Ontario to give naturopaths prescription rights

71 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Ontario to give naturopaths prescription rights
Unionist

On the same page, another commenter quotes a letter received from Andrea Horwath's office. It appears to be authentic:

Quote:
Thank you for your email sharing your views on Bill 179, RX privileges for Naturopaths. Ontario's New Democrats support prescribing authority for Naturopathic Doctors (NDs). There has unfortunately been misinformation circulating regarding this new prescribing authority as well as the training, practice, and beliefs of the regulated health profession of Naturopathy.

New Democrats have supported prescribing authority for Naturopaths as it is necessary to maintain NDs current access to natural or botanical substances used in the course of their practice. New Democrats support
an evidence-based, regulatory system that places the safety of Ontarians first. Although Naturopaths have been granted the ability to prescribe, the substances that will be available to them will go through a lengthy
regulatory process and grant access only to substances that NDs have the appropriate training to prescribe.

Granting Naturopaths prescribing rights is a necessary measure for the Ontarians who choose to visit these health care providers. While New
Democrats respect the choice and diversity of opinions that Ontarians have regarding the practice of Naturopathy, we are confident that this expanded right is in the best interest of Ontarians who choose to visit a Naturopathic Doctor.

Thank you again for taking the time to write me.

Sincerely,

Ezia Cervoni,
Leader's Correspondence Officer
On behalf of Andrea Horwath, MPP
Leader, Ontario's NDP

Surely that should allay any concerns?

 

Bubbles

Meanwhile our pharmaceuticals, that provide us with 'health', get diluted into 'insignificance' into our life-waters and cures us of our well being.

Man made applied science mostly amounts to shortciruiting nature. See the results all around us. What more evidence do we need.

 

remind remind's picture

Ha! wondering answered....

Doug

Unionist wrote:

On the same page, another commenter quotes a letter received from Andrea Horwath's office. It appears to be authentic:

 

Surely that should allay any concerns?

 

Not really, because it contradicts itself. An evidence-based regulatory approach probably wouldn't expand the role of naturopaths, it would reduce it because their methods aren't evidence-based.

Unionist

Good point - but it might depend on who decides the "evidence-based" part. Do you (or does anyone) know how those decisions will be made? One would presume they won't just be left in the hands of naturopaths?

From Andrea's letter, this is pertinent:

Quote:
Although Naturopaths have been granted the ability to prescribe, the substances that will be available to them will go through a lengthy regulatory process and grant access only to substances that NDs have the appropriate training to prescribe.

Once again, who will manage that "lengthy regulatory process"?

 

Sineed

I don't think it's happening; I had a look at bill 179, and it doesn't expand the scope of practice for naturopaths.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b179.pdf

It does give pharmacists the right to prescribe, and give injections....who wants to be the 1st to get a flu shot from me?

(Like unionist said, that letter from Andrea Horwath's office is confusing.  Whoever wrote that letter didn't seem to know much about health care legislation.)

Fidel

From [url=http://www.somecanadianskeptic.com/2009/07/its-not-tumor.html]Steve Thoms'[/url](Chief Editor) site:

 

Quote:
Canada is a fake democracy run by fag communists

And there are more comments, and one that questions whether we're living in a liberal democracy or not, because apparently it goes without saying or very much empirical proof that the voodoo known as liberal democracy actually works anywhere in the world. I'm skeptical of Stevie Thoms' site for Kanadian skepticism. He's attracted some real whackos on his for comments section.

Unionist

Get serious, Fidel. You're attacking Steve Thoms because of the loonies who oppose his articles? That's a tiny bit of a stretch, isn't it? And just because he doesn't delete offensive posts, why would you want to quote one here?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Get serious, Fidel. You're attacking Steve Thoms because of the loonies who oppose his articles? That's a tiny bit of a stretch, isn't it? And just because he doesn't delete offensive posts, why would you want to quote one here?

It's not much of a site if he allows whacko comments like that to remain nailed up like so much grafitti. The sad part is that these whackos likely make it a religious mecca to vote every four years.

And, the NDP is not at fault for the state of our health care in Ontario. There is nothing in the unconfirmed Ezia Cervoni email that says big pharma or the pill pushers are at risk of losing their monopoly with increasingly expensive prescription drugs. McGuilty is spending too many millions on consultants every day and giving away $2 billion in tax breaks to people who don't need them, and all the while our health care system in Ontario does without. That's the real scandal.

