A Note To ALL My Critics!

A Note to ALL my Critics:

Traditional research science is still good, but other ways of knowing should be equally valued!  Why?  Because science is actually the product of many of the other ways of knowing that reserach scientists seem to think below their objective measure.

The truth is, there is no way of truly knowing what objectivity
is because we all have our subjective way of experiencing and
interpreting the world.  Therefore ALL research is subjective!

This line of thinking is what led Rene Descarte to doubt everything. But, the only thing he knew he could not doubt was that he was doubting. Hence, his famous pronouncement, “I think, therefor I am.”  A better translation would’ve been, I doubt, therefore I know I am because I know it is me that is doubting.

Check out the ollowing books concerning the subjective nature of ALL scientific reserach!!!!!!!!!!!!

1) http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/critical-thinking-about-psychology-brent-d-slife/1100902744?ean=9781591471875

2) http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm

3) http://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Outline-Anarchistic-Knowledge/dp/0860916464

19 thoughts on “A Note To ALL My Critics!”

  1. Claire 06, it is obvious you know nothing of the fantastic results that Robert Young is achieving every day with his protocol. You have obviously not studied his work. You have obviously drank the kool aid.

    Like

  2. Claire06, I recognize you by the name of sweetclaire06 from youtube and attacking anything alternative to allopathic or pharmaceutical drugs. You seem like the typical con artist charlatan that tries to justify the fraud in your drug industry. I have looked through your comments on youtube and nothing you wrote made any sense. You ignore the thousands of deaths worldwide because of drugs and the 65000 lawsuits within 6 years against the drug companies for fraud. Dr.Young promotes health and wellness and he only got arrested because he was thought to be practicing allopathic medicine. However that was not so since he has medical practitioners and nurses working with him offering intravenous therapies. You have no facts and you need to stop hiding behind your fake profile both on facebook and youtube you criminal.

    Like

  3. Everything was a lie here in this blog that you posted claire06. Dr.Young has helped thousands worldwide compared to the charlatans pushing a bag of tablets to every so called patient/victim they encountered. The same drugs had adverse effects and deaths. Clearly you need to look at the lawsuits. There was never proof that Dr.Young or any other wellness practitioner caused any problems. The chemotherapy and other dangerous medical quack procedures caused more deaths and harm in history. He recommends healthier alternatives and California recognizes that as part of a holistic or naturopathic approach. He never claimed to be a medical practitioner. You can quote whatever opinions you want about his theories but your medical con theories cost hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths worldwide. Avandia,cimzia,accutane,gardasil (deadly vaccine scam), yaz, yazmin, statins, ritalin, prozac etc. You seem biased and not objective. It's called the marketing community and not the “scientific community”. Only medical quacks trying to promote drugs. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Like

  4. People like you claire06 should be arrested for promoting a drug like VIOXX that has killed 55000 poor patients that only wanted to relieve pain. However you hide behind the name science. Everyone has done a science degree here but you and the other drug quacks should be called marketing wizards.

