Enbrel, Pro Sorba, et al (long)

[Guest guest]

Geoff.........I think this says it all and I agree!!!! Martha

[Guest guest]

Hi Gang! Geoff here.

With all of the discussion the last several months about the new

symptom-treating drugs and treatments that allow you to " live with " your

arthritis, e.g., Celebrex, Enbrel, Pro Sorba columns, etc., I thought a few

things might be worth mentioning:

1: The decisions you make regarding how you handle your personal

health should be just that, decisions __you__ make. The person that

impresses with their clean lab coat, their ability to obfuscate (confuse)

you in both your native tongue and Latin, and their various accolades and

papers showered upon them by their similarly inclined fellows does not, and

can not live __your__ life. If they give you bad advice and you choose to

run with it, they go out to dinner, dancing, hiking, biking, and live their

life. You, however, go to the wheelchair, the hospital, or the grave.

Never, never, think you can abdicate your personal responsibility. You

can't. Ultimately, __you__ will pay the price for your decisions so it's

very important to make absolutely certain you are willing to pay that price

and will not turn about and say, " It's his/her fault. " Accepting personal

responsibility for your own health and welfare is step one -- to all of

life.

2: Some years ago, c1998 I think but I could be off, it was within

the time frame January 1993 to January 2001, the US FDA, under Executive

Order, changed the way they do business. In the olden days, as we like to

say here, drug manufacturers had to test, test, test and test their drugs.

They tested in labs, then in animals, then in very small groups of people

(1-50), then in larger groups of people (50-100), then in larger groups

(100-1,000). And the tests sometimes lasted years. This was a very

expensive process and it took __years__ to bring a new drug to market.

There was a hew and cry from the PharmaCo's that could be heard around the

world, yet the FDA remained steadfast in their determination to protect the

populace.

Then marketing came up with a brainstorm: Isn't there at least a

possibility that some people died who __may__ have had their lives extended

by these drugs? Certainly! So the next thing seen was massive

PR/advertising campaigns about how terrible this process was, how people

were dying needlessly all over the place, and how we needed a " fast track "

to get these drugs on the market quickly to save lives (reducing costs and

increasing profits were a necessary benefit, but not the " real reason " we

needed a reduced testing process.) We saw this in advertisements, we saw it

on TV in " doctor " shows, (remember General Hospital, Quincy, M.E., et al?),

we saw it on the daytime talk shows, the morning talk shows and in the

news... it was all a-buzz! Then we saw it on the campaign trails. Once the

public was onboard and the politicians were in place, the deal was done.

Now we have " fast-track " drugs.

Now fast-tracking may sound good but one needs to understand the

finer points. We no longer test on large groups (100's-1,000's) nor

sometimes mid-size groups. Instead, we skip that/those phase(s) and test on

the general population of many millions or billions using the AER system

(Adverse Event Reporting) to report back such uncomfortable incidents as

heart attacks, cancers, strokes, etc. In other words, now every man, woman

and child in and out of the United States is an unwitting guinea pig, and to

add spice, we have to pay for the privilege. And the payments are

absolutely confiscatory, $1,500 a month is common place. We are not advised

that we are part of the " general population test, " we just are. This is why

you are seeing so many problems with new drugs coming onto the market, so

much advertising hyping the new drugs, and such a cry for universal

insurance.

And less my compatriots should grouse, " Hey, drug companies pay

bazillions on R & D for us! " , let us get the facts straight. NEW drug

research is less than 3% of R & D in any large phrama, usually less than 1%.

Advertising is the major portion of the entire budget, and in the so-called

R & D arena, that money goes not to " new " drug research, but to " competitive "

drug research. IOW, all this big R & D money isn't going out to find new and

wonderful ways to make you feel better, it's going mostly to finding or

reverse-co-engineering a drug to take market share from the competition.

