CureZone   Log On   Join
Too much of a challenge to orthodoxy is dangerous?

Clarkia Parasites Cleanse
Hulda Clark Cleanse

Natural Cancer Remedies
Hundreds of thousands have cured their own cancers, and now yo...

Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.

End Constipation Now
Let oxygen remove old, impacted fecal matter as it detoxifies and...

Free Dentist Alternative!
Professional Powder beats Fluoride!

Dangerous Bacon Views: 4,130
Published: 14 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,022,545

Too much of a challenge to orthodoxy is dangerous?

Since my posting privileges are being revoked (for defending immunization and expressing inconvenient opinions on other subjects), I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the few who have responded to me in a civil way and even thoughtfully.

A couple things I never had an opportunity to ask about: While the site is devoted to alternative health practices, it is considered off limits to question aspects of alternative medicine (including ineffective and/or dangerous supplements and therapies). Instead, many posters spend a great deal of time attacking evidence-based medicine and science. If there is near-universal rejection of these disciplines among CureZone users, why waste time continually attacking them? Shouldn't the supplements and treatments you _do_ use be the first priority of discussion?

Someone who mentions research showing that an alternative drug or therapy is useless or risky is bound to be met with "Well, what about Vioxx (or similar product/treatment no longer in use because of safety or effectiveness concerns). That shows how much research is worth."
It never seems to occur to these folks that when mainstream treatments fall out of favor, it's because quality _research_ was done and good Science led the way to changes in practice. Similarly, as AnticRhino noted (with unnecessary ad hominems), the folks here who profess to be anti-medicine and anti-research are quite willing to promote research others have done - even if those scientists have taken money from Big Pharma - as long as that research seems to support their opinions. The latest Lancet study on flu vaccination is a case in point.

Speaking of which, it's too bad that DonQuixote has been unwilling to respond to my posts on flu vaccination beyond ad hominems and Godwinization. I'll repeat this question, as it goes to the heart of what this site is supposed to be about: If educating not medicating is a useful goal, why are he and so many others so virulently anti-immunization? Surely _preventing_ disease in the first place with a vaccine is much better than gulping down pharma drugs and supplements, especially when many of these potions only treat symptoms, have side effects, interact badly with each other or don't work in the first place. Influenza kills 36,000 people and puts 200,000 in the hospital annually in this country. That means tons of medical procedures and drugs. Isn't it worthwhile to limit all that suffering, risk and expenditure? Isn't educating ourselves about the true value of immunization in line with the stated goals of this website?

A reponsive answer rather than pointless venom would be appreciated.

Again, thanks to those on this forum (including lurkers) who've been willing to listen.

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

1.500 sec, (2)