Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
swarb.co.uk :: View topic - RIGHT TO CHOOSE HEALTHY NUTRITION
Dr. Rima Laibow MD
"The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition.
Ratified by the World Health Organization....
" cont
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
Please spend 40 odd minutes of your valuable time to listen to this professionals concern that will/may affect food standards on the entire planet.
I request everyone ,including all lawyers in the UK, assist / help raise awareness.
Please also use this thread to discuss, raise any views, legal implications for humanity / citizens locally and internationally, or concerns you may have on this topic.
Thank you & good luck.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'.
Either medicine is proven to work - in which case, it's not 'alternative' - or it's not - in which case, it's not medicine.
The phrase 'natural healing' is meaningless as it can only be contrasted against 'unnatural healing' and since the only healing there can be, is methods by which infectious agents or the body's own frailties can be overcome by the body itself then there is a false dichotomy.
I don't know whether you mean simply 'nutrition' or whether we are intended to read 'alternative...nutrition' or 'natural...nutrition', and again all nutrition is 'natural' and none can be 'alternative' - if the body cannot digest what it eats, it's not nutrition, and if it can digest it, that's a natural process, and there can be no 'alternatives' to things the body can digest.
By the way it is improper to write 'Dr MD';
It is either Dr...., or ....MD.
In the same way you write Paul McCartney, Bart.;
Or Sir Paul McCartney, but not Sir Paul McCartney, Bart.
(I use Macca only as a fr'instance.)
If this woman knows as much about nutrition and medicine as Mr Shrout knows about law then following the link would be a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : There is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'.
Either medicine is proven to work - in which case, it's not 'alternative' - or it's not - in which case, it's not medicine.
Very concise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for showing an interest so far everyone.
For Faithless.
Nutrition (also called nourishment or aliment) is the provision, to cells and organisms, of the materials necessary (in the form of food) to support life.
Many common health problems can be prevented or alleviated with good nutrition.
Wiki
The Dr. encourages you to go research , and she has got a team of lawyers trying to help, but this is a global issue, that could / is affecting all of us right now even?
Faithless I know you like to try "remote viewing" these videos without viewing them (god bless ya) but its an important topic if you eat food or your country imports it or exports it etc....
.
Anyway 40 minutes she speaks for, listen to her faithless, then discuss and give your views on how it may or may not affect you, your family or anyone else's on the planet?
Control the food supply, you control the world, and quite easily the population rates ,increases and decreases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot imagine a situation in which I would have nothing better to do with 40 minutes than listen to space cadets bleat about alternative nutrition and alternative medicine.
For instance, I've only ever seen 30 seconds of You are what you eat and that was by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I cannot imagine a situation in which I would have nothing better to do with 40 minutes than listen to space cadets bleat about alternative nutrition and alternative medicine.
For instance, I've only ever seen 30 seconds of You are what you eat and that was by accident.
Not seen you are what you eat
These are not space cadets but trained Dr's , Gp's in the UK have even been alarmed at the change in laws over vitamins for example...
And you may not have a choice of any alternative nutrition as thats what the physicians are concerned about every animal has to be injected with various chemicals, banned chemicals are coming back on the list and vitamins are being re-classed and controlled as toxins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : And you may not have a choice of any alternative nutrition as thats what the physicians are concerned about every animal has to be injected with various chemicals, banned chemicals are coming back on the list and vitamins are being re-classed and controlled as toxins
Where are your citations?
Who says animals have to be injected with 'various' chemicals?
Where's the law?
Since everything is made of chemicals and injections of nothing are pointless, why don't you understand that to say 'injected with chemicals' is a tautology which reveals things the writer apparently does not know about himself?
Why do you use the word 'physician' when in ordinary english what we speak over 'ere, the word we use is 'doctor';
It is in America that medical practitioners feel the need to distinguish themselves from PhDs by the use of that word.
If banned chemicals are "coming back on the list" presumably the ban is being lifted - why do you have a problem with that?
The root of the word 'vitamin' is 'vital mineral' and indicates that the minerals are necessary for life - however, in excessive dosages almost anything is toxic;
Excess vitamin B3 causes liver damage,e.g.
This has been known for at least a century and alarmist claims simply underline the idiocy of the persons making the claims.
The blithering that you are doing is making it even more clear that this garbage isn't worth 40 seconds of anyone's time let alone 40 minutes.
I'm sorry to be brutal but you must start to give some attention to what we are all trying to tell you about the wrong path you are going down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: :
Nutrition (also called nourishment or aliment) is the provision, to cells and organisms, of the materials necessary (in the form of food) to support life.
Many common health problems can be prevented or alleviated with good nutrition.
Wiki
you did not cite wikipedia as an authoratative definition, did you?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys drop a chill pill, go hear it from the horses mouth if you want.
Click on the link and listen.
If you do not want to then ok, your ability to constructively contribute to this thread will likely lessen .
Best wishes and good luck either way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : If you do not want to then ok, your ability to constructively contribute to this thread will likely lessen
On the contrary, hearing stupid from obsessed individuals is likely to make you less likely to contribute to the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : There is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'.
Either medicine is proven to work - in which case, it's not 'alternative' - or it's not - in which case, it's not medicine.
Medicine can be medicine which is just not yet 'proven'.
