Y'know, there's a lot not right with what they're now calling the 'Cancer Industry'.

This from Pat Rattigan ND (Naturopathic Doctor):


Pat Rattigan N.D.

1 Quarrybank Rd

Chesterfield S41 0HH

01246 230474

patrattigan@hotmail.com

May 24 05 Recorded Postal Delivery

Patricia Hewitt
Sec. of State Department of Health, Richmond House 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NL

"If you are a woman who has been diagnosed as ‘early breast cancer’...there is one simple scientific fact that you need to know...more than half the time the pathologist is wrong - it is not actually breast cancer...What most women have is a tumour which, under a light microscope, looks like a cancer to a pathologist. Chances are this tumour lacks the ability to metastasize...the hallmark of a genuine cancer .. There is no reason for women to panic when they hear ‘cancer’ ; panic makes them easy victims." Dr. Irwin Bross PhD., former director of biostastistics, Roswell Pk. Memorial.

"It is utter nonsense to claim that catching cancer symptoms early enough will increase the patient’s chances of survival. Not one scientist or study has proven that in any way. My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times loger than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery ; other than when used in immediate life-threatening situation. ..." Prof H B Jones, Dept. of Physics and Physiology, Univ. CA., Berkeley.

"Patients who presented early and were treated in less than 30 days had significantly worse outcomes ... the drive for all women with possible breast cancer to be seen within 14 days .. is not supported by this study." Sainsbury, Johnston, Haward. Lancet 1999 353 p1132.

During the next 12 months, over 40,000 women, in the UK, will be diagnosed with breast cancer : the overwhelming majority will opt for the orthodox approach of surgery, drugs and radiation. All the available evidence shows that not only is there is no medical reason for this approach but that the procedures are highly detrimental to all and fatal to many. Obviously, if a woman with genuine breast cancer is subject to the carcinogenic, immunosuppressive assault of surgery, drugs and radiation she will not survive ; witness, 13,000 deaths per year.

One orthodox breast oncologist stated that 80% of his patients do not come back for more treatment : POINTING TO A MISDIAGNOSIS RATE OF 80%.

Aside from the thousands who had genuine cancer, believed the early detection/mastectomy/drugs/radiation "cure" fantasy and paid with their lives, there are the 25,000-plus misdiagnosed, mutilated victims, who have had their chances of cancer development increased.

The fear of litigation is dominating the treatment of breast cancer to the exclusion of all else. Consensus Medicine, the means by which litigation is avoided, is resulting in over 40,000 women, each year, dying, unneccessarily or being left minus one or both breasts, permanently damaged and constantly fearful the the "cancer" might "return."

Naturopathic treatments are being used outside of the NHS to successfully and inexpensively treat cancer victims : "terminal" included. The carnage and huge public expense of mammography, mastectomy, radio/chemo "therapy"is now your responsibility. Patient welfare must be brought into the equation. What are you going to do about it?

Pat Rattigan

copies all postal / e mail networks

http://www.defeatingcancer.co.uk

(Plus these bits:
http://www.geocities.com/queencaz2002/CANCERPAGE.html )

this sounds very much like FUD to me, although I don't have the relevant expertise or time to research it to prove so.

Sentences like this make it more likely in my opinion that the author has some axe to grind and is not acting in the best interests of patients.

, if a woman with genuine breast cancer is subject to the carcinogenic, immunosuppressive assault of surgery, drugs and radiation she will not survive

Pat Rattigan letter to the TimesTo the editor

I see that, once again, I have been overlooked in the Queen's Birthday Honors List. This is after nearly 30 years of monitoring, speaking on and writing about the murdering quacks of the medico-pharma mafia, the planet-killers of the petro-industrial complex, the spivs, half-wits and quarter-wits who have managed to slither their way into Westminster and the ignorant, lying, cowardly, corrupt, incompetent, derelict-of-duty, impossible-to-insult, Establishment-lackey trash-hacks trying to pass themselves off as national media journalists. Where am I going wrong?







— Pat Rattigan

CaroleK - may I enquire please what your connection is with Pat Rattigan?

And, when you say 'Cancer: Are we too trusting of them?' to whom does the 'them' refer? To the conventional medical practitioners, or to those of a rather radical persuasion (eg Ms Rattigan)? I'm presuming for the rest of my post that you're referring to mainstream practitioners, apologies if I've misunderstood your post. I'm also guessing that Pat Rattigan is female.....maybe I'm wrong!