For those inclined not to believe this tidbit, please refer to the annual

reports, 10K's, etc., filed by those same companies. Make sure to bring

your calculator, skip the fluff and run the numbers. You may want to get

some coffee too, it takes awhile. (refer to point 1)

3: There is a reason people get sick and it's not because they wake

up one morning and their body has become " spontaneously confused. " Your

immune system is capable of, and commonly does, perform on a cellular and

molecular level. Nothing engineered by man has the ability to discriminate

and evaluate at that level -- nothing. Oh we can shut-down the immune

system; we can kill everything in sight including the patient (The operation

was a success, but the patient died.). It pays to remember that it takes a

carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock one down. The point:

fiddle with your immune system at your own peril. You want to shut it down?

Fine, but don't blame somebody else for __your__ decision. Common sense

tells you you're sick; you have to intellectualize the problem to buy into

the idea that your body is " confused. " That's your choice. (refer to point

1)

So what happens if you get " suckered? " The scenario usually goes something

like this: You're a reasonable, responsible person. You get quite ill. You

go find somebody who purportedly knows at least a little bit more than you

do about what you are suffering, the advice sounds good to you so you take

it and BOOM! Here you are. You're laid up, or laid out, and s/he's out

playing golf.

What now?

Easy, go back to square one, look at the problem, the process you used to

get where you are, and change it so you don't end up there again. Don't go

back and make the same mistake.

This, I think, is where so many of us go wrong. Instead of re-evaluating

the process they used to get where they are, they use the same process

again, but substitute a different drug. (Please take note of the inclusive

pronoun, 'us', I, too, am part of the 'us.')

Whoa! Stop! Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200.

You got lousy advice not because the drug was bad, but because the advice

was bad. How did you get __to__ the drug? Were you born knowing about this

drug? Did you come upon it through miraculous intervention?

No.

You listened to Dr. XYZ. Why did you listen to Dr. XYZ? Because you

thought Dr. XYZ knew more than you... is this the problem, or is this the

fork in the road where the bad choice was made?

My assertion is that this is the fork in the road. This is where you erred.

Notice I did not say Dr. XYZ erred; it's that 'personal responsibility'

thing. You chose, you followed, you purchased and you ingested and/or

participated -- that's personal responsibility.

Seeking wise counsel is not the problem.

But you sought counsel from the " Your body has experienced __Spontaneous

Confusion Stupidity Syndrome__ " guy. This may not have been the smartest

move you have ever made. If you go back to the SCSS guy, he's going to give

you another drug that does pretty much the same thing and gee whiz, you're

going to be surprised that it causes you same/more/similar/other/worse

trouble or doesn't fix the problem. Why should you be surprised, or even

disappointed? What did you expect? Did you really think Dr. XYZ was going

to give up his belief in the " Spontaneous Confusion Stupidity Syndrome " ? Of

course not! He's sold on SCSS. It pays the Country Club dues and until

something equally safe (for him, i.e., low risk of lawsuits) and profitable

(he has to eat) comes along, he's going to continue suggesting and

prescribing SCSS drugs -- drugs that reduce or eliminate the immune system.

Well... try the other road. Seek wise counsel from someone who isn't sold

on the SCSS but instead recognizes that your body is fearfully and

wondrously made and can do things on levels man hasn't even begun to dream

of yet. This guy is going to recommend something to give extra aid to that

miraculous immune system. He's not going to shut it down, although he may

" modulate " it depending on the pain you are in. He's going to try and BOOST

it to fight off whatever is making you sick.

Do you remember how forever and ever and ever and ever anyone who had ulcers

was told they were 'overly nervous' and the XYZ guys would give them

antacids and tell them to calm down, and cut out parts of their guts?

And what do " they " know now?

Ulcers are most commonly a result of infection by Helicobacter Pylori (H.

Pylori) and easily CURED by the method of your choice: boost immune

function, alert immune system, enhance immune system, attack bacterium.

Boosting can come from supplementation, alerting by homeopathy, enhancement

by herbs, attack by Rx drugs and/or herbs. In the end they all do the same

thing, they attack and kill the bacterium. Your choice has more to do with

the competency of your local " wise counsel " and the amount of collateral

damage you are willing to suffer and/or accept than anything else.

Geoff

soli Deo gloria

www.HealingYou.org - Your nonprofit source for remedies and aids in fighting

these diseases, information on weaning from drugs, and nutritional kits for

repairing adrenal damage; 100% volunteer staffed.

