Re: Re: Are there formal studies being conducted for method?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/2004 3:03:24 AM Central Standard Time,

kenancy2000@... writes:

Are studies like what I mentioned difficult to organize, or are they

costly? It just seems to me that if Dr. or others are having

sucess with this (I believe the are) shouldn't there be some public

documentation taking place that can be looked at aside from her books?

Dear Ken. I do not know for sure if any studies are or are not being done,

but I've done a lot of reading on the whole process of using " alternatives, "

and I think I can give you an overall idea of why " formal, peer-reviewed

studies " are close to impossible to get done.

Most of the places that do such studies are Universities. They are supported

by grant money - federal or pharmaceutical. But even the federal grant money

is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies in many indirect ways. It is

to the point that companies such as Eli Lilly are setting up their own labs on

University campuses to legitimize their " studies " for approval of their drugs.

We can see how successful they are by looking at how, once drugs are on the

market, they are having to backpedal on their effectiveness, issue more

warnings, or pull the drugs from the market outright. The hormone replacement

study; the Vioxx fiasco; and the new antidepressant warnings are the three that

come immediately to mind.

Anyhow, the problem with the protocol is that, while it's a lot of

work, anybody can do it on their own. No need for costly drugs, and no need for

expensive oncologists, etc. Again, I emphasize, it's a lot of work, and some

of the stuff you " should " do is costly (i.e. removing all mercury fillings;

changing plumbing pipes in your house, etc.), but still, no specialists are

required.

The drug companies and the mainstream medical community do not like this kind

of competition - and have so demonstrated for about 100 years. They can -

and will - do whatever it takes to quash any information which would prove the

efficacy of a treatment that costs little, and/or competes with their drugs

and/or can't be patented, and/or requires little or no physician contact. This

is just not a model of health care they wish to succeed.

Two books which tell these stories very well are " The Politics of Healing, "

and " Racketeering in Medicine. " They go back and trace, literally from the

beginning of what we now call " modern medicine, " how treatment after treatment

was blocked because of the profit motive of drug companies, the AMA, etc.

They're a good read.

Another example of this is how long it took Dr. Atkins to finally get anybody

to actually study his diet program. Despite thousands of case studies from

his office, it was only in the last few years that the diet was actually

studied. In fact, if I recall, I think he had to pay for that. But even today,

you

will hear diehards insist that his diet is deadly. It probably is, to some.

But to others, it's a lifesaver.

You might also check out Ralph Moss' story, about his experience when

Memorial Sloan-Kettering was studying laetrile - how the test results were

falsified

to show it didn't work, when in fact it did. He lost his job over that.

Finally, I recall reading somewhere about a fresh, young research scientist,

who was hired by one of these esteemed " research " institutions, rarin' to go

and cure the world of all disease. The advice he got from his superiors in the

lab? " Get yourself a grant to study something, and then keep milking it for

as long as you can. " So, the goal of the institution wasn't to find cures for

anything, but to keep the grant money flowing.....

I'm guessing that studying the protocol is pretty low on anybody's list

of priorities, at least in the mainstream institutions that do that kind of

thing....it just doesn't fit their needs.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I know you asked Leo the question, so I hope you don't mind if I reply.

Funding for such studies come from companies who gain to benefit

financially from the positive results. Whereas, there is no real profit

in electrical devices that are often a one time purchase, you just won't

see large studies or interest in such.

If the powers that be truly wanted to improve the health of the world,

there would be extensive studies on work done by scientists like Dr.

, but the sad truth is that many find her and others to be a threat

to big pharma, and prefer to try to discredit her, rather than work with

her on her discoveries. It is a sad state of affairs, that is all to

obvious.

I thank God daily for the Doctors, Scientists, and Researchers who share

their expertise and knowledge with us, and those patients/clients/layman

who provide testimonials and results from alternative methods. In my

opinion, there are enough positive testimonials to Dr. 's credit

that I don't need a study to confirm that her devices and methods work,

even if not for everyone.

As you have recently heard on the news, Vitamin E kills, or so they

say. If you read the truth about the study, you would find that it was

based on many who were severely ill with life threatening diseases that

had nothing to do with Vitamin E therapy at all. So, you can't trust

studies and results unless you know what controls are in place, exactly

what is used, the health of all subjects, just what is the placebo they

used, etc. Do you think the general public even has a clue that this is

the case? I heard a news report quite some time ago, that there is

evidence that passing an electrical current through the body may result

in reducing tumors, and the newscaster laughed it off and said " Maybe I

should go home and stick my finger in a light socket. "

Studies are extremely costly. First, you need enough subjects, their

health must be evaluated, many tests must be taken for each subject at

each level of the study, the protocol must be designed, constant

monitoring of each case, data collecting, analysis of data collected,

people have to be paid to do the work, a facility has to be used and

paid for along with the costs of running it, and a fairly long time line

to conduct the study, just to name a few items on the check list..

I know the military is conducting studies on electro-medicine, but I

have no information on any of it, other than knowing someone who is

being studied, and he can't talk about it because he has no clue as to

what is going on other than he has vital signs and body fluids checked

before and after being hooked up.