I'm no expert on this (cancer-curing) subject, but it is my impression that whenever any of the 'alternative' therapists have been called upon to present evidence of properly-conducted scientific trials to back up their assertions, they have been unable to do so. The Bristol holistic-therapy bunch spring particularly to mind, sadly.

There is an amount of "information" in Ms Rattigan's open letter which appears to me to be barking. Doubtless others on here will choose to comment on specific aspects, if not, I will gladly input my two pen'orth.

Nothing personal, you understand, CaroleK, but I do feel that peddling views of this nature in public is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. Hence wondering what your connection is with the quoted Pat Rattigan.

Originally posted by Cyclone


Taken at first sight, one could conclude that this letter was written in ironic, tongue-in-cheek fashion.

However, now one reads the letter posted by CaroleK one has to assume that PR's letter to The Times was neither ironic nor tongue-in-cheek, but was instead the rant of a genuinely barmy person................ :suspect:

I am by no means a huge fan of some doctors and hospitals, and I would not completely refute the benefits of some complementary (note the use of that word and not 'alternative') therapies. However people should never read unfounded articles like the above and shun conventional medicine. Complementary therapies should be sought and used in conjunction with regular medical treatment (if at all), and only from fully qualified and registered practitioners.

Some more of Pat Rattigan's amusing rants can be found here http://www.projectfreedom-hrw.info/part_6.html

Seems he's akin to David Icke :D

:loopy:
Can I reference a review of 87 different studies on the effect of delaying treatment for breast cancer...
"Delays of 3-6 months are associated with lower survival. These effects cannot be accounted for by lead-time bias. Efforts should be made to keep delays by patients and providers to a minimum."
Richards et al. Lancet. 1999 Apr 3;353(9159):1119-26

If you think you might have breast cancer, go to your doctors NOW. (And remember men can get it too.)

Firstly, I thought Pat Rattigan was a 'he'. But I could be wrong. I know him as an anti-vivisectionist (BAVA) till I found out he was a Naturopathic Doctor. With views on AIDS and Cancer that I've agreed with myself.

And you neglected to mention the comments on Cancer treatment of other doctors that I put up:

http://www.geocities.com/queencaz2002/CANCERPAGE.html

The seeming fury of your opinions are typical when someone puts up negative views of the medical industry (aka pharmaceutical industry). Are you in the medical field yourselves by any chance?

And its the conventional medical practitioners I'm questioning. Who unquestioningly pass over drugs to patients without much thought to the ingredients. Certainly treating conditions - even terminal ones - with equally terminal therapies has got to be suspect.

And I'm not 'peddling' Shsheff, I'm 'questioning'.

No law against that ... yet.

The Cancer arm of medicine is a wealth creating beast. Think about it, if they actually found a 'cure' they wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. They'd lose a fortune, not to mention millions of jobs.

The Cancer arm of medicine is a wealth creating beast. Think about it, if they actually found a 'cure' they wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. They'd lose a fortune, not to mention millions of jobs

Actually, if you think about it, the first company to find a 'cure' for cancer would hold possibly one of the most valuable patents ever and become fantastically rich and destroy all their competitors in that market.

Somehow I doubt the pharmaceutical companies would allow that. Its such a cash cow.

Watch out for more murdered mocrobiologists. :)


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/scientists.htm

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020504globeandmail.orig

Ermmmmm cancer isn't generally considered to be microbial! So where are the dead oncologists? genecists?? biochemists??? specialists in cell cycle control????

Somehow I doubt the pharmaceutical companies would allow that. Its such a cash cow

The thing you have to remember about the pharmaceutical industry is that it is controlled by patents. Pharmaceutical companies need to continually advance their products as after a certain period (I'm not sure how long it is but I think its about 20 years) the patents expire and anyone can manufacture that product because the patent includes how to manuafucature it (look at paracetemol).

Unless the company is certain that its product will never be copied (the only example I know is Coca-Cola), it would be extremely unlikely a company would not patent a product first as once a competitor has patented it they will be left behind and that product is no longer valuable.

Pharmaceutical companies need to have a massive turnover to support their enormous research budgets and the idea that they would "hold back" a product is nothing but conspiracy mumbo jumbo. These are very large companies in the hands of millions of shareholders and the large investment companies with the biggest shares who sit on the board would not allow such foolish business practice to occur.