(Courtesy: Captain Cook's www.800-800-cruise.com)

[Guest guest]

Hi Geoff, I wanted to respond to your post. It is such good advie o

ways to empower yourself. We all made mistakes. I bought hook line

and sinker into my rheumo who gave me one false hope after the other

along with one toxic med after the other. I was ,at that point, so

sick, with some irreaparable damage even he was reluctant to

prescribe anything else. I went and tried to talk him into AP. I

did get better and better but have had to ditch that doc and do a lot

of learning along the way and have had to deal with a lot.If was to

be better, needed a doc with some expertise but also one who believed

in this.

You have to know too if your ap is not doing what you expected, re

evaluate. I have had to do that too. Doing more of the siet,

supplementation, and a differebt protocol.

We all have tough choices but yes they really are YOURS, I agree. do

not give up your power. It is YOUR life.

Love Marge

> Hi Gang! Geoff here.

>

> With all of the discussion the last several months about the new

> symptom-treating drugs and treatments that allow you to " live with "

your

> arthritis, e.g., Celebrex, Enbrel, Pro Sorba columns, etc., I

thought a few

> things might be worth mentioning:

>

> 1: The decisions you make regarding how you handle your

personal

> health should be just that, decisions __you__ make. The person that

> impresses with their clean lab coat, their ability to obfuscate

(confuse)

> you in both your native tongue and Latin, and their various

accolades and

> papers showered upon them by their similarly inclined fellows does

not, and

> can not live __your__ life. If they give you bad advice and you

choose to

> run with it, they go out to dinner, dancing, hiking, biking, and

live their

> life. You, however, go to the wheelchair, the hospital, or the

grave.

> Never, never, think you can abdicate your personal responsibility.

You

> can't. Ultimately, __you__ will pay the price for your decisions

so it's

> very important to make absolutely certain you are willing to pay

that price

> and will not turn about and say, " It's his/her fault. " Accepting

personal

> responsibility for your own health and welfare is step one -- to

all of

> life.

>

> 2: Some years ago, c1998 I think but I could be off, it was

within

> the time frame January 1993 to January 2001, the US FDA, under

Executive

> Order, changed the way they do business. In the olden days, as we

like to

> say here, drug manufacturers had to test, test, test and test their

drugs.

> They tested in labs, then in animals, then in very small groups of

people

> (1-50), then in larger groups of people (50-100), then in larger

groups

> (100-1,000). And the tests sometimes lasted years. This was a very

> expensive process and it took __years__ to bring a new drug to

market.

> There was a hew and cry from the PharmaCo's that could be heard

around the

> world, yet the FDA remained steadfast in their determination to

protect the

> populace.

>

> Then marketing came up with a brainstorm: Isn't there at

least a

> possibility that some people died who __may__ have had their lives

extended

> by these drugs? Certainly! So the next thing seen was massive

> PR/advertising campaigns about how terrible this process was, how

people

> were dying needlessly all over the place, and how we needed a " fast

track "

> to get these drugs on the market quickly to save lives (reducing

costs and

> increasing profits were a necessary benefit, but not the " real

reason " we

> needed a reduced testing process.) We saw this in advertisements,

we saw it

> on TV in " doctor " shows, (remember General Hospital, Quincy, M.E.,

et al?),

> we saw it on the daytime talk shows, the morning talk shows and in

the

> news... it was all a-buzz! Then we saw it on the campaign trails.

Once the

> public was onboard and the politicians were in place, the deal was

done.

>

> Now we have " fast-track " drugs.

>

> Now fast-tracking may sound good but one needs to

understand the

> finer points. We no longer test on large groups (100's-1,000's) nor

> sometimes mid-size groups. Instead, we skip that/those phase(s)

and test on

> the general population of many millions or billions using the AER

system

> (Adverse Event Reporting) to report back such uncomfortable

incidents as

> heart attacks, cancers, strokes, etc. In other words, now every

man, woman

> and child in and out of the United States is an unwitting guinea

pig, and to

> add spice, we have to pay for the privilege. And the payments are

> absolutely confiscatory, $1,500 a month is common place. We are

not advised

> that we are part of the " general population test, " we just are.