Proving something works doe not alter the curative character of a treatment.
There are so many possible different standards for what might constitute proof, that the question is begged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Quote: : There is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'.
Either medicine is proven to work - in which case, it's not 'alternative' - or it's not - in which case, it's not medicine.
Medicine can be medicine which is just not yet 'proven'.
It can?
How? If I assert that smearing peanut butter on skin cancer will cure it, that doesn't make peanut butter 'medicine', it's still only a sandwich filling.
Since cancers can spontaneously resolve, the fact that someone smearing peanut butter on their skin experiences remission still doesn't make peanut butter a medicine.
The only useful definition of 'medicine' is 'a proven specific for the treatment and/or alleviation of the symptoms and/or cause of illness'.
If medicine can be 'unproven' then the word becomes unserviceable because uncontaminated water, wheat grass and coffee enemas can then be called 'medicines'.
Or should we return to the situation in which people can turn up in a converted ice-cream van and sell tar-water mixed with molasses as a 'patent medicine'?
Quote: : Proving something works does not alter the curative character of a treatment.
There are so many possible different standards for what might constitute proof, that the question is begged.
It's important that people should not be permitted to make unsupported claims about the ability of some substance or other to effect a cure for some ailment.
It's a highly technical area and the vast majority of people have no means of assessing for themselves whether a substance works as claimed;
Add to this the fact that when ill they may be anxious and even desperate and it becomes even more important that they should make the correct choice between things which are likely to effect a cure and things which are simply the result of defective or magical thinking.
(Sharks don't get cancer so shark cartilage will cure cancer;
Cows don't get indigestion so wheat grass will improve peoples digestion, I felt better wearing a copper bracelet therefore the bracelet was responsible.)
It's quite correct that proving the efficacy of a nostrum doesn't affect it's curative powers;
But if the nostrum is effective then it is medicine, and doctors will enthusiastically adopt it as such.
If the nostrum's advocate cannot demonstrate a feasible mechanism by which it works nor evidence of its efficacy (other than anecdotal evidence) then it isn't medicine, even if lots of people want to call it that.
A very interesting book - one of the co-authors of which is Chair of Complementary Medicine at Exeter University - discusses half a dozen 'alternative' medicines.
In the chapter about acupuncture I was amazed to learn that it is now known that doctors visiting China to learn about acupuncture in the 60s and 70s (mostly American) were systematically misled, bamboozled, lied to and hoodwinked by Chinese doctors, even to the extent of watching a woman who had ALREADY BEEN ANAESTHETISED - by the same methods used American and European operating theatres - being allegedly subject to a highly invasive surgical procedure after only a piffling bit of acupuncture in the ears.
It turns out that the acupuncture myth was inflicted on the west on the orders of Mao's government, and that even as long ago as the Cultural Revolution Chinese surgeons had no belief in the ancient and venerated practice of acupuncture and no intention of proceeding with surgery without conventional anaesthetics.
Furthermore, when you examine the veritable avalanche of competing and sometimes mutually exclusive therapies - reiki, ayurvedic, auras, iridology, reflexology, homeopathy, chiropractic, faith healing, chelation therapy, vitamin therapy, macrobiotics, healing hands, aromatherapy, acupuncture, the rest of TCM, crystal therapy, quantum medicine (for want of a better label), Christian Science, naturopaths, colloidal silver, Scientology, magnet therapy, ionic cleansing...
They cannot all be right;
So how are you going to decide which of them is going to offer you a solution for your disease?
If you are going to apply principles of evidence and proof you cannot help but throw them all out, and stick to the medicine practised by qualified doctors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether something is actually effective is not the same thing as knowing whether it is effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Whether something is actually effective is not the same thing as knowing whether it is effective.
Agreed, but the distinction is rather philosophical when you are trying to decide whether to undergo one treatment rather than another - if something is not known to be effective, then whether it is effective or not is not especially pertinent.
Some unknown natural ingredient might be a stunningly effective cure for the common cold.
But until we know that ingredient is effective, it doesn't really matter whether it is effective or not.
Is it powdered wasps' antennae?
Hedgehog claws? Fermented platypus' milk?
I think maybe you intend to refer to something that is thought to be effective, but not yet proven to be.
If someone really were able to show that, e.g,, shark cartilage really does cure cancer, they would (potentially) become as wealthy as Bill Gates within months.
Yet the people who claim that shark cartilage really does cure cancer were busy promoting it to wealthy people who had been told that conventional oncology was no longer able to offer them any hope.
They made no move to have their products tested in the approved fashion.
Many alternative therapy advocates seem to think that doctors are more interested in promoting some 'conventional medicine' orthodoxy than they are in curing and helping patients.
It's just not true.
Doctors want to cure their patients, and I believe if someone proved that the doctor putting his finger in the patient's ear and whistling 'Dixie' would cure asthma, then doctors would do it.
The reason why doctors don't adopt most 'alternative therapies' is because by the time they have become doctors they have embraced the scientific method and therefore understand that medicines, based on theories plucked out of thin air by people who don't know their Krebs cycle from their unicycle, are unlikely to be correct without proper testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My GP, when I lived in Ireland, used to prescribe red lolly pops for my sons and the occasional trip to Lourdes for me.
They all worked. I recall he threw in the odd antibiotic as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|