Recreational drugs FAR less likely to kill than prescribed drugs!

[srqrebel]

I may or may not owe my present existence to modern medicine.

It is a virtual certainty that I owe my existence to modern technology. I was born six weeks premature, weighing in at a mere 3 pounds. If it was not for that hospital incubator, I would almost certainly have gone the way of preemies of centuries past.

[srqrebel]

mercola???

that quack???

??

Not sure what you are trying to say

For the record, I regard both Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. David G. Williams as two of the most objective and forward thinking MDs out there. While a lot of good has come out of modern medicine, it seems that the AMA and big pharma have long ago joined forces with the AMOG, specifically the FDA, to squelch both safer alternatives and genuine cures.

Rather than outcompete themselves though innovation and marketing of better treatments and cures, the medical and pharmacy industries routinely take the path of least resistance and use the strong arm of the AMOG to hobble and destroy truly creative innovators that threaten their profits.

The important thing to note is that it is not the medical and pharmaceutical industries that are the bad guys: It is the AMOG. Take the AMOG out of the equation, leaving nothing but a 100% Free Market environment, and the path of least resistance suddenly becomes innovation. They would be motivated to create better solutions at breakneck speed, else get blown out of the water by the competition.

In short, big industry defaults to the lazy route simply because the AMOG enables it to do so.

[J’raxis 270145]

mercola???

that quack???

??

Not sure what you are trying to say

That entire post was just kola histrionics. I may have something to do with that.

[mackler]

I can see discussing medicine with you is like discussing politics with a communist.  In fact it is the same thing.  You are a true believer in the system.  You believe the medical industry is working to make the world healthier, just like the socialist believes the political industry is working to make the world more prosperous.

You talk about the cures that are just around the corner, the way the socialist talks about the prosperity that the next government program will bring...any day now!

You actually believe that medicine is searching for a cure for cancer!  There have been many cures for cancer, and every time the AMA has suppressed them and driven their advocates out of business.  But your brother-in-law is not going to tell you that.  He probably doesn't know.  They don't teach that at Duke Medical any more than they teach von Mises in the Economics Department at Harvard.

Are there well meaning MDs?  Sure.  And there are well-meaning police officers also.  But that doesn't mean that calling 911 is a good idea.  They can be well meaning as long as they play by the rules, and the rules for doctors are that drugs, surgery, and radiation are the only permissible treatments.

Like I said, I know I'm not going to change your mind.  You're too heavily invested in the system.  I'm addressing my comments to the rest of you reading this thread.  Think about where this poster is coming from.  He fully admits his bias.  His sister and brother-in-law are both allopaths.  His sister worked for the government.  His father-in-law works for the government.  His brother-in-law was educated at a government university.  His evidence that MDs are working for the good of humanity is totally unrelated to any scientific theory of health.  He got a good feeling at the children's hospital because they had train sets for the kids!  As if that's a way to judge effectiveness.

Tell us something, Dylboz, since I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering: You mentioned one doctor, a cardiologist, who drugged you.  And your father-in-law, another cardiologist at a government University talked you into surgery.  Tell us, how many opinions have you gotten from doctors who were not allopaths?  Not members of the AMA?  You seem pretty confident in your knowledge that you would be dead now if you hadn't had that surgery.  Where, besides this one or two allopathic cardiologists did that knowledge of yours come from?

Let me ask you this: what caused your supposed defective condition?  Defective genes would have been weeded out of your genepool years ago.   So what was the cause?

You are an idiot. ... etc.

[mackler]

Yeah, you got that right, as far as you took it.

Dylboz your case is a different story as far as I can see and I am not going to speak to that.

I think what Mackler is trying to get at, and correct me if I am wrong Mackler, is that the pharmaceutical companies generally create drugs that deal with symptoms, and do not create drugs that cure the actual problem. The doctors receive all manner of compensation for prescribing a particular drug over another from the drug companies, and I suspect from the insurance companies as well. It is a very corrupt system that can only feed itself by keeping its patients coming back for more.

When I was working at the pharmaceutical company I used to talk to the research scientists from time to time because I was curious about what they were working on. Everything they described to me was a maintenance type drug. I asked several of them if they ever worked on things that cured the actual disease and their opinion was that most diseases could have no cure, all you could do was treat the symptoms. They were pretty honest folks so I have no reason to think that they didn't believe what they were saying.

