Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 606 (818796)
09-02-2017 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-02-2017 11:02 AM


Faith writes:
quote:
Moose posted something on the thread about diet criticizing Dr. Mercola as some kind of fanatic
Not merely a fanatic, Faith. He's a known scam artist and has been in trouble with the FDA numerous times for making illegal claims regarding his products, especially in their claims to cure cancer. He was taken to court by the FTC regarding his claim that the tanning beds he sold would actually reduce their skin cancer risk which is precisely the opposite of what a tanning bed does. He settled to avoid conviction.
He claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Instead, he claims that believing that HIV causes AIDS actually causes AIDS. No, I am not making that up. His claim is that you get AIDS by merely stressing out over the idea that HIV causes AIDS.
I am sorry you are not well, Faith, but in the name of all that is holy, do not listen to a think Mercola says. He does not have your interests at heart. He only wants your money and will do and say anything in order to scam you out of it. Please, go to an actual doctor.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-02-2017 11:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 11 of 606 (818799)
09-02-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
09-02-2017 5:29 PM


Re: Alternative Medicine Kills Cancer Patients
Faith writes:
quote:
They also die as a result of the conventional treatments, and there is evidence for that too.
Yes, Faith. That is true. There is no 100% effective, 100% safe treatment for any ailment of any kind anywhere.
There can't be. In order for something to be effective, it has to actually do something. But if it does something, then there is always the risk that it does too much, not enough, or something else that isn't wanted. If any "alternative" practitioner tells you that what they're hawking has "no side effects," then only one of two things is possible:
1) They're lying to you.
2) It doesn't actually do anything.
All treatment comes with risks. But to be scared off of treatment because of the risks is to open yourself up to scams. There's a reason that "alternative med people" don't actually submit their treatments to deep scrutiny: They don't want to because they're not interested in your health but only your money.
quote:
It seems to me the other side deserves more of a hearing than it usually gets.
Why do you say that? What is it that makes them "more deserving"? And what makes you think they haven't had that hearing in the first place? It isn't hard to do an honest-to-goodness medical trial that lives up to standards. Remember, Faith: A nine-year-old has been published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association (JAMA) from her study on "therapeutic touch." Why do you think it is that these people never even attempt to do such studies that would be accepted in the journals?
The cliche is true, Faith: Do you know what they call "alternative" medicine that actually works?
Medicine.
It isn't that we know everything. It's that we don't accept people's claims simply because they seem sincere. That's how scam artists make a living: They trust your distrust in the world around you, know when to smile and what to say, and have no problems at all taking your money.
In this thread alone, Faith, you have put forth two people who, with only the slightest of investigation, were found to be scam artists. Your distrust in the world around you is leading you astray.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 09-02-2017 5:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 49 of 606 (818890)
09-04-2017 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
09-02-2017 6:16 PM


Re: To RAZD on Cannabis Oil
Faith writes:
quote:
Finally ran across someone agreeing that cannabis oil DOES work as a treatment of cancer.
Except no, there's no real evidence to substantiate that claim:
Snopes on Claim that Cannabis Kills Cancer Cells in Preclinical Studies
On 16 July 2015, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) updated the FAQ on their web site, Cancer.gov, to include a statement about cannabis and its effect upon cancer cells:
Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory.
While the above-displayed quote does indeed appear on Cancer.gov, this does not mean that cannabis has been proved to kill cancer in humans. In fact, the NCI clarified the referenced statement by saying that insufficient evidence exists to recommend cannabis for use by cancer patients:
There is not enough evidence to recommend that patients inhale or ingest Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or side effects of cancer therapy.
It should also be noted that NCI’s claim that cannabis kills cancer cells is based on preclinical studies (research using animals to find out if a drug, procedure, or treatment is likely to be useful). While cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in clinical trials (research involving human test subjects) for ways to manage the side effects of cancer, Cancer.gov reports that:
No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in clinical trials for ways to manage side effects of cancer and cancer therapies.
Cannabis and cannabinoids may have benefits in treating the symptoms of cancer or the side effects of cancer therapies. There is growing interest in treating children for symptoms such as nausea with Cannabis and cannabinoids, although studies are limited.
Accordingly, the FDA has not yet approved cannabis as a treatment for cancer:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved Cannabis or cannabinoids for use as a cancer treatment.
Again, Faith, you're letting your distrust in the world around you lead you astray. You can find anybody to say anything on the interwebs.
That doesn't mean there is any validity to their claim. Just because somebody is saying something you want to hear doesn't mean they are trustworthy, no matter how much they're smiling when they say it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 09-02-2017 6:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 2:22 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 119 of 606 (819094)
09-06-2017 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
09-06-2017 2:09 AM


