's what everybody would be primarily using instead.

quote:

---

Drugs that were tested and deemed safe, but pulled after long term effects are found to be detrimental or unforeseen side effects appear. This is the culture we are in right now.

---

We are also in a culture where people who have the greatest access to science-based medicine tend to also have the highest life expectancy in the world, the lowest rate of death from childhood diseases, the lowest rates of death from common infectious diseases, the least prevalence of malnutrition, the highest cure rates of cancer, the lowest rates of maiming and death from complications of childbirth, etc.Is it a perfect system? No, of course not.I do believe, however, that you are pretty much completely ignoring or discounting the frigging enormous list of benefits that science-based medicine has given us in a relatively short amount of time.CAM didn't stop women from dying in childbirth so frequently only a couple of hundred years ago that it wasn't uncommon for a man to have 4 or 5 wives before he was 40.CAM didn't virtually eliminate all dangerous childhood diseases through the use of vaccines.CAM didn't eliminate the killer disease Smallpox from the face of the Earth, PD.CAM had thousands of years to fix these problems, but it never happened, did it?

quote:

---

People will exploit those concerns to make money and/or gain power.

---

Yes. The prople making huge profits off of untested CAM remedies and therapies are, indeed, exploiting people's fear and are fomenting anti-science sentiment and mistrust of medical treatment.

quote:

---

The drawing card for CAM is that most of the natural remedies have been used for 100's if not 1000's of years with supposedly no ill effects and supposedly work.

---

Of course, it isn't actually true that CAM "works" and that it has no ill-effects.

quote:

---

Good personal testimony is just as strong as bad personal testimony.

---

Right. Both are equally meaningless.

quote:

---

If there is more than one active ingredient, and you only extract one of them, you are bound to get results other than intended. The lesson here is to extract all the active ingredients and reject the non-active or detrimental ones.

---

Understood. My comment was referring to the article on MaHuang which stated: In this instance the stems supposedly lower blood pressure, whereas the alkaloid raises blood pressure.I don't know if the case with this herb is due to not getting all the active ingredients or deals more with the idea that the whole herb action is more of a synergistic activity of many ingredients and not just the active one(s).