This is why

> you are seeing so many problems with new drugs coming onto the

market, so

> much advertising hyping the new drugs, and such a cry for universal

> insurance.

>

> And less my compatriots should grouse, " Hey, drug companies

pay

> bazillions on R & D for us! " , let us get the facts straight. NEW drug

> research is less than 3% of R & D in any large phrama, usually less

than 1%.

> Advertising is the major portion of the entire budget, and in the

so-called

> R & D arena, that money goes not to " new " drug research, but

to " competitive "

> drug research. IOW, all this big R & D money isn't going out to find

new and

> wonderful ways to make you feel better, it's going mostly to

finding or

> reverse-co-engineering a drug to take market share from the

competition.

> For those inclined not to believe this tidbit, please refer to the

annual

> reports, 10K's, etc., filed by those same companies. Make sure to

bring

> your calculator, skip the fluff and run the numbers. You may want

to get

> some coffee too, it takes awhile. (refer to point 1)

>

> 3: There is a reason people get sick and it's not because

they wake

> up one morning and their body has become " spontaneously confused. "

Your

> immune system is capable of, and commonly does, perform on a

cellular and

> molecular level. Nothing engineered by man has the ability to

discriminate

> and evaluate at that level -- nothing. Oh we can shut-down the

immune

> system; we can kill everything in sight including the patient (The

operation

> was a success, but the patient died.). It pays to remember that it

takes a

> carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock one down. The

point:

> fiddle with your immune system at your own peril. You want to shut

it down?

> Fine, but don't blame somebody else for __your__ decision. Common

sense

> tells you you're sick; you have to intellectualize the problem to

buy into

> the idea that your body is " confused. " That's your choice. (refer

to point

> 1)

>

> So what happens if you get " suckered? " The scenario usually goes

something

> like this: You're a reasonable, responsible person. You get quite

ill. You

> go find somebody who purportedly knows at least a little bit more

than you

> do about what you are suffering, the advice sounds good to you so

you take

> it and BOOM! Here you are. You're laid up, or laid out, and

s/he's out

> playing golf.

>

> What now?

>

> Easy, go back to square one, look at the problem, the process you

used to

> get where you are, and change it so you don't end up there again.

Don't go

> back and make the same mistake.

>

> This, I think, is where so many of us go wrong. Instead of re-

evaluating

> the process they used to get where they are, they use the same

process

> again, but substitute a different drug. (Please take note of the

inclusive

> pronoun, 'us', I, too, am part of the 'us.')

>

> Whoa! Stop! Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200.

>

> You got lousy advice not because the drug was bad, but because the

advice

> was bad. How did you get __to__ the drug? Were you born knowing

about this

> drug? Did you come upon it through miraculous intervention?

>

> No.

>

> You listened to Dr. XYZ. Why did you listen to Dr. XYZ? Because

you

> thought Dr. XYZ knew more than you... is this the problem, or is

this the

> fork in the road where the bad choice was made?

>

> My assertion is that this is the fork in the road. This is where

you erred.

> Notice I did not say Dr. XYZ erred; it's that 'personal

responsibility'

> thing. You chose, you followed, you purchased and you ingested

and/or

> participated -- that's personal responsibility.

>

> Seeking wise counsel is not the problem.

>

> But you sought counsel from the " Your body has experienced

__Spontaneous

> Confusion Stupidity Syndrome__ " guy. This may not have been the

smartest

> move you have ever made. If you go back to the SCSS guy, he's

going to give

> you another drug that does pretty much the same thing and gee whiz,

you're

> going to be surprised that it causes you

same/more/similar/other/worse

> trouble or doesn't fix the problem. Why should you be surprised,

or even

> disappointed? What did you expect? Did you really think Dr. XYZ

was going

> to give up his belief in the " Spontaneous Confusion Stupidity

Syndrome " ? Of

> course not! He's sold on SCSS. It pays the Country Club dues and

until

> something equally safe (for him, i.e., low risk of lawsuits) and

profitable

> (he has to eat) comes along, he's going to continue suggesting and

> prescribing SCSS drugs -- drugs that reduce or eliminate the immune

system.