Re: An odd coincidence
Faith writes about Breaking Bad:
quote:
But his feelings are interesting: would you rather die in less time with your personality and your dignity intact or live longer as a dependent invalid and then die knowing that's how you'll be remembered? I just think it's interesting this came up at this time while I'm doing this thread.
You do understand the irony of your position, yes? You were railing against the Affordable Care Act because of its "death panels" when in reality, this was precisely what the ACA was seeking to fund: Patients talking to their doctors about end-of-life care, what it is they want, how they wish to be treated when they are incapacitated, and what their directives are.
You see, we on the left want people to be in charge of their lives...including how they die. If you have a debilitating illness and you feel that the treatment is worse than the disease, then that is your choice to make, not anybody else's. But that means you being able to talk with your medical providers with dignity and respect and them being able to provide you will complete information about what those decisions mean and all the various options available.
Instead, the right lied to you and claimed that it was the government saying that your life wasn't worth living anymore and would then euthanize you. And you bought it.
It's your life, Faith. You get to make that decision. Nobody here can tell what you're feeling and nobody can claim to be the one to determine what you can and cannot put up with.
This is a big conversation that we need to have in this country: How do we die? Is treatment always something that should be carried through? There was a commercial on the other day talking about a treatment for lung cancer that was predicated on the idea of "Who wouldn't want more time?" The ad was for Opdivo. Those that took the drug had longer lives than those who didn't...
...but then you read the fine print at the bottom of the screen and realized that it was only about 3 months:
[for non-squamous cancer]
Half of the patients on OPDIVO were still alive at 12.2 months, compared to 9.4 months with chemotherapy (docetaxel).
...
[for squamous cancer]
Half of the patients on OPDIVO were still alive at 9.2 months, compared to 6 months with chemotherapy (docetaxel).
Notice the numbers: Half the patients were dead in less than a year.
So what you ask is a very serious question: Is it worth it? Here are the side effects listed for Opdivo:
OPDIVO can cause problems that can sometimes become serious or life-threatening and can lead to death. Serious side effects may include lung problems (pneumonitis); intestinal problems (colitis) that can lead to tears or holes in your intestine; liver problems (hepatitis); hormone gland problems (especially the thyroid, pituitary, adrenal glands and pancreas); kidney problems, including nephritis and kidney failure; skin problems; inflammation of the brain (encephalitis); problems in other organs; and severe infusion reactions. The most common side effects of OPDIVO when used alone include: feeling tired; pain in muscles, bones, and joints; diarrhea; cough; constipation; back pain; fever; rash; itchy skin; nausea; shortness of breath; decreased appetite; upper respiratory tract infection; and weakness.
Is that worth it? Kidney failure? Encephalitis? Pneumonia? Is having another three months worth it if you're going to be in the hospital for them? For some people, yes.
For others, no.
That's only a question they can answer.
And to bring it back to the original concept: It's an actual treatment that has an effect. There is a difference between someone deciding they don't want to pursue treatment to potentially cure or prolong their lives because of the debilitating side effects such treatment would bring on and someone deciding they don't want to pursue treatment that has been shown to have an effect in favor of scam "treatment" that they have been suckered into.
Not wanting to go through chemo is not the same as having a coffee enema instead of chemo.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 121 of 606 (819098)
09-06-2017 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
09-06-2017 2:39 AM


Re: An odd coincidence
Faith responds to me
quote:
I don't recall saying much at all about the ACA. Can you point me to it?
I can't right now so I will retract. My apologies.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 338 of 606 (828828)
02-25-2018 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Phat
02-24-2018 2:55 PM


Re: Advice on Supplements
Phat, please.
They claim to "change the molecular structure of water."
And you're buying this?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Phat, posted 02-24-2018 2:55 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Phat, posted 02-25-2018 1:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 340 of 606 (828831)
02-25-2018 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Phat
02-25-2018 1:57 AM