Molbiogirl asked me to come here. She said, "Nator and I did quite a number on 'naturopathy'" here. I'm not so sure I agree with that. Purpledawn and Buzsaw seem to know their stuff too.Molbiogirl, you make much use here of the Quackwatch site. There's nothing like cherrypicking your links to find one that says what you want. If it's against any kind of alternative medicine, you can guarantee that Stephen Barrett will have an article about it. You quote from the "authority" of his site as if that speaks for itself. It does not.For all the insistence here on transparency, accreditation, and so on, I would ask you what you make of this information. Barrett has made a lot of money from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and has close ties to them still. Also he was de-licensed in the 1990s, and is not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he failed the certification exam. He has also been forced to concede in a court case that he has ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). These are all organisations with an interest in promoting allopathic (mainstream Western) medicine -- a gravy train which makes them a lot of money -- over alternative medicine, which promotes things like vitamins and herbs that don't have a patent. Finally, he claims to be a "legal expert" and has testified as an expert witness in a number of cases. In fact, he has no legal training whatsoever.People here have said that the pharmaceutical industry has an interest in selling its drugs. There is no reason whatsoever for it to test something like a vitamin, because it can't patent a vitamin. The FDA is no longer the watchdog it was created to be; many of the people in the highest echelons there have ties to the pharmaceutical industry, or go on to have careers there once they leave the FDA. It is the government's rubber stamp for fast-tracking drugs.Are you not familiar with the recent scandals involving "blockbuster" drugs such as Vioxx, Avandia, Accutane, Ketek and Zyprexa? Or do the thousands of deaths these drugs have caused not matter, because the patients should have been aware of the side effects? Well evidence has emerged recently, from a court case, that Eli Lilly were aware of the increased incidences of type II diabetes in users of Zyprexa. But they conveniently did not publish this particular aspect of their test results, and currently there is no law requiring them to do so. Clinical trials are overwhelmingly run by the companies that make the drug being tested, and they are under no obligation to come clean about the full results. Standard practice is to only publish the results that show a significant efficacy against placebo. Is this the rigorous scientific testing that has been referred to here? Try Googling a few sites other than Quackwatch and you might discover a thing or two.According to Wikipedia, there were 225,000 deaths in the US in the year 2000 that were due to iatrogenic (doctor-related) causes. This constitutes the third leading cause of death, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Of these, it estimates 106,000 to be non-error, negative effects of drugs. Iatrogenesis - Wikipedia
Why are people trying to harp on a few cases of possible toxicity of herbs when this is going on? What does that say about the belief systems from which people are operating here?Moving on from this . . . Nator, can I ask you what Linus Pauling's "wacky ideas" about vitamin C were? See if you can find something about this that isn't on Quackwatch. Also make sure that any clinical studies that were done, actually used the correct amounts of vitamin C that Pauling recommended. He used up to 100 GRAMS per day safely with some very ill cancer patients; they received it intravenously. He recommended that healthy people take 3 to 10 grams a day, in divided doses. Many studies that have claimed to attempt to duplicate his own, have used less than a gram, and then these results get trumpeted in the media as showing that Linus Pauling was "wrong" about vitamin C.If anyone would like a more balanced view of naturopathic medicine that includes good nutrition, then I suggest you have a look at http://www.mercola.com/index.htmAs for myself, I work online with a naturopathic doctor who is also an MD. She runs a non-profit list that helps people like me, who have had lingering ill effects from medications. At the top of her list is the Paleolithic Diet, which largely reflects the dietary list that Buzsaw posted at the beginning of this thread. Next come dietary supplements tailored to the individual's needs. I take a high-quality multivitamin, vitamin C (9 grams a day), a colloidal mineral supplement (and don't try to tell me what Stephen Barrett says about this, I know it well, and he doesn't know what he's talking about), magnesium, calcium, vitamin E, selenium, and fish oil. Also, because I have cortisol dysfunction caused by the medication I was on, this is helped by taking the herbs ginkgo biloba and ashwagandha, sometimes relora if it's a big problem, and Bach Cherry Plum flower essence. I know they work because when my cortisol is high, my heart races and I feel jittery. These things calm it all down. I don't imagine it, it's a real effect. And my anecdotal info here is true, so it's up to you whether you want to wave it away or not because I haven't been tested in a lab. An openness to some of these things could help you with your health, but that of course is your decision Finally, Rat, if sinuses are a problem, I suggest you try learning neti. Get a neti pot. All you need is water and salt, and you can add some good-quality colloidal silver too if you think you have an infection. It's a lot cheaper than buying herbs, and since I started doing it, it has warded off a number of colds. Yes, all you have is my word for it here for what it's worth, though if you Google "neti" you will see how it helps your sinuses to stay healthy. I would also recommend vitamin C to boost your immune system. At least 3 grams per day, in divided doses, same as Linus Pauling recommended. It is harmless and it might help.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Wow, thanks for your reply, and welcome to the melee/forum.I have been using a neti pot, sinu-cleanse, and it was one of the only things that helped me. At one point the pain in my sinuses was so bad, it felt like someone was sticking an ice pick up my nose. I would get a headache on inhale, and relief on exhale. The next day after using the neti pot, I felt immediate relief.The one I purchased comes with saline packets, but you are saying I can just use salt? the saline packets contain Sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. Salt, and baking soda.

Hi Rat. Glad the neti is helping. Yes you can use salt, though you need to make sure no anti-caking agents have been added. Sea salt is usually good. My naturopath suggested adding the colloidal silver and I've had consistently good results with it. Also, dairy and sugar can inflame sinuses; you could try avoiding both, if you don't already. Sugar also depresses the immune system. Hope you're feeling better soon