My father for instance takes a long list of drugs every day that he supposedly has to take to stay on the green side of the grass. He takes pills to correct his cholesterol, his blood pressure, thin his blood, eliminate "excess" water from his system, etc. Yet every time I go with him to the doctors office his stats are normal. I have asked my father and his doctor why they don't try eliminating these drugs, even temporarily to see what his body is actually doing, but, no, no, no, we can't do that, he might die if we take him off these pills. And thus my father is scared into continuing these medications. And there are millions like my father.

I on the other hand have been to the doctor once in the last 20 years, and that was because I had developed a pneumonia in my right lung and it wasn't going away by other means. My daughter, who is six years old, spent the first month of her life in an ICU because she was born prematurely and couldn't breathe on her own. Aside from a single check up after she came home to make sure everything was now fine, she hasn't been to the doctors since. She hasn't been immunized, hasn't had anything more severe than a common cold, and hopefully will not in the future. My nieces and nephews, just as my sisters and I when we were kids, were immunized, have been to the doctor's office frequently, have ingested God knows how many drugs and antibiotics, and always seem to be sick every time I talk to them. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I haven't been sick aside from colds since I stopped going to the doctor's office.

I am not willing to repudiate the entire medical profession. I think it serves a purpose in extreme cases, but I think the way it is used by most patients is absurd. I think if more people took care of themselves, and took care of the common everyday diseases themselves, there would be much less incentive for abuse in the system.

George

[Dylboz]

You don't understand genetics. You don't understand structural defects. You don't understand cardiology or circulatory physiology. You don't understand anything about my case. You dishonestly misconstrue what is in my post (I never said train sets correlated to efficacy, and only a moron or someone who wishes to twist what I said around would suggest I did). I have personal experience, my own extensive research, case histories that are available for your, or anyone's, purusal on the internet. I spoke with survivors and joined communities of families who have dealt with these issues before, and tried various options and different surgeries at different ages ranging from infants to 50+. I compared doctors, their histories, and patient outcomes. There was a time, not long ago, when there were no surgeries or treatments for this, but they did do post-mortems. They could see how these defects effected people, they could see burst aortas pretty easily. They could see huge, oversized and failed hearts, in fact, you can hear through a stethoscope the click, click, click of a leaky valve, and the swishing noise as blood drains back in where it shouldn't be. I learned that myself, with my own 'scope. I listen to my own heart all the time, just in case.

As for the alternatives, homeopathy is absurd, non-scientific and utterly useless. It has been discredited over and over and over again. But, since it's just essentially drinking water, it's not overtly harmful, unless substituted for real medicine. Imagining that 1 part per billion of some "opposite" chemical can stimulate resistance to disease is plain stupid. It is exactly as effective as the placebo in every study it's been used in. Naturopathy, as far as I understand it, is the same as pharmaceuticals, just using plants and natural sources for the chemicals. Chiropractic is fine, and useful, so long as it doesn't purport to do anything but relieve joint and musculoskeletal pain. I think all these are fine if you want to use them, and the really stupid thing is, I agree with you that the AMA and Big Pharma are evil and working together against patient welfare and access in order to protect their profits. I want them and their government enablers out of the picture. But not all doctors are in on that scheme, nor do they agree with their aims, in fact many are working very hard against them. You are guilty of collectivist thinking, lumping all doctors into the dreaded allopath label and assuming they're lying drug pushers, every one. That makes you doubly retarded, because not only are you ignoring where I completely agree with you, you are also ignoring a whole host of beneficial treatments and individual doctors who would be glad to break free of their government and union restraints to investigate the efficacy of alternative medicine or provide non-drug and non-surgical lifestyle based treatments. In fact, many already have, as there is huge movement of cardiologists working to get people healthy enough to avoid surgery through diet and lifestyle changes. They have shows on TV, they write books, they work with McDonald's to offer healthy salads and shit. I mean, where do you get off with this "all doctors are butchers" mentality? What's your beef?

