View Single Post
Old 08-09-2011, 01:25 PM   #78 (permalink)
Snarky
Member
 
Snarky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbane89 View Post
Well, the reason orthomolecular treatment can't get published by the library of congress is probably because the military took it off their approved insurance program for military dependents when the US Defense Subcommittee did some thorough testing on the method and found it to be potentially dangerous. Orthomolecular treatment is essentially just mega doses of vitamins, with the theory being that these doses will correct imbalances in the subject, and fix any number of psychiatric, or physical ailments. The problem with that is vitamins, when taken in large enough doses, stop being vitamins and start becoming drugs that can be very harmful. For example, one of the vitamins used is B6, and the daily dose recommended is over 600 mg per day, which is well above what is known to cause nerve damage.

Another reason it isn't taken seriously is because the proponents refuse to do testing with a scientific methodology. To be taken seriously an idea has to be passed through a very organized, well documented, controlled series of tests. These tests have to be done over and over inside a particular lab. Then the data and methodology needs to be reviewed outside of that. Then the findings need to be replicated outside of that lab using the same methodology. Once all of these things are done, and verified, the theory is given scientific weight. Even then it depends on if we're talking cellular tests v animal tests v human tests. You have to be very careful when looking at something that says "testing shows" because yeah, sure, one test one time could have shown an effect and then it was never reproduced. Or the methodology was sloppy, or not released, or there was a small sample, it wasn't double blind, etc etc. This is the exact issue with orthomolecular treatments (and also the Gerson treatment from the little I just read), there are no controlled, methodolgically sound, testing. And in the case of orthomolecular it's been proven dangerous just on the scientific basis of the effects of vitamins in those doses.
In my opinion, this therapy is way more practical and safe than any type of chemo. I know there are risks, but they are nothing when compared to chemo. What do these negative responses even relate to? Chemotherapy kills you, anything else would be better. I know the Gerson Therapy is expensive, mainly b/c the US won't allow any type of holistic approach to cure cancer. So people are traveling out of the US to be treated. They are not only surviving, they are thriving. People who have been through chemo are alive, but they have serious irreversible side effects.

Another point, when was the last time we heard on TV that someone OD'd on vitamins? Now ask yourself the same about prescription pills. I'm not against modern medicine. I just think people need to know there are other options when it comes to curing diseases, not specifically cancer. I'm not here to sway opinions, I am really here to make my point of view clear. It seems extremely obvious to me that preparing your body for the toxic environment we live in, and curing it with nature makes more sense than pumping ourselves full of chemicals to try to fix an ailment.

Everything is about convenience now. I say my head hurts, the doctor says take an anti-inflammatory medication. But why does my head hurt? Thatís a hard question to ask. Itís easier for doctors to prescribe chemicals because they havenít explored other options. It started out as laziness and morphed into ignorance. Americans in particular are obsessed with convenience and itís killing us. That is the initial point I was initally trying to make. It has really spiraled out of control, haha. All the way to the benefits of coffee enemas.
__________________
You've got to preface it with something like "BeeTeeDubs Dead Baby" - Patrice
(Offline)   Reply With Quote