Lord Palmerston

And throwing money into quackery will only make the problem worse.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

And throwing money into quackery will only make the problem worse.

Do white powder pills and potions cure every kind of ailment?

Do we really need more pills flushed down toilets, and resulting in everything from birth control, libido enhancers, antibiotics, and pharmaceuticals finding their way into the water works and ecosystem?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

And, the NDP is not at fault for the state of our health care in Ontario.

Ok, I am now well and truly lost - must be my unfamiliarity with Ontario politics.

I assumed this was about a government bill (179) and it would appear that the NDP is supporting the bill. Am I right?

If so, who here is blaming the NDP for the state of our health care in Ontario?

I just want to make sure that if there's a good fight, there are at least two sides...

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

I just want to make sure that if there's a good fight, there are at least two sides...

It's still CCF-NDP's vision for healthcare in our Panama North versus the two old line parties and their private enterprise friends no matter what 'jedi school dropout' wants us to believe about his imaginary NDP assault on evidence based medicine. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think that that the term naturopaths covers a wide range of professionals from lifestyle coaches to snake oil salespeople.  I know people that have found helpful advise and products from a trip to a naturopath (and I know people whose existence is now ran by a quack).

The need for the ability to prescribe flows directly from the decision to enforce stricter regulation of natural health products.

Lord Palmerston

The therapies used be so-called Naturopathic Doctors include:

Quote:
Homeopathic Medicine is based on the principle of “like cures like” and uses minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the self-healing abilities of the body.

and

Quote:
Asian Medicine is based on balancing theflow of Chi (energy) through the meridian pathways and includes the use of acupuncture and Oriental herbs.

http://www.oand.org/uploads/File/PDF/Resources/Brochures/OANDWhat_Is_NM_...

This is quackery, pure and simple.

Polly B Polly B's picture

I agree with you on homeopathy, although I may yet be proven wrong. 

You seem very quick to dismiss anything that is not based on our particular scientificky version of doctoring.  How do you feel about medicine and healing as practised by cultures other than ours?  Is is all quackery as well?

 

Unionist

Polly B, medicine and healing are a matter of science. Tell me of one culture that doesn't use antibiotics to fight bacterial infection. Medical journals feature articles by people of all cultures practising in all countries. Parallel to science-based medicine, in every single country and culture I can imagine, there coexist non-scientific folk, herbal, and other forms of healing. Many many varieties of these are outright quackery (like homeopathy); some work on the placebo principle; some have discovered treatments which coincide with (or even prefigure) scientifically testable treatments. These parallel systems are often unique to a particular society or region. Only the science-based medicine is entirely universal in its scope - as, indeed, are physics and chemistry and mathematics and principle of engineering, etc.

I would reserve the term "quackery" for those who promote nonscientific systems as replacements for science-based medicine, or who make untested claims for their brand of medicine. This may very well apply to practitioners of "orthodox" medicine as well. But when it comes to Chi and all the rest - spare me.

 

Polly B Polly B's picture

Unionist, I agree with your whole post and off the top of my head I can't think of one culture that does not use antibiotics.  Did I suggest otherwise in my question to Lord P?

My question  - to LP - was whether he was as dismissive of other cultural healing as he was of say, "Asian Medicine".

 

Polly B Polly B's picture

Unionist wrote:

Parallel to science-based medicine, in every single country and culture I can imagine, there coexist non-scientific folk, herbal, and other forms of healing. Many many varieties of these are outright quackery (like homeopathy); some work on the placebo principle; some have discovered treatments which coincide with (or even prefigure) scientifically testable treatments. These parallel systems are often unique to a particular society or region. Only the science-based medicine is entirely universal in its scope - as, indeed, are physics and chemistry and mathematics and principle of engineering, etc.