As to your persistent efforts at playing armchair diagnostician, I know I would be dead, because I could plainly see on the screen after multiple tests where my aorta was severely constricted and about to aneurysm, I could also feel how exhausted and dizzy I was after even the slightest effort. I was always tired and I felt like I was dying, because I was. My aortic valve had completely failed. It was open in either direction. My heart was the size of a cow's heart. What, pray tell, could be done about that non-surgically? Magic? Potions? You think my recovery is all in my head? You think it was all smoke and mirrors and all I needed was a trip to the sweat lodge? When physical structures are broken, only physical intervention can fix them.

Lastly, where is this "cure for cancer?" Just what IS more effective than drugs, surgery and radiation? If you say plants, you are hosed, because that's just drugs in a more natural state. If you say diet and lifestyle, I think no one in the medical community would argue, they've been telling us to get off our asses and eat right for decades. So, what is it? Some OTHER drug that cures, not treats? Well, if it's not available because of the state, huzzah! I'm an anarchist, abolish the FDA! Let's have it! My "bias" is toward things that actually work, based on science and evidence, as well as my personal experience. I disagree with my MD family members about the state's roll in medicine. I am against socialism, having lived under it and experiencing socialized medicine first hand. So, you can't peg me with that, either.

A free market in all things, medicine included.

PS - Here is the wiki on Aortic Coarctation, Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Ross procedure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_coarctation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicuspid_aortic_valve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_procedure

Cleveand Clinic's Congenital Heart Disease page:
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heartcenter/pub/guide/disease/congenital/congenvalve.htm

How on earth this guy thinks any of this could have been helped without surgery is beyond me.

[kola]

Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

[Dylboz]

Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

Really not surprising. It's funny, Kola. You say that some among us reject anything "not mainstream" (how anarchism and radical libertarian individualism is mainstream, I'll never know) yet I think you'll embrace anything that purports to be OUT of the mainstream. My hippy uncle, may he rest in peace, was of a similar mind. He treated himself with herbal remedies and refused to see a doctor until one day he was dropped off at the hospital by his camp mates. They lived on piece of land outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. He had been coughing and hacking his way through about 3 packs of generic cigarettes a day for at least 50 years, and by the time he got there, there was nothing they could do for him but shepherd him out of this world on morphine. He lived long enough to say goodbye to his family and a few friends, but that was it. Maybe he would have been happier dying in the forest, smoking his weed and cigs. Who knows. I do know that he developed lung cancer and chronic pneumonia, and all his herbal remedies didn't do a damn thing to stop them.

[dalebert]

Really not surprising.

No, it really isn't. I was about to say Mackler was sounding more and more like Kola, making sweeping statements based on anecdotal evidence just as J'Raxis was describing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in exercising great caution with the medical industry and educating yourself so you can make good decisions and not relying on the doctors being right or even honest. That's good advice. I do what makes sense to me based on the best information I can get.

[Dylboz]

Really not surprising.

No, it really isn't. I was about to say Mackler was sounding more and more like Kola, making sweeping statements based on anecdotal evidence just as J'Raxis was describing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in exercising great caution with the medical industry and educating yourself so you can make good decisions and not relying on the doctors being right or even honest. That's good advice. I do what makes sense to me based on the best information I can get.

Yeah, that's exactly what I did. Many nurses and doctors were surprised at how extensive my knowledge was, and how I knew exactly what I wanted. I had a list, because it was possible that after getting me open, they would find that I was not a good candidate for Ross, and I'd need some other valve replacement. I had it down to brand names even. You gotta be proactive and on top of your medical care, I learned that after being misdiagnosed for so long. I love watching "Mystery Diagnosis" and it just blows my mind how people don't ask questions, don't do research, don't get second opinions, don't look at their own imaging and test results, don't talk to other patients, don't even seek treatment and try and "tough it out," "deal with it" or self-medicate their symptoms.

[kola]

Maybe he would have been happier dying in the forest, smoking his weed and cigs. Who knows. I do know that he developed lung cancer and chronic pneumonia, and all his herbal remedies didn't do a damn thing to stop them.

Smoking like a nut will kill you whether you undergo chemo rad and surgery... and you will still die if you do nothing. Often the chemo and rad will slowly kill you and you will suffer. And chemo and rad has a nice side effect called metatasis and they just love to cause secondary cancers. I could never understand how killing your immune system (by doing chemo) is somehow supposed to "cure" you. Common sense tells me to BOOST the immune system not kill it off. Yeah there plenty of "cures" today for cancer, but sadly it kills the patient. 