HOWEVER, this is not to say that pharmaceutical companies don't engage in all sorts of immoral behaviour, such as selling products that have been proven not work, pushing more expensive alternatives when cheap generics are availble and such. Thus it is the responsibility of doctors and institutions such as NICE to ensure that they choose the treatment that is in the patient's and societies best interest.

Originally posted by CaroleK
Somehow I doubt the pharmaceutical companies would allow that. Its such a cash cow.

Watch out for more murdered mocrobiologists. :)


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/scientists.htm

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020504globeandmail.orig
what's the base rate?

how are we to tell if this is a statistically significant deviation?

have their been any more deaths, mysterious or otherwise, of leading microbial biologists since 2002?

I mean, it's a fetching story, but could it not equally be an annus horribilis in Microbiology?

I've just noticed you wrote this as well

And its the conventional medical practitioners I'm questioning. Who unquestioningly pass over drugs to patients without much thought to the ingredients.

This is incredibly insulting to the vast majority of people in the NHS who work extremely hard ensuring that nothing but the best care affordable is given to patients and that their prescriptions are based on the most up to evidence available.

Originally posted by Sneak
:loopy:


If you think you might have breast cancer, go to your doctors NOW. (And remember men can get it too.)

Quite. Until P Rattigan's opinions are proved, I too am inclined to go with the many thousands of professionals (the vast, vast majority of whom are working for the 'higher good' IMO - why would any of them have a conflicting interest?) who are experienced in the field..............

If this post prevents even one person from seeking professional (conventional) help then I stand by my comment that it's dangerous to peddle such views.

CaroleK is our resident conspiracist, so perhaps that puts a little more context to it. :suspect:

As has been said, the ramblings of Pat Raitgan are those of a certifiable loon, and nobody should give them any credence over the collective knowledge of the medical profession.

Unless you believe in a conspiracy around every corner of course ;)

Pat Rattigan also seems to believe that 'The Illuminated Untouchables Arch Masons are directly involved in satanic ritual child sacrifice'. :loopy:

Do you too CaroleK?

Originally posted by Tony
CaroleK is our resident conspiracist, so perhaps that puts a little more context to it. :suspect:

As has been said, the ramblings of Pat Raitgan are those of a certifiable loon, and nobody should give them any credence over the collective knowledge of the medical profession.

Unless you believe in a conspiracy around every corner of course ;)

Pat Rattigan also seems to believe that 'The Illuminated Untouchables Arch Masons are directly involved in satanic ritual child sacrifice'. :loopy:

Do you too CaroleK?

It is easy to be critical of things that we (as people) do not understand though.

Well when it comes to cancer and its treatment I'm perfectly happy to go with the combined knowledge of the worlds medics and scientists rather than somebody who is over-obsessed with masonic satanic ritual child sacrifice.

Call me cynical, but there you go.


Pat Rattigan is still a loon!

Well when it comes to cancer and its treatment I'm perfectly happy to go with the combined knowledge of the worlds medics and scientists.

Pat Rattigan is still a loon! [/B]

If Pat Rattigan was correct in that conventional treatment is no good why are cancer rates in many areas falling. I personnaly think that if misdiagnosis rates were in the order of 80% as is claimed in an earlier post every consultant in the cancer field would be hauled over the coals by the Dept of Health. I also think such misinformation does the Health Service a dis-service. The vast majority of people, what ever their profession within hospitals do their utmost best in accurately diagnosing and treat patients what ever their condition and that includes cancer.
Ten of thousands of more people would die each year in this country if it wasn't for the current and new drugs which are coming on to the market, which are either halting the spread are curing cancers. When info stating 80% are cancers are misdiagnosed by doctors will only cause patients trust in their doctors to be greatly diminished, resulting in many patients not going to see their GP if they suspect cancer themsleves, e.g. if a women finds a lump in their breast. It shatters all confidence in the consultants, who are the experts in the field not some stupid quack who spouts rubbish which in many circimstances cannot be proved scientifically, resulting in more people dying of cancer which if caught early enough may be curable:rant:

Seems to me that some of the doctors quoted by CaroleK have a pretty poor grasp of statistics. It's too early in the morning for me to start explaining false positives and false negatives, so I'll leave it to one of the other eminently qualified scientists who hang out here.

Well I had cancer, and modern medicine managed to cure me....that was 10 years ago.

Ah! But maybe you never had cancer at all Phan?

Perhaps you were one of the 80% that never had it in the first place?

Perhaps it's a conspiracy by the drugs companies and their cronies in big business and the NWO backed governments?