 

Quoting it because you said it better than I could.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sineed wrote:

I don't think it's happening; I had a look at bill 179, and it doesn't expand the scope of practice for naturopaths.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b179.pdf

 

As the blog post linked in the OP notes, the draft bill has been amended in committee after hearing from lobbyists for the naturopaths. The following has been added into the bill:

Quote:
 

17. ( 0.1) Subsection 4 (1) of the [url=http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07n10_e... Act, 2007[/url] is amended by adding the following paragraph:

7. Prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling a drug designated in the regulations.

(0.2) Section 11 of the Act is amended by adding the following clause:

(g) designating the drugs that a member may prescribe, dispense, compound or sell for the purpose of paragraph 7 of subsection 4 (1), prescribing the purposes for which, or the circumstances in which, the designated drugs may be prescribed, dispensed, compounded or sold and prohibiting the prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling of drugs other than the ones designated.

[url=http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_business.do?B...

Lord Palmerston

Polly B wrote:
My question  - to LP - was whether he was as dismissive of other cultural healing as he was of say, "Asian Medicine".

What they refer to as "Asian Medicine" is actually so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine.  That is quackery, and frankly insulting to Asian doctors and scientists.

Polly B Polly B's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

What they refer to as "Asian Medicine" is actually so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine.  That is quackery, and frankly insulting to Asian doctors and scientists.

 

What is the difference?  (I have gone to google, I think I know what you mean but not sure).

Polly B Polly B's picture

Okay googled TCM.

 

I guess my question is more general.  Here's wiki's definition of traditional medicine

Quote:
Traditional medicine (also known as indigenous or folk medicine) comprises medical knowledge systems that developed over generations within various societies before the era of modern medicine. Practices known as traditional medicines include herbal, Ayurveda, Siddha medicine, Unani, ancient Iranian medicine, Islamic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, Muti, Ifá, and other medical knowledge and practices all over the globe.

 

Is it all quackery?

G. Muffin

Sineed wrote:
It does give pharmacists the right to prescribe, and give injections....who wants to be the 1st to get a flu shot from me?

I would not hesitate to get a flu shot from you Sineed (were I planning on getting a flu shot, that is).  Ditto from a nurse.  I actually think the solution to our health care crisis might be to take the reins somewhat away from the doctors.  It's ludicrous to suggest you need a medical degree to safely give an injection. 

Polly B Polly B's picture

Ditto, Sineed.  If I were to get the shot, I would just as soon a pharmacist or a nurse.  

Lord Palmerston
Polly B Polly B's picture

Does that mean you lump traditional healing in with these, or not?

Fidel

G. Pie wrote:
  It's ludicrous to suggest you need a medical degree to safely give an injection. 

Or birthing babies. Apparently physicians tend to opt for the C section method of delivery too often. Theyre in, theyre out, and tee times are preserved. Thank goodness Ontario was the first province in Canada to regulate and legislate midwifery in 1994 with our first NDP government. Doctors were considered little gods for a long time before that.

Sineed

Thanks!  (I'm hoping I'll be offered some sort of course before I'm jabbing random strangers with needles.)

Re traditional medicines: medical practitioners are now trained to respect a patient's desire to try traditional medicines as they would respect the cultures of their patients; however, "traditional" medicines are unregulated and often contain pharmaceuticals.  

I get Health Canada's advisories, warning, and recalls in my work in-box.  Here's a sample of products that were for sale in Canada.  This is just a tiny taste of all the products listed:

Quote:
Singapore's Health Sciences Authority has warned against the use of Zhong Hua Niu Bian because it has been found to contain sildenafil, tadalafil, glibenclamide and sibutramine.

Sildenafil and tadalafil are prescription drugs authorized for treatment of erectile dysfunction. Glibenclamide is a prescription drug used in the treatment of diabetes. Sibutramine is a prescription drug used for treating obesity.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_fpa-ape_2008/2008_...

Quote:
Information Update

2008-73

OTTAWA - Health Canada is reminding consumers who choose to use unapproved Ayurvedic medicinal products that some of these products may contain high levels of heavy metals. Consumption of excessive amounts of heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, and arsenic, pose serious health risks because they may accumulate in vital organs of the body. Children are most susceptible to the toxic effects of heavy metals.

In March 2008, a domestic case of heavy metal poisoning was published in the British Columbia Medical Journal, involving an adult male with symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea. The patient had been taking one tablet daily of the unauthorized Ayurvedic product Puspadhanva Rasa over a number of years to "increase vigour". Puspadhanva Rasa is manufactured by the Shri Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Pharmacy in India. The patient purchased this product in India and imported it into Canada for personal use. The product was found to contain extremely high levels of lead, mercury and arsenic.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2008/2008_73-eng.php

Quote:
Reason for Warning

The Health Sciences Authority of Singapore advised the public not to purchase or consume nine specific batches of these Chinese medicines and herbal teas, due to microbial (bacterial) and/or yeast and mould contamination.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_fpa-ape_2008/2008_...

