Another way of looking at it is that traditional medical treatments are subtractive, whereas alternative therapies are additive. Chemotherapy, for example, is an all-or-nothing proposition in application. If you use chemotherapy, you wipe out your immune system, which pretty much ends the possibility of using your immune system to overcome the cancer. That means medical treatments have to work consistently in a high enough percentage of cases or they are dismissed as invalid. That makes sense when testing subtractive therapies like drugs, but it makes no sense for testing alternative therapies, which are additive. Nevertheless, that is the criterion used to evaluate alternative therapies. And even here, the medical establishment plays with a rigged roulette wheel. Doctors routinely prescribe chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer cases where the success rate is less than 1 percent, far below the 30 percent marker set for placebos. Any alternative therapy with a 1 percent success rate would be laughed into oblivion by the establishment.
Testing alternative therapies as though they were subtractive drugs dooms many of them to false failure. An alternative treatment that would be dismissed as ineffective because testing showed it to be only 10 percent effective in isolation might nevertheless be an invaluable part of a comprehensive program that contained seven of these 10 percent--effective components--giving you a 70 percent chance of overcoming your cancer if used in combination. Or a component might have no effectiveness by itself but serve to amplify the effectiveness of another component. Remove the first component and the second component comes up short in testing.
Nevertheless, the medical establishment deliberately chooses not to test alternative therapies in this way, thus condemning all the individual components of a program with the quackery label. So, the only way you hear about effective alternatives is by word of mouth or anecdotal evidence. Fortunately, the effectiveness of some of these programs is so strong that it is impossible to suppress their success, which is why more and more people are turning to effective alternatives.
Are all the alternatives effective? Of course not. Are there quacks out there? Absolutely. Unfortunately, because the establishment suppresses all information regarding alternatives, it makes it that much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, until better information is available, it’s buyer beware. Then again, as we’ve already seen, that caution is at least as valid when it comes to the treatments your doctor offers you.
And lest I forget, one of the biggest arguments against alternative therapies is that they are a waste of money. Please! We spend $209 billion a year in the United States alone on a medical war on cancer that has been declared a failure by its very generals. Spending $100 a month on supplements is a drop in the bucket compared to that expenditure. To claim that alternative therapies pick your pocket is, at the very least, hypocritical."
Like & Share (G.Shyam)
Testing alternative therapies as though they were subtractive drugs dooms many of them to false failure. An alternative treatment that would be dismissed as ineffective because testing showed it to be only 10 percent effective in isolation might nevertheless be an invaluable part of a comprehensive program that contained seven of these 10 percent--effective components--giving you a 70 percent chance of overcoming your cancer if used in combination. Or a component might have no effectiveness by itself but serve to amplify the effectiveness of another component. Remove the first component and the second component comes up short in testing.
Nevertheless, the medical establishment deliberately chooses not to test alternative therapies in this way, thus condemning all the individual components of a program with the quackery label. So, the only way you hear about effective alternatives is by word of mouth or anecdotal evidence. Fortunately, the effectiveness of some of these programs is so strong that it is impossible to suppress their success, which is why more and more people are turning to effective alternatives.
Are all the alternatives effective? Of course not. Are there quacks out there? Absolutely. Unfortunately, because the establishment suppresses all information regarding alternatives, it makes it that much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, until better information is available, it’s buyer beware. Then again, as we’ve already seen, that caution is at least as valid when it comes to the treatments your doctor offers you.
And lest I forget, one of the biggest arguments against alternative therapies is that they are a waste of money. Please! We spend $209 billion a year in the United States alone on a medical war on cancer that has been declared a failure by its very generals. Spending $100 a month on supplements is a drop in the bucket compared to that expenditure. To claim that alternative therapies pick your pocket is, at the very least, hypocritical."
Like & Share (G.Shyam)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
thanks for feedback, hope from U to share this!