Yes of course, that lump in my neck the size of a golfball was simply a collection of ectoplasm, caused by attending satanic ritual child sacrifice events without my crystal power amulet...

You see - now it's been explained to you it all makes perfect sense! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by DanSumption
It's too early in the morning for me to start explaining false positives and false negatives, so I'll leave it to one of the other eminently qualified scientists who hang out here.

Oooh whats a false positive and a false negative?? Is it early enough to explain now?? In laymans terms, mind.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Oooh whats a false positive and a false negative?? Is it early enough to explain now?? In laymans terms, mind.

False positive -> A positive response to a test where it should have been negative.
False negative -> A negative response to a test where it should have been positive.

In the cancer case a false positive would be you being diagnosed with cancer but not actually having it. A false negative would be you not being diagnised when you actually did have cancer!

My Mum was diagnosed with Breast Cancer last summer, she had a mastectomy, 6 months of chemo and 1 month of radio therapy, all of these caused horrible side effects and at times made her extremely ill. She stuck with it because she trusted the Doctors.

Reading some mumbo jumbo rant would perhaps make her question whether she made the right choice about treatment. When cancer is diagnosed you have enough worries without rubbish like this.

I am sorry if I offended anyone but when you are living with cancer, reading stuff like this is very upsetting.

Originally posted by evildrneil
False positive -> A positive response to a test where it should have been negative.
False negative -> A negative response to a test where it should have been positive.

In the cancer case a false positive would be you being diagnosed with cancer but not actually having it. A false negative would be you not being diagnised when you actually did have cancer!

Oh yeah, I guess I knew that. With ya now. :)

Anyone else noticed that CaroleK seems to have disappeared off the face of the Forum? Alien abduction, anyone? Or just unable to address the points raised? Shurely [sic] not!

:suspect:

Originally posted by evildrneil
In the cancer case a false positive would be you being diagnosed with cancer but not actually having it. A false negative would be you not being diagnised when you actually did have cancer!
Thank you Evil Doctor Neil (hmmm, another evil doctor!), a very good explanation although not exactly the part I wanted explaining.

The science-lobe of my brain still isn't quite up to it but... let's try using an analogy (an anananwhat?). Say you are screening women for breast cancer, your screening program has a 99% chance of detecting cancer where it is present, but also a 1% chance of incorrectly diagnosing cancer where it is not present.

You screen 100,000 women, of whom 100 have breast cancer. Your screening will correctly identify 99 of those women as having cancer. Unfortunately, 1 of the 100 will not be spotted. However, of the 99,900 women who don't have breast cancer, your screening will incorrectly tell you that 999 of them do have breast cancer.

Thus, even though your cancer screening is 99% accurate, over 90% of the women who are said to have cancer actually don't have it. Of course, there are double-checks in place to weed out those people incorrectly diagnosed (and to, err, weed in those incorrectly undiagnosed), but I suspect that it is this type of false positive that leads the former director of biostastistics (perhaps they sacked him for peddling misleading statistics?) Dr. Irwin Bross to claim that "more than half the time the pathologist is wrong", and I suspect that it is an unfamiliarity with statistics which leads the likes of Pat Rattigan and subsequently CaroleK to belive that this is some kind of indictment of the medical profession.

Originally posted by Mo
Some more of Pat Rattigan's amusing rants can be found here http://www.projectfreedom-hrw.info/part_6.html

Seems he's akin to David Icke :D

Pyramids are bad, Mmm'kay?

Originally posted by gremlin_mick
Pyramids are bad, Mmm'kay?
No, no, no! Pyramids are good. Every fule kno that they accumulate orgones. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by DanSumption
Every fule kno that they accumulate orgones. :rolleyes:

Let's not drag Reich into this, as that is a far more complex subject than mere quackery.

No, I haven't gone anywhere. I just have a life to lead as well.

Its funny, whenever I post comments on forums criticising the medical/pharmaceutical companies I get exactly the same negative comments from just a few posters.

Almost identical.

You've not trained at the same school of thought, have you?

Are you all medical students by any chance?

I ask people only to read my posts with their inner eye, to decide for themselves, and to not be swayed by others who may well have a vested interest in the public not learning of any new perspectives on health matters.

Also, note the recent case where over 2000 women were recalled because their tests were misdiagnosed. (That is, misread by EXPERTS.) Leaving some of them facing the fact that they may have Cancer after all despite being told they hadn't.