Quote:
Warning

 

OTTAWA - Health Canada is warning consumers not to use 13 Chinese herbal products manufactured by the Hong Kong Chi Chun Tang Herbal Factory due to bacterial contamination that could lead to serious health risks.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2006/2006_08-eng.php

Polly B Polly B's picture

Thanks Sineed.  I am sure you get a lot of those.  But I am not so much asking about traditional medicine, as it's sold in a jar in Canada, as I am about traditional healing.  I have a fuzzy idea that these are two different entities altogether.

What about the many cultures that believe in a holistic method of healing?  I read a paper by the Native Womens Assocation of Canada, and the authors were concerned that they were losing their traditional ways.  They believed that to treat the body you had to treat the mind and the spriti as well, and that modern medicine was in danger of replacing this.

Quote:
Traditional healing treats your mind, body, and spirit. Thus, it is holistic. This is very
different from western medicine which focuses on parts of the body and separates the
body from the mind. Traditional healing aims to restore balance. Ceremony and the
power of faith and belief are important parts of traditional healing. At its best, traditional
healing is a way of living, a way of approaching life.
The ways of traditional healing are as diverse as Aboriginal cultures, but there are many
things in common. One is the belief that healing takes time and that it can be intense.
Another common belief is that the relationship between the healer and the person is
important. Aboriginal people also believe that ceremonies offer guidance and begin
healing or help it along. Medicines come from the natural environment or from our
Mother, the Earth. Healers are recognized by their communities and have learned not
by going to school, but from other healers and Elders.

 

I am asking if there is a place for that in modern society, or does it all get relegated to the quackery file.

 

(Edited because I finally figured out how to copy from a pdf)

Polly B Polly B's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

So "traditional medicine" in and of itself is quackery.  But this is a topic about naturopathic "doctors" who want to be viewed as legitimate medical practitioners.  And they certainly meet the definition of being quacks.

So it's the selling of the service, not the service itself that is quackery, right?  If Grandma rubs your feet with peppermint oil to treat a cold it's okay but if your naturopath recommends it it's not?

Lord Palmerston

Polly B wrote:

Does that mean you lump traditional healing in with these, or not?

[url=http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html]Quackery: How Should It Be Defined[/url]

Quote:
Folk medicine, even when known to be erroneous, is not generally considered quackery so long as it is not done for gain. Thus, self-treatment, family home treatment, neighborly medical advice, and the noncommercial activities of folk healers should not be labeled as quackery. However, folk medicine and quackery are closely connected because folk medicine often provides a basis for commercial exploitation. For example, herbs long gathered for personal use have been packaged and promoted by modern entrepreneurs, and practitioners who once served their neighbors voluntarily or for gratuities may market themselves outside their traditional communities.

All things considered, I find it most useful to define quackery as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. Promotion usually involves a profit motive. Unsubstantiated means either unproven or disproven. Implausible means that it either clashes with well-established facts or makes so little sense that it is not worth testing.

So "traditional medicine" in and of itself is not quackery.  But this is a topic about naturopathic "doctors" who want to be viewed as legitimate medical practitioners.  And they certainly meet the definition of being quacks.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Polly B wrote:

Ditto, Sineed.  If I were to get the shot, I would just as soon a pharmacist or a nurse.  

 

Maybe from a nurse trained in emergency procedures, because I'd want someone injecting me to be able to deal with any possible reactions (going into shock, cardiac arrest, etc) I might get from the shot.

Sineed

Treating the whole person is really the ideal, and if traditional healing practices facilitate that, they should be embraced as part of the healing process.  What I object to are practices that masquerade as "traditional" or "natural" or "wholistic," or whatever terminology the quackmeisters are using these days to separate the neo-hippies from their cash, or exploit desperate sick people, raising false hopes for a few bucks.

