Let the light pierce through the darkness Close all old accounts, turn a new leaf Re-learn that old lesson of friendship Kill nor be killed, settle for lessening Amidst us of this fossilized hatred
Home Acne Treatments
Home Acne Treatment Advice and info
Perhaps that time has not come yet when our, Gods would listen to the beats in our hearts, peace and happiness spread their glow, perhaps we would have to force Mother Time?.
M.D. Talks About Homeopathy, The Natural Way # 3
Be My Friend - http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth
The Natural Way #3
Adventures in Complimentary & Alternative Medicine
An M.D. Talk About Homeopathy
Hosted by Radhia Gleis is certified in Clinical Nutrition, C.C.N. and Certified BioNutritional Analyst.
In this episode Radhia interviews Dr. Ron Manazanero, M.D.. Although Dr. Manazanero is a medical doctor, he also practices homeopathy. In this video he discusses the homeopathy, some of the history of homeopathy, and his personal experience with the practice.
Dr. Manzanero serves as Medical Director of AIM MD P.A. and has been a physician for over 20 years. He graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, then completed his residency in Family Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center and an internship at Texas Tech University Health Science Center. He has practiced in Austin since 1990.
Visit Dr. Manzaneros website at
www.aimmd.com
Natural Way #1
Chelation, Heart Disease, Heavy Metals, Detoxification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2CDZYkFRG8
Natural Way #2
Alternatives for ADHD, Dyslexia, Learning Problems, Natural
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaXF9jTsGFk
Wake Up America Series
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A94CF47823ECC06E
Visit Radhia’s Website at
http://www.advancedhealthinstitute.com/
http://www.aimmd.com/
Music by John Richter
http://www.injoysolutions.com
This video was produced by Psychetruth
http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth
http://www.youtube.com/psychetruth
Psychetruth is empowered by TubeMogul
http://www.tubemogul.com
Icon Photo By Snap®
http://www.flickr.com/people/snapr/
© Copyright 2009 AHI Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Duration : 0:13:38
Great video, five …
Great video, five stars. Manzanero gives some of the best information on the subject to date. Thanks for making this video.
Nice lab coat… …
Nice lab coat… You know if someone wears a white lab coat, to an interview they are, in fact, “an actual medical doctor”.
den151: A man of …
den151: A man of your sophistication and senior status still playing the schoolyard “I’m really scared” card? If you treat your work the same way you treat your black and white misquotes, I’m not sure who should be more afraid — you or your employer.
den151, I thought …
den151, I thought you’d bowed out. You are absolutely abysmal at inference. I’ve already explained “unbiased” and I stand unashamedly by it. You’ve got a hard on to twist “honest evaluation” into something it’s not. I was speaking specifically of my approach to unbiased data. Read it: “I’d enjoy links…for honest evaluation. I didn’t say “of” I said “for.” You’ve got a little rust in your mainspring, mate. Please focus more on your misquotes and less on your bollocks inferences.
1011010,
Your …
1011010,
Your words “. . .I will begin to insult your mental acuity.” Good luck! With 8 years higher education and 22 years as a financial analyst I’m really scared!
1011010,
6.You now …
1011010,
6.You now say: “It is absolutely legit to expect a success (thank you) of this kind. . . ”
Your original stmt: “If by ‘know’ you mean that I read it at a pro-h. site, yes. . .I’d enjoy links to UNBIASED scientific reviews of. . .for HONEST evaluation.”
You clearly implied that any info from a pro-h. source is biased and dishonest. I NEVER stated and do NOT believe that reports from other sources are not “legit”. You are saving face here. Pls take responsibility for your words.
5) I’ll wait.
6) I …
5) I’ll wait.
6) I don’t care about what you perceive as offensive. It is absolutely legit to expect a success of this kind to be heralded and examined by resources beyond the alt med community. That you get offended by my expectation of this, suggests that you aren’t very open-minded to actual science.
7) Then I get the closing argument: den151redbank posted an erroneous conclusion as black and white evidence. The Homeopathy debate continues for the generations.
5. The Cuban lepto. …
5. The Cuban lepto. work was a PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT involving 2 million Cubans - not a clinical trial. The results have only been in for a month so give large orgs a chance to prepare reports.
6. “I have had very little success finding Cuban lepto data anywhere other than h. sites. . .it is not irrational to presume bias.” Again, what you are saying is irrational, absurd and offensive.
7. I have already wasted too much time here and won’t be continuing this conversation.
den151: I forgot: ” …
den151: I forgot: “You suggested that all info from pro-h. sources is biased and dishonest.”
re: “Biased” is literally correct b/c so far I haven’t found any data on the Lepto success that comes from, say, the WHO. But you made up “dishonest,” probably from yet another flawed inference. “Honest evaluation” refers to how I intended to parse sound scientific data with integrity. Please stop taking liberties with my words or I will begin to insult your mental acuity.
1. Look again - it …
1. Look again - it has probably shifted with updating.
2. I stated that I believe that there is enough pro-h. evidence TO SUIT ME and that I DO NOT SEE THE NEED to debate the issue any further with anyone. If you believe my stating that is bullying, then I can only say you do not respect other people’s rights or boundaries.