Makes you wonder how many are told they HAVE got Cancer - when the actually haven't.

But I've discovered even more.That there are more similarities with Cancer and AIDS.

I can assure you that i've never replied to a similar post on another forum and that i'm not a medical student.
Neither of which make me any more inclined to believe wild claims from disenfranchised fringe quacks.

Originally posted by CaroleK
But I've discovered even more.That there are more similarities with Cancer and AIDS.

Er...do tell?

I think that you are all being a bit hard on CaroleK.

Yes, some of the ideas do sound like overactive imaginations, but as somebody who was 'married into' the medical profession, I can say that I witnessed events which may not have been in the best interests of the patient.

Nothing sinister here but lets look at the visits by drug reps. I know that drs now have to prescribe the generic drug whenever possible but not so long ago drs would be 'bribed' into using certain drugs. I'm not talking about the odd free pen or antibacterial handwash freebie but more colour tv, holiday, free meals and alcohol etc.

Does leave a nasty taste in the mouth if you'll excuse the pun :gag:

Thank you, Mo. That's all I wanted. For you all to just look at it. I'm happy at that.


'I can assure you that i've never replied to a similar post on another forum and that i'm not a medical student.' - Cyclone

Then you have my apologies. But I don't know why you're so against Patrick Rattigan (I've since found out his full name). Sure he's a bit of a ranter but then he's been at this subject for a while and has been continually bombarded with equally dismissive rants from the likes of Tony. You're not helping any. If you can't say something constructive about the subject then please be quiet and let the rest of us at least have a look at what he's actually saying.

Personally I think he talks a lot of sense.


'Pat Rattigan also seems to believe that 'The Illuminated Untouchables Arch Masons are directly involved in satanic ritual child sacrifice'. - Tony

I've bought the 'hidden elite groups' concept, yeah. The ones with all the wealth and power who are intent on keeping it that way. Which necessitates an amount of double dealing, backroom handshakes, market manipulations and psychological operations to keep we the masses ignorant about them and their practices.

The label 'Illuminati' would fit the bill, as does the word 'elite'. But, in my view, both terms are too grand for the likes of these ********.

Are they involved in ritual satanic abuse? I don't know. But even the Mafia indulged in rites and initiation ceremonies. Its a great way of ensuring your followers remain your followers. You see, you have that 'ritual act' - whatever it was - to forever threaten them with. So I can't totally throw the possibility out



I am sorry if I offended anyone but when you are living with cancer, reading stuff like this is very upsetting. - Valentine

Why does it upset you??? There are people out here, Valentine, who are simply not accepting orthodox medicine's version of these diseases. There are far too many holes in their theses, along with questionable diagnostic methods. Their main motivation is to HELP people who are suffering in this way. And all those who come after them. Not to hurt them further.

And I'm truly sorry to hear of your Mum's illness, but you'll find it was the chemo and radio therapy that caused her suffering. Doctor's themselves admit that these methods can kill all by themselves. Their logic in this treatment is seriously flawed. Esp when people who have turned away from orthodox treatments and turned to lifestyle/dietary changes etc instead have actually come thro Cancer.

Makes you think, no?

And Sneak, I'm well aware of all the good work and intentions by NHS staff. But they only know what their superiors tell them, and their superiors only know what the pharmaceutical companies tell them ...

Thanks to all for your input. :)

Then you have my apologies. But I don't know why you're so against Patrick Rattigan (I've since found out his full name). Sure he's a bit of a ranter but then he's been at this subject for a while and has been continually bombarded with equally dismissive rants from the likes of Tony. You're not helping any. If you can't say something constructive about the subject then please be quiet and let the rest of us at least have a look at what he's actually saying.


Yes i'm sure it would be nice for you if those who disagreed just shut up and let you get on with it. Fortunately people feel free to voice their opinions on this board, even when it's in disagreement.
How would you like it if the medical industry said to you (and Rattigan) "If you can't say anything constructive then shut up."?

I have read this thread with great interest. In 1993 my consultants diagnosed I had Multiple Ad Polyps in the Colon - a very rare and aggressive form of bowel cancer. My Consultant said I had a 92% chance of developing bowel cancer if I didnt have major surgery to remove my colon and that I would then be dead within 5 years. The standard treatment for this condition is removal of the entire colon.

I consulted a naturopath who said this condition is extremely difficult to treat. Following his advice was indeed very hard work. I am not sure many people would have the staying power to deal with health issues in this way. Specifically it demands substantial and extended periods of supervised detoxifcation several times a year which is not cheap supported by a special diet of fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, pulses and grains. No meat, fish, dairy products, fats or oils and manufactured foods.