Like LP says, we're emphasizing what makes a noise like a duck because it's consistent with the thread topic.  I don't know much about traditional FN healing, but I have encountered a few FN healers in my workplace, and they seem to work in concert with modern medicine rather than trying to contradict it.  I might quibble with the Native Women's Association, though, because medical culture is much, much more open-minded and culturally sensitive these days than it ever has been (which is not to say that a lot of progress is still needed).

As I've mentioned before, modern medicine such as we have in Canada is not "Western;" many cultures have contributed to it through the centuries.  It's the common heritage of humanity, IMO, and we are privileged to enjoy such high quality health care in this country that we can afford to reject it, picking and choosing according to our preferences.  This is not the experience of most people in the world, who take whatever health care they can get.  Rich people in poor countries choose modern medicine, flying to the US or Canada or Europe for health care.  The poor people in those countries may go with traditional healing because that's all they have.  And then there are the leaders, Mao and more recently, Thabo Mbeki, who encouraged traditional healing practices because they didn't want to pay for modern medicine.

For me, being progressive means promoting the highest quality of health care for everybody in the world.  And being respectful of cultural practices is a part of that.  As is calling out the scamsters.

Polly B Polly B's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

 

Maybe from a nurse trained in emergency procedures, because I'd want someone injecting me to be able to deal with any possible reactions (going into shock, cardiac arrest, etc) I might get from the shot.

 

Not this shot, it's completely safe.....Tongue out

Sineed

Boom Boom wrote:

Polly B wrote:

Ditto, Sineed.  If I were to get the shot, I would just as soon a pharmacist or a nurse.  

 

Maybe from a nurse trained in emergency procedures, because I'd want someone injecting me to be able to deal with any possible reactions (going into shock, cardiac arrest, etc) I might get from the shot.

Fair enough.  That's why we keep you around for 15 minutes in case you forgot to tell us you're allergic to eggs or whatever, and we've got the adrenalin and antihistamine shots all right there - it's all part of the training.

Lord Palmerston

Polly B, I still don't see your point about insisting that I state whether or not I consider every single form of traditional or folk medicine quackery.

Polly B Polly B's picture

Sineed wrote:

Like LP says, we're emphasizing what makes a noise like a duck because it's consistent with the thread topic.

 

Ya, I know.  I just keep trying to take these threads in a different direction because, really, do we need another thread on scamsters and homeopaths and how awful we all think they are?  Part IXII?  I think we have a lot more middle ground, and we are getting mired in the extreme arguments on either side, and losing out on what could be great discussions about health care in general.

The "western" thing come from the paper I quoted, but I have been guilty of using it too.  What do we call it, our scientific practise of medicine?  Its not western, or modern, or allopath, or doctor based.....(I have tried all of those and been corrected lol). 

In any event, that paper was sent to me by a friend in BC because she felt that I was worrying too much about the body (diet, exercise etc) and not taking the time to nourish the mind and spirit.  She had a point I think, but I am still trying to figure out how to do just that. :)

Bubbles

Like industrial agriculture, industrial medicine has depended increasingly on specialist methodology,

mechanical technology and chemicals; thus its own point of reference has become more and more

its own technical prowess and less and less the health of creatures and habitats (Wendell Berry).

Sineed

Polly B wrote:

 I think we have a lot more middle ground, and we are getting mired in the extreme arguments on either side, and losing out on what could be great discussions about health care in general.

Ya.  Though this thread has been okay, actually.

What do we call our medicine?  I'm using "modern" medicine until something better comes to me.  The most correct term is "Evidence-based medicine," but that sounds so pompous and it isn't strictly speaking correct, since some doctors don't follow practices that are quite so evidence based.

I've been studying diabetes tonight.  One of the trials I was looking at tested a drug, metformin, against lifestyle interventions and "conventional" treatment for people at risk for diabetes ("conventional" treatment was telling people to lose weight, and giving them leaflets).  Results were, the lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) were far and away the most effective for preventing diabetes, BUT people couldn't stick with them.

There are lots of studies like this.  My point is, people need support of some sort to look after themselves physically and psychologically.  In north America, people take far too many psychoactive drugs and painkillers.  We're substituting for something we need and aren't getting.

N.R.KISSED

"What they refer to as "Asian Medicine" is actually so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine.  That is quackery, and frankly insulting to Asian doctors and scientists."

 

All those who do not subscribe to the great western rationalist project of modernity must be attacked and dismissed.