>

> Well... try the other road. Seek wise counsel from someone who

isn't sold

> on the SCSS but instead recognizes that your body is fearfully and

> wondrously made and can do things on levels man hasn't even begun

to dream

> of yet. This guy is going to recommend something to give extra aid

to that

> miraculous immune system. He's not going to shut it down, although

he may

> " modulate " it depending on the pain you are in. He's going to try

and BOOST

> it to fight off whatever is making you sick.

>

> Do you remember how forever and ever and ever and ever anyone who

had ulcers

> was told they were 'overly nervous' and the XYZ guys would give them

> antacids and tell them to calm down, and cut out parts of their

guts?

>

> And what do " they " know now?

>

> Ulcers are most commonly a result of infection by Helicobacter

Pylori (H.

> Pylori) and easily CURED by the method of your choice: boost immune

> function, alert immune system, enhance immune system, attack

bacterium.

> Boosting can come from supplementation, alerting by homeopathy,

enhancement

> by herbs, attack by Rx drugs and/or herbs. In the end they all do

the same

> thing, they attack and kill the bacterium. Your choice has more to

do with

> the competency of your local " wise counsel " and the amount of

collateral

> damage you are willing to suffer and/or accept than anything else.

>

> Geoff

> soli Deo gloria

>

> www.HealingYou.org - Your nonprofit source for remedies and aids in

fighting

> these diseases, information on weaning from drugs, and nutritional

kits for

> repairing adrenal damage; 100% volunteer staffed.

>

> (Courtesy: Captain Cook's www.800-800-cruise.com)

[Guest guest]

Geoff,

Thank you and well said. You write so well, you must have been an English

major.

Mel

rheumatic Enbrel, Pro Sorba, et al (long)

> Hi Gang! Geoff here.

>

> With all of the discussion the last several months about the new

> symptom-treating drugs and treatments that allow you to " live with " your

> arthritis, e.g., Celebrex, Enbrel, Pro Sorba columns, etc., I thought a

few

> things might be worth mentioning:

>

> 1: The decisions you make regarding how you handle your personal

> health should be just that, decisions __you__ make. The person that

> impresses with their clean lab coat, their ability to obfuscate (confuse)

> you in both your native tongue and Latin, and their various accolades and

> papers showered upon them by their similarly inclined fellows does not,

and

> can not live __your__ life. If they give you bad advice and you choose to

> run with it, they go out to dinner, dancing, hiking, biking, and live

their

> life. You, however, go to the wheelchair, the hospital, or the grave.

> Never, never, think you can abdicate your personal responsibility. You

> can't. Ultimately, __you__ will pay the price for your decisions so it's

> very important to make absolutely certain you are willing to pay that

price

> and will not turn about and say, " It's his/her fault. " Accepting personal

> responsibility for your own health and welfare is step one -- to all of

> life.

>

> 2: Some years ago, c1998 I think but I could be off, it was within

> the time frame January 1993 to January 2001, the US FDA, under Executive

> Order, changed the way they do business. In the olden days, as we like to

> say here, drug manufacturers had to test, test, test and test their drugs.

> They tested in labs, then in animals, then in very small groups of people

> (1-50), then in larger groups of people (50-100), then in larger groups

> (100-1,000). And the tests sometimes lasted years. This was a very

> expensive process and it took __years__ to bring a new drug to market.

> There was a hew and cry from the PharmaCo's that could be heard around the

> world, yet the FDA remained steadfast in their determination to protect

the

> populace.

>

> Then marketing came up with a brainstorm: Isn't there at least a

> possibility that some people died who __may__ have had their lives

extended

> by these drugs? Certainly! So the next thing seen was massive

> PR/advertising campaigns about how terrible this process was, how people

> were dying needlessly all over the place, and how we needed a " fast track "

> to get these drugs on the market quickly to save lives (reducing costs and

> increasing profits were a necessary benefit, but not the " real reason " we

> needed a reduced testing process.) We saw this in advertisements, we saw

it

> on TV in " doctor " shows, (remember General Hospital, Quincy, M.E., et

al?),

> we saw it on the daytime talk shows, the morning talk shows and in the

> news... it was all a-buzz! Then we saw it on the campaign trails. Once

the

> public was onboard and the politicians were in place, the deal was done.