A legal expert is one who has expertise is their field, not one who has gone to law school. Au contraire.Should you wish to see the thousands of papers that have been written on vitamins, I again refer you to scholar.google or pubmed (link here). Retinol, Lindalou? (It's a patented form of vitamin A.) Ah. Here we go again. BigPharma.Modern medicine is responsible for saving millions of lives in the past 100 years.Can you say the same for your "alternative medicine"?Please document your response with cites (from primary research literature, please). Please check your sources.Dr. Barrett is retired. He is a psychiatrist. Board certification is not necessary to practice psychology.http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/fonorowsuit.html A few cases? Try thousands.Furthermore, we don't know the true extent of the damage done by AlternaPharma because the FDA doesn't regulate OTC supplements. There are no statistics. Again, I refer you to the primary research literature. This epidemiological study is one of over 3000 done on the effects of megadoses of vitamin C.And, as you can see from the cite, vitamin C has no effect whatsoever. And what proof do you have that the racing heart, the jitteriness aren't simply symptoms of a panic attack? Both are symptomatic of a panic disorder, you know.

quote:

---

Molbiogirl asked me to come here. She said, "Nator and I did quite a number on 'naturopathy'" here. I'm not so sure I agree with that. Purpledawn and Buzsaw seem to know their stuff too.

---

Purpledawn is a lot more reasonable and informed than Buzsaw, but both of them have bought into magical thinking, ignore facts, argue disingenuously, and make a lot of logical errors.And please, if you think there are specific errors or omissions in any of my posts in this thread, please point them out.

quote:

---

There's nothing like cherrypicking your links to find one that says what you want. If it's against any kind of alternative medicine, you can guarantee that Stephen Barrett will have an article about it.

---

No.He criticises quackery and pseudoscience and questionable marketing practices, no matter where they are found. It doesn't matter where they are coming from.Do you have any counters to his evidence? Is what he saying at his website actually factually wrong? Casting aspersions upon his intentions is just an attempt to poison the well. Address the facts.

quote:

---

You quote from the "authority" of his site as if that speaks for itself. It does not.

---

Actually, the lists of relevent, referenced current professional scientific papers cited at the end of the informational articles is a large part of what helps me accept that what is in the article is true, since they allow me to read the original research to check that they are quoting it properly.

quote:

---

Barrett has made a lot of money from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and has close ties to them still.

---

Source and evidence, please.

quote:

---

Also he was de-licensed in the 1990s,

---

Not true, and was circulated as a smear. Pennsylvania Department of State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs

quote:

---

and is not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he failed the certification exam.

---

Not true, according to my information: Dr. Barrett's CVWhat is your evidence and source for this fact?

quote:

---

He has also been forced to concede in a court case that he has ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

---

Of course, any science-based person fighting medical quackery is going to have close ties to science-based medical organizations.What you need to do is spend less time casting aspersions and more time showing that his specific claims are wrong.

quote:

---

These are all organisations with an interest in promoting allopathic (mainstream Western) medicine -- a gravy train which makes them a lot of money -- over alternative medicine, which promotes things like vitamins and herbs that don't have a patent.

---

Yes, because the medical establishment is entirely profit-driven, money grubbing and evil, and vitamin and herb manufacturers are all kindly hippies who are repulsed at the very idea of money and don't make a single dime selling their vitamins and herbs and only want everyone to be happy and healthy.Come on, surely you aren't so naive that you think that the vitamin and herb sellers (and the hucksters and frauds) aren't simply wanting to get a bigger slice of the healthcare dollar pie, are you? You do realize that the "alternative" health people are using very effective marketing strategies in encourage people to be anti-science, and are taking advantage of people's fear, right?

quote:

---

Finally, he claims to be a "legal expert" and has testified as an expert witness in a number of cases. In fact, he has no legal training whatsoever.

---

Evidence and source, please.

quote:

---

Are you not familiar with the recent scandals involving "blockbuster" drugs such as Vioxx, Avandia, Accutane, Ketek and Zyprexa? Or do the thousands of deaths these drugs have caused not matter, because the patients should have been aware of the side effects?