"Polly B, I still don't see your point about insisting that I state whether or not I consider every single form of traditional or folk medicine quackery."

maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

Unionist

N.R.KISSED wrote:

maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

There is no clash between cultures or countries or civilizations on this planet over rival medical systems, and the rejection of non-scientific systems has nothing to do with imperialism. Within each society and culture, as I noted above, there are parallel non-scientific systems that sometimes coexist with, and sometimes clash with, universally recognized science-based medicine. "Universally" doesn't mean every individual in the world - but it certainly does mean every country, every society, with no exceptions known to me.

 

N.R.KISSED

Unionist wrote:

N.R.KISSED wrote:

maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

There is no clash between cultures or countries or civilizations on this planet over rival medical systems, and the rejection of non-scientific systems has nothing to do with imperialism. Within each society and culture, as I noted above, there are parallel non-scientific systems that sometimes coexist with, and sometimes clash with, universally recognized science-based medicine. "Universally" doesn't mean every individual in the world - but it certainly does mean every country, every society, with no exceptions known to me.

 

 

You mean in the same way that Neo-liberalism is the universally excepted form of economic exchange?

Lord Palmerston

N.R.KISSED wrote:
maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

I don't need to deny it because you look foolish and desperate for making that suggestion.

Unionist

N.R.KISSED wrote:

You mean in the same way that Neo-liberalism is the universally excepted form of economic exchange?

No - in the same way that people use anti-biotics everywhere on this planet to save their lives when afflicted with bacterial infection. In the same way that you either build bridges and buildings by the engineering textbooks, or they fall down. But if you think that modern science is akin to neo-liberalism, then there must be some merit to neo-liberalism that has hitherto eluded me.

Anyway NRK, I was merely responding to the notion that different cultures have different medical systems. I consider that the same culture has different medical systems. Rejecting the unscientific ones is not a hallmark of imperialism. In fact, the imperialists (U.S., U.K. and others) perpetuate these multi-billion dollar chimerae.

 

Polly B Polly B's picture

Sineed wrote:

I've been studying diabetes tonight.  One of the trials I was looking at tested a drug, metformin, against lifestyle interventions and "conventional" treatment for people at risk for diabetes ("conventional" treatment was telling people to lose weight, and giving them leaflets).  Results were, the lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) were far and away the most effective for preventing diabetes, BUT people couldn't stick with them.

 

Ya, I found a lot of that when I was looking into diet and nutrition for RA.  We have so much disease that is a direct result of what we are putting in our mouths, and so little education about how bad it actually is.  I can see how radical diet and lifestyle changes would be hard to stick to, but surely they are better than dying from complications of diabetes? 

I think part of it is too that we believe that we can be cured by a pill.  When my BP was high, I was given diovan and it came down.  I honestly thought I was "cured".  It wasn't till I had my come-to-jesus moment with the RA that I realized all I had done for all that time was bury the symptoms.

N.R.KISSED

Lord Palmerston wrote:

N.R.KISSED wrote:
maybe because you are engaging in cultural imperialism which I am sure you will quickly deny.

I don't need to deny it because you look foolish and desperate for making that suggestion.

Oh no what a tragedy. WHat next will I be proclaimed irrational based on the judgement of the quackwatch failed psychiatrist and arbiter of all that is true and just. Long live the age of reason.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture
N.R.KISSED

Unionist wrote:

N.R.KISSED wrote:

You mean in the same way that Neo-liberalism is the universally excepted form of economic exchange?

No - in the same way that people use anti-biotics everywhere on this planet to save their lives when afflicted with bacterial infection. In the same way that you either build bridges and buildings by the engineering textbooks, or they fall down. But if you think that modern science is akin to neo-liberalism, then there must be some merit to neo-liberalism that has hitherto eluded me.

Anyway NRK, I was merely responding to the notion that different cultures have different medical systems. I consider that the same culture has different medical systems. Rejecting the unscientific ones is not a hallmark of imperialism. In fact, the imperialists (U.S., U.K. and others) perpetuate these multi-billion dollar chimerae.

 

Yes and Hydroelectric damns are built and Oil wells are dug as indigenous people are dispossed of their ancestral lands.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

This is disgusting N.R. KISSED, thanks for your education.

Pages