>

> Now we have " fast-track " drugs.

>

> Now fast-tracking may sound good but one needs to understand the

> finer points. We no longer test on large groups (100's-1,000's) nor

> sometimes mid-size groups. Instead, we skip that/those phase(s) and test

on

> the general population of many millions or billions using the AER system

> (Adverse Event Reporting) to report back such uncomfortable incidents as

> heart attacks, cancers, strokes, etc. In other words, now every man,

woman

> and child in and out of the United States is an unwitting guinea pig, and

to

> add spice, we have to pay for the privilege. And the payments are

> absolutely confiscatory, $1,500 a month is common place. We are not

advised

> that we are part of the " general population test, " we just are. This is

why

> you are seeing so many problems with new drugs coming onto the market, so

> much advertising hyping the new drugs, and such a cry for universal

> insurance.

>

> And less my compatriots should grouse, " Hey, drug companies pay

> bazillions on R & D for us! " , let us get the facts straight. NEW drug

> research is less than 3% of R & D in any large phrama, usually less than 1%.

> Advertising is the major portion of the entire budget, and in the

so-called

> R & D arena, that money goes not to " new " drug research, but to

" competitive "

> drug research. IOW, all this big R & D money isn't going out to find new

and

> wonderful ways to make you feel better, it's going mostly to finding or

> reverse-co-engineering a drug to take market share from the competition.

> For those inclined not to believe this tidbit, please refer to the annual

> reports, 10K's, etc., filed by those same companies. Make sure to bring

> your calculator, skip the fluff and run the numbers. You may want to get

> some coffee too, it takes awhile. (refer to point 1)

>

> 3: There is a reason people get sick and it's not because they

wake

> up one morning and their body has become " spontaneously confused. " Your

> immune system is capable of, and commonly does, perform on a cellular and

> molecular level. Nothing engineered by man has the ability to

discriminate

> and evaluate at that level -- nothing. Oh we can shut-down the immune

> system; we can kill everything in sight including the patient (The

operation

> was a success, but the patient died.). It pays to remember that it takes

a

> carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock one down. The point:

> fiddle with your immune system at your own peril. You want to shut it

down?

> Fine, but don't blame somebody else for __your__ decision. Common sense

> tells you you're sick; you have to intellectualize the problem to buy into

> the idea that your body is " confused. " That's your choice. (refer to

point

> 1)

>

> So what happens if you get " suckered? " The scenario usually goes

something

> like this: You're a reasonable, responsible person. You get quite ill.

You

> go find somebody who purportedly knows at least a little bit more than you

> do about what you are suffering, the advice sounds good to you so you take

> it and BOOM! Here you are. You're laid up, or laid out, and s/he's out

> playing golf.

>

> What now?

>

> Easy, go back to square one, look at the problem, the process you used to

> get where you are, and change it so you don't end up there again. Don't

go

> back and make the same mistake.

>

> This, I think, is where so many of us go wrong. Instead of re-evaluating

> the process they used to get where they are, they use the same process

> again, but substitute a different drug. (Please take note of the

inclusive

> pronoun, 'us', I, too, am part of the 'us.')

>

> Whoa! Stop! Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200.

>

> You got lousy advice not because the drug was bad, but because the advice

> was bad. How did you get __to__ the drug? Were you born knowing about

this

> drug? Did you come upon it through miraculous intervention?

>

> No.

>

> You listened to Dr. XYZ. Why did you listen to Dr. XYZ? Because you

> thought Dr. XYZ knew more than you... is this the problem, or is this the

> fork in the road where the bad choice was made?

>

> My assertion is that this is the fork in the road. This is where you

erred.

> Notice I did not say Dr. XYZ erred; it's that 'personal responsibility'

> thing. You chose, you followed, you purchased and you ingested and/or

> participated -- that's personal responsibility.

>

> Seeking wise counsel is not the problem.