4. If you want dialogue look for other people
who also want dialogue.
den151: I’m looking …
den151: I’m looking at all 141 comments in this channel and I don’t see “You can accept it or reject it”. Moot point because I think you are arguing out of context anyway. I do, however, recall you yelling that the “debate is OVER”. That’s a tactic my father would have used, and yes, I consider that a form of bullying because it suppresses honest dialogue.
Den151:
“However, …
Den151:
“However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
den151, I’m sure …
den151, I’m sure you’ve noticed this is a 180 degree turn from “Absolutely without doubt you will find full reports from WHO and the CDC.”
If this is your version of a concession, I gratefully accept it.
den151, If you …
den151, If you don’t like to be offended, treat people nicely. I haven’t seen very many pro H websites that announce their failures. Since H is counter-intuitive and not thoroughly understood by science, I would no sooner ask a homeopath if homeopathy works than I would go to a psychic and ask him if psychics are legit. Since I have had very little success finding Cuban lepto data anywhere other than H sites, without peer review, it is not irrational to presume bias and to want proper coverage.
I have no idea what …
I have no idea what you are talking about. The conclusion that h. provides 2.45 times more clinical benefit than placebo is all over the internet.
den151: I conceded …
den151: I conceded this point when JimHewittWhite brought it up. You still have not addressed why the conclusion in the report you cited does not match the actual conclusion of that case. There are a few possibilities: 1) Lancet’s original conclusion was pro-H, then later revised to read as anti-H. 2) you innocently copied/pasted the quote from a source that munged the bogus conclusion. 3) the conclusion was deliberately falsified by someone. 4) Huge mistake, big typo by you.
1011010,
My words …
1011010,
My words one day ago: “You can accept it or reject it (the evidence) as you like.” Your words: “You’re bullying me to accept your viewpoint. . .” How is that? What you believe is still of no concern to me.
Your words: “You’ve called me a lot of names. . .” . You suggested that all info from pro-h. sources is biased and dishonest. I stated that this is irrational and absurd. I do believe that such global statements ARE irrational and absurd. They are also offensive to most.
I do not know …
I do not know whether or not WHO and CDC have reports available for public view at this moment. It is my expectation that they will at some point in the future.
trial’, the …
trial’, the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.”
Your words of one day ago: “If by ‘know’ you mean that I read it at a pro-h. site, yes. . . I’d enjoy links to UNBIASED scientific reviews of Cuban lepto achievements for HONEST evaluation.” Based on these words it is impossible not to believe that you consider any info coming from any pro-h. source to be false. That is offensive.
1011010,
2 studies …
1011010,
2 studies, one in Homeopathy and 1 in Journal of Clinical Epid., went on record to state the Lancet 2005 review was enormously flawed and downright inaccurate. G. Lewith, Prof. Health Res., Southampton U., GB, stated to press “The review gave no indication of which trials were analyzed nor of the various vital umptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that h. works for some conditions but not others or change the definition of a ‘larger
JHW: Actually my …
I’ve seen the findings you’ve presented and that’s an excellent argument. I haven’t researched any dispute on the 1997 study yet. My original contention was that the other gentleman had misquoted the 97-99 conclusion and was ignoring more current research from the same approved source. In this case more current may not mean more correct.
JHW: Actually my argument was that the conclusions drawn in 1997/99 and 2005 were congruent according to the resource at NIH.
@101
“Your quote …
@101
“Your quote contradicted conclusion. 2005 Lancet on placebo (Aijing Shang) offers similar summary: “…weak evidence for a specific effect of H remedies”"
The conclusions of the Lancet differed in 1997 and 2005, you’re right. However, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology later found that the Lancet’s 2005 study had been seriously flawed.
@101
“thank you …
@101
“thank you for the concession. I’m confused why you’d want me to engage on the cholera/homeopathy thread”
Well. Here was an instance (1854 I think) where homeopathy saved many many lives of people who had fatal diseases.
If it could do it then, perhaps it has the potential to do it now?
That was my point.
1) Was Lancet …
1) Was Lancet misquoted or not? If you oppose summaries, pls don’t use them as B&W evidence. It appears that you quoted Lancet summary verbatim (NIH 9310601) until explicit conclusion was drawn. Your quote contradicted conclusion. 2005 Lancet on placebo (Aijing Shang) offers similar summary: “…weak evidence for a specific effect of H remedies”
2) Red herring.
3) Unnecessary to eval all H evidence. I’ve only addressed one issue: Your Lancet cite, which is contradictory to findings & misquoted.
If you REALLY do …
If you REALLY do want an explanation of the discrepancy between what I quoted and what you quoted about these 89 clinical trials, here it is:
1. You did NOT read everything reported
2. You choose to “see” only what you want to
“see”
3. You choose not to acknowledge any of the large volume of positive lab and clinical trial material evidencing FOR H. That you do not see or acknowledge this material does not mean it does not exist!