OTOH, I think people who value freedom should do whatever they please and also be free of ridicule just because their decisions don't follow the the "majority".

As far as me rejecting something "just becuz" I must say you are wrong in your assumption. I use MD's for crisis intervention and other emergencies. AND I had cancer (now in remission) and chose to opt out of chemo and radiation. I did decide to have 3 surgeries and then went to Mexico for alternative treatment. BTW almost all herbs and products in health food stores are worthless junk. I practice and use plants based on NA Indian traditions.

Kola

[John Edward Mercier]

Personal choice.
Lots of plants not native to NA have medicinal value...

[mackler]

Finally!  I found someone here who shares similar ideas and views about "modern medicine!"

Thanks Mackler.

Kola

To be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.  As I've said and will repeat, the mindset and social processes than enable socialism to thrive are exactly the same as those that let "modern medicine" (a.k.a. drugs&surgery) thrive.  It starts with indoctrination from birth, continues with near-total dominance of mass-media outlets, and is strengthened by the common linguistic tricks that pass for reasoning ("When someone under our care dies, it's because he was too far gone but we did everything we could.  When someone under their care dies, it's because he refused to seek legitimate treatment.").

I'm glad that Dylboz is here to put forth his opinions.  It makes it easier for me to point out the manifold flaws in conventional reasoning than if I were simply talking to myself.  There are so many I'm sure I'll miss a few, but let's take a short sampling.

Most obvious is his quick necessity of relying on ad hominem attacks.  He must persuade other readers that I am mentally deficient, lest they believe what I'm sayng.  So far he's graced me with the characterizations of "idiot," "moron," and not just retarded but "doubly retarded."  It's a sure sign that that your interlocutor is operating on a base of little to no sound reasoning when his resort to personal attacks is so readily forthcoming.  But that's just a signpost on the way to the tangled mess of logical fallacies and self-contradictions that characterize his emotional outbursts.

You'll notice also that I've asked him how many second opinions he solicited from non-allopaths.  Notice he hasn't answered.  I'll venture the answer is zero.  He tries to portray himself as very-well informed, telling us that the (allopathic) doctors and nurses who treated him were impressed with his knowledge.  Notice he doesn't say that they told him any of his information was incorrect, which would be the case if he had acquired any non-allopathic information.  What this tells us, is that he is well-informed with allopathic orthodoxy.  This is the typical behavior of cultists.  They'll pat themselves on the back for knowledge, but only as long as that knowledge doesn't challenge their religious dogmas.

Notice his dismissal of herbs is the exact same argument used by drug warriorn to dismiss cannabis.  It's like Mitt Romney talking to the fellow in the wheelchair asking if Romney would put him in jail for smoking pot.  Romney said (as has been repeated by many) "you don't need to smoke pot.  You can take Marinol."  Here is a foundational belief of Dylboz's religion.  Like a priest blessing holy water, it's the industrial process of refining that imbues mere plants with the magical qualities that only commercial pharmaceuticals possess.  It's just a coincidence that such a belief system happens to support the very profitable pharmaceutical industry.  (Oh but Dylboz hates the FDA and big pharma he says.)

Dylboz has repeatedly contradicted himself.  He's admonished us against being pushed around by experts, yet he takes great pride in reciting the credentials of the experts from whom he received his diagnoses (government-trained-and-paid experts no less.)  He says he wants government out of the medical industry, yet is proud to announce his oracular diagnosis came from a State-employed cardiologist.  Hey Dylboz, you do realize that if government were out of the medical industry, your father-in-law would be out of a job?  He says he's opposed to big pharma, and doctors who are out to enrich themselves, yet he admits he was "proactive in demanding care" from his insurance company.  I don't think he demanded care from his insurance company, I think he demanded money from his insurance company, to pay his supposedly altruistic surgeon.  I wonder how much that doctor made off his belief that surgery was his only option.

As an amateur epistemologist I'm intrigued by sources of knowledge.  In this case Dylboz knows he'd be dead because he saw an image on a screen and had a bunch of symptoms.  He felt exhausted and dizzy.  The logic here is: if you feel dizzy and exhausted you need surgery.  Because, as he enumerates, there are only three possible treatments: "surgery," "magic," and "potions."  This clearly reveals where he's coming from.  If it's not surgery, it's superstition.  This is the effectiveness of "modern medicine."  Once they get you to believe that anything your MD doesn't accept is voodoo, they'll be able to sell you anything.