>

> But you sought counsel from the " Your body has experienced __Spontaneous

> Confusion Stupidity Syndrome__ " guy. This may not have been the smartest

> move you have ever made. If you go back to the SCSS guy, he's going to

give

> you another drug that does pretty much the same thing and gee whiz, you're

> going to be surprised that it causes you same/more/similar/other/worse

> trouble or doesn't fix the problem. Why should you be surprised, or even

> disappointed? What did you expect? Did you really think Dr. XYZ was

going

> to give up his belief in the " Spontaneous Confusion Stupidity Syndrome " ?

Of

> course not! He's sold on SCSS. It pays the Country Club dues and until

> something equally safe (for him, i.e., low risk of lawsuits) and

profitable

> (he has to eat) comes along, he's going to continue suggesting and

> prescribing SCSS drugs -- drugs that reduce or eliminate the immune

system.

>

> Well... try the other road. Seek wise counsel from someone who isn't sold

> on the SCSS but instead recognizes that your body is fearfully and

> wondrously made and can do things on levels man hasn't even begun to dream

> of yet. This guy is going to recommend something to give extra aid to

that

> miraculous immune system. He's not going to shut it down, although he may

> " modulate " it depending on the pain you are in. He's going to try and

BOOST

> it to fight off whatever is making you sick.

>

> Do you remember how forever and ever and ever and ever anyone who had

ulcers

> was told they were 'overly nervous' and the XYZ guys would give them

> antacids and tell them to calm down, and cut out parts of their guts?

>

> And what do " they " know now?

>

> Ulcers are most commonly a result of infection by Helicobacter Pylori (H.

> Pylori) and easily CURED by the method of your choice: boost immune

> function, alert immune system, enhance immune system, attack bacterium.

> Boosting can come from supplementation, alerting by homeopathy,

enhancement

> by herbs, attack by Rx drugs and/or herbs. In the end they all do the

same

> thing, they attack and kill the bacterium. Your choice has more to do

with

> the competency of your local " wise counsel " and the amount of collateral

> damage you are willing to suffer and/or accept than anything else.

>

> Geoff

> soli Deo gloria

>

> www.HealingYou.org - Your nonprofit source for remedies and aids in

fighting

> these diseases, information on weaning from drugs, and nutritional kits

for

> repairing adrenal damage; 100% volunteer staffed.

>

> (Courtesy: Captain Cook's www.800-800-cruise.com)

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Gang! Geoff here.

I want to clarify one little thing: The AP *is* an allopathic therapy, as

are Celebrex, the Pro Sorba, etc. These are all different approaches of

conventional, allopathic, Western medicine. The AP is not " alternative "

medicine.

Alternative medicine, as the term is applied in the US and cultures whose

mainstream medical treatment is allopathic, includes such things as

Herbalism, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Acupuncture, etc. Some would even

include Chiropractic and Osteopathy. Complimentary or " alternative "

medicine is often addressed here in conjunction with the AP, as are diet,

supplements, etc., but make no mistake, the AP is every bit a " conventional

allopathic approach. " It just happens to be out of favor -- today.

What you have when you are looking at AP versus something like Enbrel, are

two competing theories within allopathy. Simplistically stated, one theory

says your immune system is confused, the other says it is not. Thus the

competition. The " confused " theory generates billions of dollars in

revenue, the " not confused " theory generates very little revenue. The

" revenue generator " has more promotional effort behind it in advertising,

formal education, continuing education and " studies " than the " no revenue "

approach, thus the rancor.

This, of course, completely skirts the issue of using the AP as an

immunomodulator, which is where the Trentham group (studies) splits from the

Brown group (cures), and why you see the 'Trentham' bunch pumping

antibiotics at 200mg daily, vs. the 'Brown' followers plugging from 50 mg to

200 mg M-W-F. The 'Trentham school' method dovetails nicely with the

'confused' school, AKA: SSCS; the 'Brown school' does not. The joy of it

all is that if you are a proponent of the Brown method, but all you have in

your area are Trentham followers, you are OK. You can get your Rx filled

and simply take less. Allopathy is nothing if not entertaining.

HTH

Geoff

soli Deo gloria

http://www.healingyou.org/ NonRx herbals, homeopathics & supplements

http://www.800-800-cruise.com/ Cruises, tours, resorts & luxury trains