BTW, I think Cruz was another of Pam's aliases. It appears that

Leo has finally done in the troll!! Yeah!

Diane

Ken Bagwell wrote:

>Leo,

>

>I'm not sure I understand you. I just asked if anyone is aware of

>some study being conducted or even just planned that will evidence

>the effectiveness/benefit of Dr. 's methods and devices. Wasn't

>there some talk of this a few years ago?

>

>Are studies like what I mentioned difficult to organize, or are they

>costly? It just seems to me that if Dr. or others are having

>sucess with this (I believe the are) shouldn't there be some public

>documentation taking place that can be looked at aside from her books?

>

>Thanks,

>-Ken Bagwell

>

>

>>

>>

>>>Anyone know if such studies are being conducted that the medical

>>>estaclishment would find acceptable as evidence yay or nay

>>>

>>>

>against

>

>

>>>Dr. Clar's method (or other similar methods)?

>>>

>>>I have such a hard time being convincing to some people because

>>>

>>>

>they

>

>

>>>want to see formal peer reviewed studies that prove effectiveness

>>>first.

>>>

>>>How come we don't have any? Or are any being done?

>>>

>>>-Ken Bagwell

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe that the case histories Dr. mentions in her book, and the

actual results that people using her methods are receiving are enough evidence

for me. The western method of doing scientific studies is a fairly recent

phenomenon in the long history of the world. As many of us have learned, the

much

longer used eastern methods (and attitudes towards healing) which rests in

beneficial results (acupuncture, herbology, etc.), rather than formally

constructed scientific studies (which are driven with predetermined results in

mind)

bear more productive outcomes.

I am studying Taoism and one of the precepts is that by observation, one can

learn much about how the body can best be served. My observation is that I am

already feeling better and I have tried many healing modalities, traditional

and alternative, over the past 7 years dealing with my health issues and that

I am feeling better via Dr. 's protocols is enough proof for me. I don't

have to buy into the scientific method of proof, especially since I have been

led down that road too many times to poor ends.

Take care,

[Guest guest]

Dear someone that doubts Dr. ,

Isn't it proof enough for me that I am feeling better?

By just ingesting some 'stupid' cloves and wormwood

and black walnut hulls? What other proof do we need?

I have been reading a lot lately and a lot of doctors

are close-connected with the drug industry. Would they

be crazy to give up the money they make(little and big

bonuses), for some research in 'condiments'? Really?

People, let's start using our minds.

Research was done extensively by Dr. herself. I

have read about her credentials, they are impressive

and conducive to the impression that this humble woman

really dedicated her life to helping other people. Did

anybody noticed that she 'waived' her copyright, so

anybody can read her work? I have never heard of

anything like this before.

Let's stop being fed garbage by MD's, at least I

stopped. It is strange how anybody would expect

studies being done on condiments. And it seems strange

that they work, but they do. They worked for me and

they worked for humanity in the course of history. To

me, that's medical trials, when people used wormwood

and cloves for thousands of years and it worked!!!

Good luck to everybody.

Sincerely, Elena.

--- regehr2001 <leoelfie@...> wrote:

>

> If you or " some people " know of any study in any

> peer reviewed journal

> that you or they can vouch for, let us all know.

> Leo

> --------------------------------------

>

> >

> > Anyone know if such studies are being conducted

> that the medical

> > estaclishment would find acceptable as evidence

> yay or nay against

> > Dr. Clar's method (or other similar methods)?

> >

> > I have such a hard time being convincing to some

> people because they

> > want to see formal peer reviewed studies that

> prove effectiveness

> > first.

> >

> > How come we don't have any? Or are any being done?

> >

> > -Ken Bagwell

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

Much information is available concerning this news announcement that

Vitamin E kills. I think EVERY web site and group that is aware of what

a farce this is has commentaries on it.

The few that I received via email newsletters came from

Doctoryourself.com, jonbarron.org, and hsibaltimore.com

Doctoryourself.com, a site by Dr. Saul, has the most detailed

information concerning the studies, where as the other two sites did

summaries.

I don't know who owns Reuters, but these drug companies own many things

that affect how information is distributed or suppressed. They are huge

advertisers, so they can threaten to withdraw their ads and a media

outlet, magazine, etc, can stand to lose millions. Sounds like quite a

conspiracy, doesn't it?

Diane

Ken Bagwell wrote:

>Diane,

>

>Can you tell me more about the vitamin E study?

>

>Also, I heard that Reuters, who ran the story, is owned and run by

>GlaxoKline.

>

>Scary.

>

>-Ken Bagwell

>

>

>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Anyone know if such studies are being conducted that the medical

>>>>>estaclishment would find acceptable as evidence yay or nay

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>against

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>>Dr. Clar's method (or other similar methods)?

>>>>>

>>>>>I have such a hard time being convincing to some people because

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>they

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>>want to see formal peer reviewed studies that prove

>>>>>

>>>>>

>effectiveness

>

>

>>>>>first.

>>>>>

>>>>>How come we don't have any? Or are any being done?

>>>>>

>>>>>-Ken Bagwell

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>