insomnia

.

desiderata wrote:miss snickers, I'm sorry this thread got hijacked out from under you. I hope you will post again because I know there are a bunch of kind and knowledgeable people who will do their best to help out.

If you read this,

ChicagoGranny wrote:Make sure to read this - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=115825&p=1124893#p1124893

you will see that miss snickers' question was answered.

These finding add to other studies that have found that dietary supplements may be manufactured to poor quality standards, with little assurance that what’s on the label is actually in the bottle. Not only does it appear difficult for consumers to identify a product of high quality, there’s no assurance that product content is even consistent, lot-to-lot.

In other words, you never know what you are getting with melatonin or even if you are getting any. Dosage is inconsistent even in the same brand lot-to-lot.

OK, let's target antibiotics...

It is extremely easy to obtain antibiotics for a wide variety of conditions that may or may not be helped by them. I do agree that when they are needed they do work great but there is a cost to the body when using them.

Have you ever been told how to recover from taking antibiotics?

I actually spend time reading the works of the pioneers in this field. When it comes to toxins I find the 50 years of clinical practice and research brought forth by Dr. Joeseph Pizzorno very enlightening. He takes the time to reference the research involved as well as outlining a very practical approach with actual case histories. You may want to spend less time browsing your snowflake "natural" internet sources and tune into some experts to see what they are saying.

Steve Jobs acted like an idiot. He didn't pay attention to what he was doing to his body. When his body revolted he didn't quickly act to intervene. While he did have many wonderful ideas, none of them involved maintaining optimum health.

HoseCrusher wrote:I find the 50 years of clinical practice and research brought forth by Dr. Joeseph Pizzorno very enlightening.

Oh, my goodness! You have fallen for that quack naturopath Pizzorno. Pizzorno has been on Quackwatch for years. Check out what REAL doctors and scientists have to say - https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRe ... pathy.html

Read some actual science and opposing viewpoints about naturopathy and Pizzorno. Then, if you still believe naturopathy is valid, I can't help you. Bye.

palerider wrote:
it wasn't my argument.

Good to hear.

Just so folks know, I think most naturopaths are rip off artists. And while I think there are several supplements that are beneficial, alot of them are a complete waste of money.

Still, Quackwatch isn't exactly a bias-free site as Dr. Sahelian points out.

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

""I have not read every single page or article on Quackwatch and I do not read most of the new pages that are added on the site, but the ones I have read give me the impression that in many cases he has done good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams (for instance, Hulda Clark and her pitiful book "The Cure for all Cancers"). However, I hardly came across reports on his website regarding some of the scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. Why is this? Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused almost all of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams? It's like the government putting all of its efforts going after the poor misusing food stamps while certain big companies cheat billions of dollars from consumers with hardly any governmental oversight.""

49er

I didn't realize Pizzorono was featured on Quackwatch. I view that as a "badge of honor."

If you have alternative ideas that go against traditional medical views and they actually work, you get featured in Quackwatch. That is an effort by the American Medical Association to eliminate competition. If they can keep their revenue stream intact and not have to face the fact that there are alternatives things go much smoother for them.

You still haven't answered my question...

Has any doctor informed you of how to recover from the toxic effects of an antibiotic that has been prescribed for a particular condition?

I assume you have no answer. You need to go to a naturalpath or a functional medicine doctor to find that answer.

49er wrote:
Still, Quackwatch isn't exactly a bias-free site as Dr. Sahelian points out:

"Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused almost all of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams?"

This complaint by Dr. Sahelian is silly and does not reflect badly on Quackwatch or Dr. Barrett.

Using Dr. Sahelian's logic, you can ask a medical researcher working on breast cancer why he doesn't give that up and work on lung cancer since lung cancer kills many more than breast cancer.

That's a logic fail from Dr. Sahelian.

HoseCrusher wrote:You need to go to a naturalpath or a functional medicine doctor to find that answer.

HoseCrusher wrote:Has any doctor informed you of how to recover from the toxic effects of an antibiotic that has been prescribed for a particular condition?

Actually they have. My liver and kidneys collect all toxins from my body and remove them to the toilet bowl.

That is correct from a theoretical perspective... but how do you make that work in everyday life?

A "healthy" diet will provide the body with what it needs to complete this process. With a less than healthy diet the kidneys and liver end up recirculating the toxins back into the body and are unable to do the job they were meant to do.

HoseCrusher wrote:A "healthy" diet will provide the body with what it needs

Well, of course. A third grader has been told about a healthy diet.

HoseCrusher wrote:In the 1800's the body was subjected to far fewer toxins. Back then it made sense to standardize willow bark even if it involved some synthetic compounds. Today things have changed. I try to avoid toxin exposure every way I can.
.

And in the 1800s life span was 43 years but I am sure Big Pharma had nothing to do with virtually eradicating from the US diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenza type b meningitis etc. (Yes, those were not on the top of my head, I looked them up and cut and paste) A lot of things have improved our life span including water and sewer but you cannot discount big pharms contribution to life span.

HoseCrusher wrote:OK, let's target antibiotics...

It is extremely easy to obtain antibiotics for a wide variety of conditions that may or may not be helped by them. I do agree that when they are needed they do work great but there is a cost to the body when using them.

Have you ever been told how to recover from taking antibiotics?

I actually spend time reading the works of the pioneers in this field. When it comes to toxins I find the 50 years of clinical practice and research brought forth by Dr. Joeseph Pizzorno very enlightening. He takes the time to reference the research involved as well as outlining a very practical approach with actual case histories. You may want to spend less time browsing your snowflake "natural" internet sources and tune into some experts to see what they are saying.

Steve Jobs acted like an idiot. He didn't pay attention to what he was doing to his body. When his body revolted he didn't quickly act to intervene. While he did have many wonderful ideas, none of them involved maintaining optimum health.

My step mother was convinced by one of these naturalpathic quacks that the cure for her gallbladder cancer was to consume huge amounts of brown rice and swinging a dead rat over her head or some such nonsense. The real doctors who diagnosed her offered her pretty good odds of at least extending things a few years if she followed their treatment plan which included surgery and Chemo, she chose the brown rice and died about 9 months later.

HoseCrusher wrote:The question is

What are the co factors involved with a natural chemical versus the co factors involved with a synthetic chemical...?

Fact is, they are both chemicals. Every thing we eat and drink is chemicals. why you got to dis on chemicals?