Re: Advice on Supplements
Phat responds to me:
quote:
nobody has disproven that specific claim.
Physical chemistry did.
If you "changed the molecular structure of water," then it isn't water anymore because "changing the molecular structure" of something means it has reacted with something.
Unless you're trying to say that something in the water is changing the angle of the molecular bonds of the water...which is something that can't be done. The physical constants force the bond angle of water to be 104.5 degrees...and note, we would expect it to be 109, but the way the hydrogen is bonded to the oxygen has the electrons pushing the hydrogen nuclei closer together. There is no way to change this.
Unless they're talking about heavy water, which has a bond angle of 106 degrees. But you don't get heavy water just by adding minerals to regular water. And you wouldn't want to drink heavy water because your cells depend upon the physical chemistry of normal water (that bond angle is important.) You could get away with a little bit of it, but if you were to replace all the water in your body with heavy water, you wouldn't survive (of course, it would take days to do and you would have to make sure that all the water you consumed was heavy water...which would mean all the sources of hydrogen you took in would have to be dueterium).
Unless, of course, these conmen are talking about breaking the hydrogen bonds between molecules like soap does. But that doesn't actually change the water. It's just a physical interruption and as soon as you absorb the molecules of water, it is just plain water again. Those micelles aren't going to do anything.
So contrary to your claim, Phat, the claims have long since been disproven. Go to any physical chemistry course and you'll actually do the work on why water is the way it is.
It's a scam, Phat.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Phat, posted 02-25-2018 1:57 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Phat, posted 02-25-2018 4:43 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 342 of 606 (828842)
02-25-2018 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Phat
02-25-2018 4:43 AM


Re: Advice on Supplements
Phat responds to me:
quote:
While I trust your analysis, I question whether it is indeed a scam.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You trust physical chemistry saying that what they claim is impossible, and yet it might not be a scam?
quote:
They went before Congress in a hearing.
Because Congress is filled with scientists and are capable of making a determination on a scientific question?
quote:
Harry Reasoner gave them a favorable review.
Because Harry Reasoner is a scientist?
Because the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
quote:
No claims have ever been made by the Doc nor his sons.... it's the people who use the product that tout its claims.
And that doesn't make it a scam?
First, your claim that "No claims have ever been made by the Doc nor his sons" is simply not true. From their own website:
This CAW micelle causes the formation of a catalyst that alters the structure of water, making water behave in a manner that heretofore has not been reported in the literature as stated by Dr. Willard.
The micelle is an extremely small, very high energy particle with a powerful negative magnetic field. When added to ordinary water, it causes a change in the ordinary water molecules that can be likened to the difference between diamonds and graphite both being made of carbon but with differing molecular structures. This new water molecule structure serves as a catalyst that seems to accelerate and enhance the body’s natural processes. Both Dr. Willard’s Water and ordinary water consist of H2O molecules but the structure makes all the difference!
That is laughably stupid. It is impossible to do this. You will note that I over-emphasized one of the claims:
What is a "negative magnetic field"? Are they claiming they have managed to create magnetic monopoles? You see, this is one of the great mysteries of science: Certain interpretations of magnetic theory indicate that there should be magnetic monopoles just as there are electrical ones.
That is, there is a particle that carries an electric charge in a certain type: The electron. It carries a negative electric charge. No positive.
But there's also a particle that carries the opposite electric charge: The proton. It carries a positive electric charge. You put them near each other and you can generate an electric field. If an object has an electric dipole (like, for example, a water molecule), you can physically cut the object such that the positive charge is in one place and the negative charge is in another.
There are electric monopoles.
Well, there is a magnetic field, too. As we've all seen in grade school, you can put a piece of paper over a bar magnet and sprinkle iron filings on it and you can physically see the lines of magnetic force that flow from the north pole to the south pole.
But if you cut that magnet in half, you don't get a "north" magnet and a "south" magnet. Instead, you get two magnets, each with a north and south.
It turns out you can't actually physically separate out magnetism. Gauss' Law for Magnetism (del-dot-B = 0) indicates that there can't be any magnetic monopoles. Certain aspects of QM and string theory suggest the possibility of such, so it would be a huge discovery if someone had figured out a way to create just a south magnetic field (presuming that's what is meant by "negative magnetic field"). Because from what we can directly observe, that is physically impossible.
Especially by doing so chemically.
In short, there is no such thing as a "negative magnetic field." You can't create a magnetic field without having both a south and a north pole.
Or is he saying that his magic micelles violate the right-hand rule? That is, you can generate a magnetic field by moving an electric charge. This is how electromagnets work: You wrap a copper wire around an object that can hold a magnetic field (like an iron bar). When you run an electric current through the wire, the object will become magnetized. Turn off the current and the magnetic field disappears.
The direction of the magnetic field is determined by the direction of the current flowing by the right-hand rule: Hold your right hand out and make a "thumbs-up" gesture. If the direction your thumb is pointing is the direction the current is flowing, then the direction of your curled fingers is the direction of the magnetic field. For example, if you have your thumb pointing up, the field is going counter-clockwise as seen from above. Turn your hand over so that the current is flowing down, and the magnetic field will be flowing clockwise as seen from above.
Is he saying that he's created an electrical current that follows a left-hand rule? That would quite literally break physics as we know it and we need to give this man a Nobel Prize.
And that doesn't even begin to get into the nonsense of the phrase "high energy particle." You know what a "high energy particle" is?
Radiation.
But the thing about this is that you can't "contain" it. It's not like you can bottle radiation. That "high energy" means it is moving...until it hits something. At that point, it loses some of its energy...it be radiated away as heat. And that assumes it doesn't damage what it hit (which is why alpha radiation is dangerous). So there is no possible way that these micelles are "high energy."
And then there's the stupidity of the comparison with graphite and diamond.
The reason graphite and diamond are different is because they are both solid. Thus, there is a crystalline structure to examine. And indeed, graphite has a different crystalline structure (layered, planar either hexagonal or rhombohedral) than diamond (face-centered cubic). But the reason that works is because these are both solids and the atoms within the crystal structure do not move.
Liquids, on the other hand, have the atoms moving all over the place. Now, water is infamous for its hydrogen bonding, but that isn't enough to keep the individual water molecules in place. It's why liquids spread out to fill their container. There is no "structure" to alter.
We've already covered the fact that you can't change the bond angle and since there is no other "molecular structure" (outside of a phase change, but then you're talking about ice or steam, not water), this is quite literally nothing but a load of nonsense dressed up with scientific words that they're hoping you don't know anything about but will just accept out of your ignorance.
But wait, what do they say it can do? Again, from their own website:
Dr. Willard’s Water is not a nutrient, but a vehicle by which nutrients are carried throughout the body’s cells, and by which waste is carried away from the cells with water as a means of transportation. Animal research has shown that Dr. Willard’s Water significantly increases the body’s ability to fully absorb essential vitamins and nutrients!
Dr. Willard’s Water has been tested and analyzed by many reputable laboratories and universities all around the world. While the reasons behind how Dr. Willard’s Water actually works remains somewhat of a mystery, the amazing effects of ingesting Dr. Willard’s Water are well documented.
So much for idea that they don't make any claims. They even have the fake studies to prove it!
But wait, there's more:
When preparing your bottles of water, popsicles, smoothies or other ways to hydrate, don’t forget to add Willard Water! A small amount of this FDA-approved, patented formula that contains a water micelle catalyst can make big changes to your health!
Through a multitude of studies and tests in universities and labs around the world, it was proven that Willard Water plays a big role in making the vitamins, nutrients and antioxidants we get through our diet more bioavailable. What that means is that our bodies are able to absorb more of these health-boosting ingredients while more eliminating of the toxins that make us age and get sick. Additionally, our formula increases enzyme activity and strengthens the immune system!
So once again, the idea that the good doctor or his son don't make any claims is trivially proven false.
This isn't a bunch of yahoos using this product off-label. They are actively selling this for the specific reasons claimed.
And everything about their claims are false.
Ergo, a scam.
quote:
And like I said before, at worst it is a harmless placebo.
NO! It is not "a harmless placebo"! It is scamming you out of your money. You are ingesting god knows what in that "CAW micelle." They are playing on your gullibility and by doing so, setting you up for the next scam to come your way.
This is not "harmless."
quote:
So my jury is still out on whether or not it is actually no better than ordinary water.
We're back to me blinking again.
You trust physical chemistry saying that what they claim is impossible, and yet the "jury is out"?
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing typo and a double-negative

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Phat, posted 02-25-2018 4:43 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024