---

How many people died compared to how many people took the drug? Was it 50%? 15%? 5%? .005%?The percentage is what matters, not the actual number, if we are talking about the relative risk of a medication.By contrast, do the herbal promoters even have any data like that? Can they point to careful records of how many people were prescribed an herbal drug, for what reason, what their ages and ethnic background were, how long they took it and what the dosage was, and what were the effects?

quote:

---

According to Wikipedia, there were 225,000 deaths in the US in the year 2000 that were due to iatrogenic (doctor-related) causes. This constitutes the third leading cause of death, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Of these, it estimates 106,000 to be non-error, negative effects of drugs. Iatrogenesis - Wikipedia
Why are people trying to harp on a few cases of possible toxicity of herbs when this is going on?

---

The thing is, you don't actually know how many "possible toxicity cases" of herbs there have been, since there is no record keeping required of such things.Also, please recall what I said about percentages and comparative record keeping above, and consider that far, far, far more people take conventional drugs compared to herbal drugs.Let's say that 1000 people take a drug, and 100 of them have a bad side effect.Let's also say that 100 people take an herbal drug, and 10 of them have a bad side effect.The rate of side effect incidence is exactly the same in both cases,(10%) but the actual numbers, 100 people vs. 10 people, sound incredibly different. The first drug sounds much worse than the second when considering actual numbers, but when considering the relative chance of having a bad side effect, they are the same.

quote:

---

Try Googling a few sites other than Quackwatch and you might discover a thing or two.

---

What other science- and evidence-based sites do you reccommend?

quote:

---

Nator, can I ask you what Linus Pauling's "wacky ideas" about vitamin C were?

---

He believed that megadoses of vitamin C could help in the treatment of cancer and could prevent the common cold, among others.Neither idea has withstood scientific testing, but he maintained those beliefs regardless of their failure to produce his predicted results.

quote:

---

See if you can find something about this that isn't on Quackwatch.

---

OK, how about the actual scientific studies that are referenced at the bottom of the Quackwatch page? This study, and this study, and this study.there are dozens of studies, actually, on PubMed.

quote:

---

Also make sure that any clinical studies that were done, actually used the correct amounts of vitamin C that Pauling recommended. He used up to 100 GRAMS per day safely with some very ill cancer patients; they received it intravenously.

---

Source, please.

quote:

---

He recommended that healthy people take 3 to 10 grams a day, in divided doses. Many studies that have claimed to attempt to duplicate his own, have used less than a gram, and then these results get trumpeted in the media as showing that Linus Pauling was "wrong" about vitamin C.

---

The thing is, more than 2000 miligrams per day of vitamin C can lead to upset stomach and diarrhea. His reccomendations for dosage have known bad side effects.

quote:

---

If anyone would like a more balanced view of naturopathic medicine that includes good nutrition, then I suggest you have a look at http://www.mercola.com/index.htm

---

You have got to be kidding me! When I wasn't being accosted by ads wanting me to buy the latest probiotic tablet or the site owner's latest book, I was encouraged to click a link that would enlighten me on how to "feng shui" my office, and another link tells me how I can buy a book about how dangerous vaccines are and how I can avoid them.Not a single reference to a scientific paper in sight.A great marketing website, though.

quote:

---

a colloidal mineral supplement (and don't try to tell me what Stephen Barrett says about this, I know it well, and he doesn't know what he's talking about)

---

OK, then explain, with references to scientific papers if possible, how he is completely wrong.

quote:

---

I know they work because when my cortisol is high, my heart races and I feel jittery. These things calm it all down. I don't imagine it, it's a real effect.

---

How do you know that the herbs are doing it and it isn't a placebo effect?

quote:

---

And my anecdotal info here is true, so it's up to you whether you want to wave it away or not because I haven't been tested in a lab. An openness to some of these things could help you with your health, but that of course is your decision

---

They could help, and I am open, but I am well-aware that just becasue something is "natural" or "herbal", it doesn't mean that it is somehow less likely to have side effects, or be safe. I also have no way of knowing, unless such herbs have been tested under souble-blind conditions, if they do what they are purported to do, and if so, what dosage is required, what the duration should be, what interactions there might be with other drugs or food, if certain ethnic groups or the genders are affected differently, what the long-term effects are, etc.Do you have any of that sort of data for the herbs you are taking?Having such information before you ingest something could help you with your health, but that of course is your decision.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.