Dylboz: I believe you know you'd  be dead.  Just like I believe the evangelist did know I'm destined for hell if I don't accept Jesus into my life.  Just like I believe Dick Cheney did know there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Just like I believe Issac Newton did know that light is not subject to the effects of gravity.  There are many kinds of knowledge.  Some are even true.

I'll point out that Dylboz relies on wikipedia as a reliable source of information.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is sincere in his ignorance that the standards that wikipedia editors are to follow prevents presenting non-mainstream points of view except in the most dismissive manner.  In other words, relying on wikipedia to prove your mainstream opinion is true is tautological, because by definition the wikipedia point-of-view is mainstream.

Evidence of Dylboz's non-scientific approach to knowledge is found in his dismissal of homeopathy.  Forget the millions of people--from royal families of Europe to myself--who use homeopathy and find it very effective.  The basis for his belief that it's "utterly useless" is because belief that it could work is "plain stupid."  In other words, it doesn't work, because Dylboz cannot understand how it could work.

For myself, I'm more interested in whether it works, that how or why it works.  But people like Dylboz can be persuaded to ignore reality by being convinced that without an explanation that his authorities will accept, reality is to be discarded.  This is the exact opposite of the scientific view.  Science is a method of developing theories through a process of falsification.  When a theory does not predict observations, then the theory is to be discarded.

But Dylboz takes the exact opposite view.  He says, "because my theory doesn't predict that homeopathy can work, therefore it doesn't."  This is dogma, not science.

Hew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

Finally, let me respond to the legitimate observation that I am making sweeping generalizations.  The fact is that specifics must be summarized, as there's not enough room to unfold them all.  But that's an apt criticism, so here are just a few samplings of specific facts.

For one, the post that started this thread is highly relevant: allopathic MDs acting properly are the fourth-leading cause of death in the US!  Going to the doctor is one of the most dangerous thing you can do for your health.  That's from Newsweek, and the same fact has been published in the JAMA, July 26, 2000 page 483.

"Up to 85 percent of prescribed medical treatments lack scientific validation."  New York Times, April 19, 1998, page SM36.  This puts the lie to the claim that allopaths are practicing science.  Eighty-five percent!  Medical "science" is about a scientific as Christian Science.

Dylboz asks "where is this cure for cancer?"  The fact that he's even asking this just shows how limited his research has been.  As I said, there have been many, maybe a dozen, and I don't have time to describe them all, but here's one.  In the 1950s, the largest private chain of cancer-treatment hospitals were the Hoxsey clinics with tens of thousands of patients.  They claimed a success rate of up to 80%.  The AMA repeatedly denounced their treatment as quackery, and repeatedly the AMA was sued for libel and lost!  They couldn't find a single one of the clinic's patients to testify that the treatment was ineffective.  In fact the AMA had to fire the editor of its prestigious journal for all the lawsuits he was causing.  After the AMA failed to drive the clinics out of business they used their political influence to get the FDA to go after them.  On one day in the late 1950s the FDA raided and padlocked every one of the Hoxsey clinics and drove them out of business.  The irony is that for at least twenty years prior the clinic had been petitioning the FDA and the National Cancer Institute to conduct clinical studies of its treatment.  The FDA and NCI had refused to scientifically examine the efficacy of the treatment, yet they drove them out of business.

At one point, a committee the US Senate assigned a special counsel to investigate the suppression of cancer cures.  This is a direct quote from his report:

A running fight has been going on between officials, especially Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American Medical Association through the journal of that organization, and the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic.  Dr. Fishbein contended that the medicines employed by the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic had no therapeutic value, that it was run by a quack and a charlatan. (This clinic is manned by a staff of over 30 employees, including nurses and physicians.)...In the trial court, before Judge Atwell, who had an opportunity to hear the witnesses in two different trials, it was held that the so-called Hoxsey method of treating cancer was in some respects superior to that of X-ray, radium, and surgery and did have therapeutic value....The [AMA's Fishbein] admitted that Hoxsey could cure external cancer but contended that his medicines for internal cancer had no therapeutic value.  The jury, after listening to leading pathologists, radiologists, physicians, surgeons, and scores of witnesses, a great number of whom had never been treated by any physician or surgeon except the treatment received at the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic, concluded that Dr. Fishbein was wrong, that his published statements were false, and that the Hoxsey method of treating cancer did have therapeutic value.