After 2 years of intensive work under my naturopath's care and regular observations I enjoyed a most marked reduction in the condition to the extent that it was almost non-existent.

My naturopath does not treat patients using alopathic medications because it gives rise to complications which are then high risk.

IN all the medical conditions when I used naturopathy, those conditions have resolved to my personal satisfaction which I can not say has not been my experience when taking alopathic options generally provided by the medical profession.

I would have found it more difficult to achieve this result but for the co-operation of my Consultant who was most reluctant to allow me to undergo this regime.

I am saddened that the issues affecting this debate typically evoke an unwarranted and highly charged emotional over-reaction. This therefore obstructs any reasoned or measured evaluation of the merits involved with complementary medicine, naturopathy in particular.

Naturopathy is certainly considerably cheaper than the alopathic options - until my voice loss immediately after an investigation my GP considered that my health care didnt cost the NHS very much at all.

However I do not have any doubt that today's world is hardly conducive to a truly naturopathic lifestyle - one would need to be a virtual saint and live in the middle of nowhere.

I hope this account introduces a few useful facts with just a little scale and relativity to the debate which does seem to have become emotive.

An encouraging post wendygs. Pat Rattigan is also a qualified Naturapath. Here he is on the subject of AIDS at his most calm and incisive:

http://www.harmonikireland.com/index.php?topic=HIV

Originally posted by wendygs
I have read this thread with great interest. In 1993 my consultants diagnosed I had Multiple Ad Polyps in the Colon - a very rare and aggressive form of bowel cancer. My Consultant said I had a 92% chance of developing bowel cancer if I didnt have major surgery to remove my colon and that I would then be dead within 5 years. The standard treatment for this condition is removal of the entire colon.

I consulted a naturopath who said this condition is extremely difficult to treat. Following his advice was indeed very hard work. I am not sure many people would have the staying power to deal with health issues in this way. Specifically it demands substantial and extended periods of supervised detoxifcation several times a year which is not cheap supported by a special diet of fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, pulses and grains. No meat, fish, dairy products, fats or oils and manufactured foods.

After 2 years of intensive work under my naturopath's care and regular observations I enjoyed a most marked reduction in the condition to the extent that it was almost non-existent.

My naturopath does not treat patients using alopathic medications because it gives rise to complications which are then high risk.

IN all the medical conditions when I used naturopathy, those conditions have resolved to my personal satisfaction which I can not say has not been my experience when taking alopathic options generally provided by the medical profession.

I would have found it more difficult to achieve this result but for the co-operation of my Consultant who was most reluctant to allow me to undergo this regime.

I am saddened that the issues affecting this debate typically evoke an unwarranted and highly charged emotional over-reaction. This therefore obstructs any reasoned or measured evaluation of the merits involved with complementary medicine, naturopathy in particular.

Naturopathy is certainly considerably cheaper than the alopathic options - until my voice loss immediately after an investigation my GP considered that my health care didnt cost the NHS very much at all.

However I do not have any doubt that today's world is hardly conducive to a truly naturopathic lifestyle - one would need to be a virtual saint and live in the middle of nowhere.

I hope this account introduces a few useful facts with just a little scale and relativity to the debate which does seem to have become emotive.

you cannot draw conclusions from this. You are one person. The important thing is does this work when applied to large statisticially significant samples of people?

Originally posted by nightrider
you cannot draw conclusions from this. You are one person. The important thing is does this work when applied to large statisticially significant samples of people?


Bleugh. This is so hard. If you were the one person, you (I) would try anything, no matter how 'whacky'. And if it worked for you, you (I) would shout it from the rooftops.

I wonder if more of 'us' could be cured if we STUCK to appropriate diets/regimes? I dunno, I'm as against quacks peddling unproven 'cures' as anyone. But if your back's against the wall, I guess you'll give it all a go.

I would :rolleyes:

I don't know if more of us could be cured with the right diet but I'm certain alot of cancer could be prevented with the right diet.

It would be helpful if the animals some of us eat weren't pumped full of antibiotics and hormones too.

Originally posted by karenjane39
I don't know if more of us could be cured with the right diet but I'm certain alot of cancer could be prevented with the right diet.

It would be helpful if the animals some of us eat weren't pumped full of antibiotics and hormones too.

Yup :rolleyes: