Minutus

Couldn't resist this subject line, Roger. And you're dead right, of course: a failure to recognise our reliance on the organism's integrity creates a huge conceptual obstacle; it's scientific misunderstanding of the most basic kind. Another of this ilk is the misconception that homoeopathy entails high (or any) potencies, with somebody's difficulty with the potency concept -- going against all the known laws of physics! -- serving to "disprove" homoeopathy, which doesn't rely on it at all.

Cheers --

John

Roger, your 50 million… you're not speaking globally here, are you. This figure is only for your country? You're in the U.S., I gather? I don't suppose you have a figure for global allopathic deaths and how it was calculated?

John
________________________________

No, it was for the USA, and it was a very rough estimation. Sorry.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:49:08 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir
Roger, your 50 million… you're not speaking globally here, are you. This figure is only for your country? You're in the U.S., I gather? I don't suppose you have a figure for global allopathic deaths and how it was calculated?

John
________________________________

John
It was around 1998 I think that the JAMA published the article stating 100,000 deaths annually
in American hospitals due to legally prescribed allopathic treatment.
It is many years since that article and that number is still used to describe the problem
However, people like Mercola have analyzed the situation and have come up with 1-2 million
deaths/year from allopathic ‘care.’ There reasoning is as follows:
1. These are only deaths that have been openly attributed to the care given. They do not
examine the many deaths attributed to cancer and heart disease or many other faux pas
of the medical industry.
2. Deaths caused by treatment in private institutions or outside of hospitals are not included in
these numbers. Doctors are not required to report adverse effects of any sort. It is a voluntary
system that most doctors ignore.
I saw some numbers from the UK this past year. They were reported at a lower number but somewhere
in the 10’s of thousands
Further, I think it reasonable to look at all the cancer deaths, heart disease, growing alzheimer and
Parkinson diseases and attribute them to the medical industry which refuses to link rotten nutrition
to all kinds of diseases and deaths. The medical industry’s active discouragement of looking to
nutrition is as much part of the medical industry treatment protocol as the toxic drugs they push.
It is failure numbers like this that make the medical industry hungry to prove harm from homeopathy, nutrition
and other holistic protocols.
t
From: John Harvey
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:49 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir

Roger, your 50 million… you're not speaking globally here, are you. This figure is only for your country? You're in the U.S., I gather? I don't suppose you have a figure for global allopathic deaths and how it was calculated?
John
________________________________

Thank you both. Good points, Tanya. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, and others, "Death by Medicine", published an interesting paper c. 2004, attributing the greatest proportion of deaths in the U.S. to modern medical care: more than from any other cause. The numbers the paper gave were comparable with those you mention, Tanya. Though not peer reviewed, and of course having enjoyed much sniper activity since publication, the paper nevertheless offered plausible referenced bases for its conclusions.

To anybody with two sparks of life, vehement concerns for the possibility that nutritional supplements or a homoeopathic failure might, one day, cause a single death must yield to far greater and more genuine concern over 750,000 confirmed deaths every year in a single country, the United States, as a direct result of practising medicine correctly.

Cheers --

John
________________________________

i just heard a story on the news about a supplement in an energy drin, DMAA which has coused issue, maybe a death, i wasn't really paying attention but the strong arm of the fda got them to trash millions in product. when have you ever heard of the fda strong arming big pharma to make their death drugs safer??? they just tell big pharma to include, "may cause death" on the label so both their butts are covered. FDA and big pharma put HUGE emphasis on side effects or overdosed/deaths form nutritional supplements in the paid for news. they are trying to convince the public that the FDA needs to regulate supplements. just so funny because their impeccable regullation of big pharma causes hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
imaging what will happen if allowed to "regulate" supplements or alternative medicine. we could definitely reduce the number of hungry people in America.
jmo
vicki
Join the Campaign to Label GMO's in Florida
We have the Right to Know what is in our Food!
http://www.LabelGMOFlorida.com
Like us @ Label GMO Florida
on Fac ebook and Twitter
"Gluten Free Yummies"
www.GlutenFreeYummies.com

888-Yo-Yummy
________________________________

From: John Harvey
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir
Thank you both. Good points, Tanya. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, and others, "Death by Medicine", published an interesting paper c. 2004, attributing the greatest proportion of deaths in the U.S. to modern medical care: more than from any other cause. The numbers the paper gave were comparable with those you mention, Tanya. Though not peer reviewed, and of course having enjoyed much sniper activity since publication, the paper nevertheless offered plausible referenced bases for its conclusions.

To anybody with two sparks of life, vehement concerns for the possibility that nutritional supplements or a homoeopathic failure might, one day, cause a single death must yield to far greater and more genuine concern over 750,000 confirmed deaths every year in a single country, the United States, as a direct result of practising medicine correctly.

Cheers --

John
________________________________
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."

—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

You are correct, it is often also a case of people trying to protect their own jobs and empires.

I was once told when the pharmacies realized how well people got using vitamin A, they reduced the amounts you were allowed to purchase over the counter - saying it is toxic.

The world's expert on vitamin A once said if he wanted to kill himself with Vitamin A he would not know how to go about it, felt it would take so many years to overdose with a lethal quantity he was sure he would die of natural causes long before he would die of an overdose of that vitamin.

Nothing has changed in the world. The names change, the faces change, but oppression and opportunity keeps continuing.

Maria
________________________________
________________________________

more of an issue is that what the FDA and the Pharm corps do is a form of psychic terrorism.
all these dramatic reactions are designed to scare the public into not trusting their own instincts
and observations. they are designed to deepen the co-dependency that people are trained for
with these institutions.
I have often said that in the 1960’s people talked about alienation meaning they had no personal
relationship to the means of production and suffered ennui in life. But today the alienation is so
deep that people are alienated from their very own self and cannot figure out how to make independent
decisions. Of course they all think they do, but funny how their independence, based on lack of
meaningful information tends to result in their chosing the medical industry and its bullies most of the
time.
t
From: vicki h
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:35 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir

i just heard a story on the news about a supplement in an energy drin, DMAA which has coused issue, maybe a death, i wasn't really paying attention but the strong arm of the fda got them to trash millions in product. when have you ever heard of the fda strong arming big pharma to make their death drugs safer??? they just tell big pharma to include, "may cause death" on the label so both their butts are covered. FDA and big pharma put HUGE emphasis on side effects or overdosed/deaths form nutritional supplements in the paid for news. they are trying to convince the public that the FDA needs to regulate supplements. just so funny because their impeccable regullation of big pharma causes hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
imaging what will happen if allowed to "regulate" supplements or alternative medicine. we could definitely reduce the number of hungry people in America.
jmo
vicki
Join the Campaign to Label GMO's in Florida
We have the Right to Know what is in our Food!
http://www.LabelGMOFlorida.com
Like us @ Label GMO Florida
on Fac ebook and Twitter

"Gluten Free Yummies"
www.GlutenFreeYummies.com

888-Yo-Yummy

________________________________

From: John Harvey
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir

Thank you both. Good points, Tanya. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, and others, "Death by Medicine", published an interesting paper c. 2004, attributing the greatest proportion of deaths in the U.S. to modern medical care: more than from any other cause. The numbers the paper gave were comparable with those you mention, Tanya. Though not peer reviewed, and of course having enjoyed much sniper activity since publication, the paper nevertheless offered plausible referenced bases for its conclusions.
To anybody with two sparks of life, vehement concerns for the possibility that nutritional supplements or a homoeopathic failure might, one day, cause a single death must yield to far greater and more genuine concern over 750,000 confirmed deaths every year in a single country, the United States, as a direct result of practising medicine correctly.
Cheers --
John
________________________________
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

The Vit A ‘scandal’ was the first one I remember in the attack on nutrition.
Big Pharma, using synthetic Vit A, fed it to rats daily—about 150,000 iu!
After about 6 mos they drew a reaction and then set up a hew and holler
about toxicity of Vit A.
At that time I would purchase Vit A 25,000 units/Vit D 2500 iu, as presumably
how it was found naturally and in the proportion for our body needs.
The effort succeeded in reducing Vit A OTC to 10,000 max and you never seem
to find it with any more than 400 iu of Vit D
t
From: Maria Bohle
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:25 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir

You are correct, it is often also a case of people trying to protect their own jobs and empires.
I was once told when the pharmacies realized how well people got using vitamin A, they reduced the amounts you were allowed to purchase over the counter - saying it is toxic.
The world's expert on vitamin A once said if he wanted to kill himself with Vitamin A he would not know how to go about it, felt it would take so many years to overdose with a lethal quantity he was sure he would die of natural causes long before he would die of an overdose of that vitamin.
Nothing has changed in the world. The names change, the faces change, but oppression and opportunity keeps continuing.
Maria
________________________________
________________________________

It would seem that we need an effective way to name this behaviour and to name the behaviour that we expect of our regulators. The word "consistency" comes to mind, but perhaps more than consistency in attitude and vigilance toward Big Pharma and natural products, consistency with their mandate. If the mandate of the F.D.A. is to use its limited budget to provide the maximum protection of the U.S. citizenry, then what the hell is it doing, spending that budget on going after a product in which a death is a bizarre and extremely rare exception rather than a product in which death is a routine and common outcome? Holding the regulator to account for consistency of its actions with its mandate may go a lot further in changing its pro–Big Money attitude than merely pointing out the unfairness of picking on the little guy and removing the liberty to choose what foods and what food extracts to eat.

Any thoughts?
Cheers --

John
________________________________
________________________________