--Congressional Record, Vol. 99, part 12 page A5351 (emphasis added)

The report includes a list of names and addresses of dozens of witnesses who testified that--as confirmed by pathology in laboratories unconnected with the Hoxsey Clinic--they were suffering from different types of cancer, both internal and external, and following treatment they were cured--and without the horrible side effects caused by "modern medicine's" cancer treatments.

The report is pages long and I cannot type it all for you, but this sentence is telling:

We should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander, and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse of mankind.  Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees engaged in this practice?  My investigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value.  Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.

page A5352.

Was this treatment successful in 100% of the cases?  No.  But the existing evidence suggests it was much more safe and effective than the medieval treatments orthodox medicine endorses today. And this was just one of many cancer treatments that were outlawed after they began to show too much promise.  An excellent and well researched book When Healing Becomes A Crime not only tells this story based on primary research from the AMA's own files, but gives much of the disgusting history of the AMA itself and its efforts to make sure no real cures for cancer have ever been accepted by "modern medicine."  There is also an award-winning documentary on the subject.

Hey Dylboz: is your brother-in-law a member of the AMA?  Is he paid up on his dues?  Ask him how he feels about the fact that the AMA will cause him to lose his medical license if he ever discovers a cancer cure and tries to share it with the world.

[Dylboz]

Hew Dylboz, I have a challenge for you:  You're so sure that homeopathy is ineffective, are you?  Let's try a scientific experiment.  Homeopathic theory says that the medicine that cures a symptom in a sick person will cause the symptom in a healthy person.  You deny this, correct?  You should also know that according to homeopathic theory, the more dilute the medicine, the more powerful it is.  You deny this as well, correct?  So let's get some very dilute homeopathic medicine.  Maybe something used to treat skin disorders.  You'll take one dose a day, and then after three months of this you'll come down to Murphy's Tap Room to show us how it's had no effect on you and I'll be publicly humiliated.  Wouldn't that be fun?  And as you claim, harmless.  What do you say?

Deal! I'm not afraid of water. But I don't live in NH. I'll take pictures, report it here and post pics. If I don't get sick, will you drop your silly homeopathy? I absolutely would love to show you this, like in person. I'll do it everyday at the same time. Hopefully, that will be adequate to your standards, it's the best I can do (now I really wish I lived in NH!).

And as for second opinions, I spoke to nearly a dozen different cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Dr. Watson (my original cardiologist), Dr. Ewy, Dr. Copeland (famous for doing transplants and installing artificial hearts her at the U of A), Dr. Macias (my current cardiologist and a specialist in CHD in adults and kids) Dr. Hillel Lax, UCLA chief of cardiothoracic surgery, his main cardiologist (name escapes me) and of course the staff at Columbus Children's. In fact, my sister's father in law insisted I see a different cardiologist at Ohio State before proceding to surgery.

Oh wait, you wanted me to see a homeopath? What on earth would they have offered me? Water? I really, REALLY wanna know. What would they have done?

All the doctors in my family work in private practice now. The government is not, by any means, the sole employer of doctors. In a free market, you'd be free to drink your placebo water, and I'll see a physician. Everyone's happy.

PS - No contradiction in my chemical/medicine statements. I know that plant marijuana has many more active compounds than Marinol, and it is not the same, not to mention the problems with ingesting it in pill form. I want people to have access to whatever herbal form of medicine they want, but I know ultimately, it's the chemicals therein that have therapeutic effect. I am looking forward to Sativex, a vaporizing inhaler form of marijuana that is safer and easier to dose-control than smoked marijuana for chronic neurological pain I suffer, due to injuries I incurred from the surgeries, no less (see? I don't think they're perfect).

[kola]

Mackler quote

To be honest, I'm surprised my POV isn't more prevalent in libertarian communities.

Yeah, this has surprised me as well as Big Gov and "Big Medicine" are one in the same. It is quite hypocritical, to say the least, when a large number of folks here in this forum support this quackery called "modern medicine" aka allopathic medicine.

Kola