    Like

  5. First of all you are spreading misleading information again you quack. Young never practiced allopathic medicine. If you read the article and watched the news you would see the both lawyers after court saying that he was ACCUSED since intravenous therapies was induced. This was not so since he has medical practitioners working as part of his staff using IV alongside natural therapies. It's called integrative healthcare. California law states that alternative medicine is legal. He was attacked and has a history of legal attacks because its called a conspiracy. Many alternative practitioners were attacked also. Look at the chiropractors in the 80's. The judge ruled the AMA was a conspiracy group and they lost for trying to attack another profession. All you medical sales charlatans do is to promote dangerous drugs and attack anyone who uses alternatives to it. I was conned by a medical person just like you and many others. You have no proof that any green shake Young promotes ( along with other health practitioners has done any harm ) however I can name dozens of quack protocols and drugs you con artists like to promote and protect because of greed and money. I see recently you have a new youtube fake account name. Claire G. another one of your tactics ? You and the marketing community are fraudulent and keep your opinions to yourself. Medical qualifications ? I have a science and engineering background for your information. Please don't talk about medical qualifications because that would make you biased. You obviously would promote anything allopathic and quacky since you work in the industry. You should do some researching like : Pharmaceutical lawsuits or Pharmaceutical deaths for starters. You can attack and defame anyone that has another opinion on health all you want and try to hide behind the name “science” but we all know it's marketing you all are interested in. That's why even though Gardasil and Vioxx has caused many to be injured and others dead, you will ignore that and it makes you a criminal. Keep promoting mammograms although it's known to cause cancer. I know you belong to the fringe group called quackwatch and scienceblogs ( aka David Gorksi and Stephen Barrett and others ) who by the way are known to edit wikipedia accounts ( which was shown on the lawsuits ) and the infamous and quack practitioner of allopathy Barrett is known to have lost over 43 lawsuits for defamation of character. Presently he is being sued by Doctor's Data. You should try to bad talk Conrad Murray who is a known felon and the court has proved that he is a quack and KILLED Michael Jackson in his attempt to con him and for money. You people make me sick.

    Like

  6. LOL Psychiatry is a pseudoscience and anyone who practices it is a con artist and a quack. The dangerous medication the charlatans sell is destroying societies worldwide. Pure junk, you pharma quacks like to attack anyone that promotes nutrition and wellness. Dr. Young is a nutritional expert helping thousands worldwide ( including myself ). You however are a huckster and have never helped nor contributed to anything good. You are just known to be a biased opinionated fake person hiding behind a youtube account and your friends associated with quackwatch and others who lost countless lawsuits for fraud and slander. You criminal

    Like

  7. Again scam artist, there are over 106000 deaths yearly from pharmaceutical drugs. Research pharmaceutical dangers. There are over 65000 lawsuits within 6 years against drug companies for fraudulent clinical trials and adverse reactions from drugs. All you people are doing is selling dangerous quack tablets that suppressing symptoms for the rest of poor patients lives. Many medical practitioners are always being sued on a monthly basis for misdiagnosis, malpractice and fraud. The only thing that is worth going to the hospital is for a serious emergency but nothing else. It's all a big scam. Dr.Young AGAIN ACCUSED of practicing medicine (accused of doing intravenous treatments) but that was not so. He has medical staff working with him to do anything intravenous. He recommends a holistic approach in health. There are thousands of papers in the journal of nutrition, journal of complementary medicine, ayurvedic, chinese medicine, naturopathic, osteopathic, chiropractic etc that has evidence that nutrition,supplementation,natural based therapies work and deals with the underlying cause of problems in today's world. You can be biased all you want but you continue to ignore the dangers of steroids,growth hormones etc in foods,prescription quack drugs (just to control/maintain the problem) that poisons people worldwide everyday. The quack medical procedures and even testing eg. Mammograms are known to cause cancer. The chemotherapy and radiation kill the patient more than the actual cancer. It's all a SHAM. Young was another target along with many others who created a conspiracy against anyone not using allopathy. Again and I will say this once more, read the article or look at the video which I have seen, listen to the lawyers and the both of them said practicing alternative medicine in California is legal but he was only ACCUSED of practicing medicine (allopathy) without a license which was not true. The patients who went to him were poisoned with chemotherapy and THEY themselves did not want anymore drug treatments since it did not work and they were almost dead. The patients themselves signed forms and gave permission to try a healthier lifestyle. Nothing is wrong with that since the drugs kill people everyday. Pharma charlatans and criminals just like yourself recommend dangerous drugs that are KNOWN to cause severe side effects and death. I was helped by an alternative practitioner and many others I know. He helps thousands of people worldwide and they themselves give him permission to provide alternative healthier options since they were dying from the allopathic treatments. Anyone can be accused of doing something they didn't. You should start mentioning GSK 3 billion dollar lawsuit against the company for fraud instead. Or Conrad Murray for killing Michael Jackson. However you are a known pharma peddler running around spreading lies and misleading information around youtube on anything alternative. Typical charlatan and propaganda saleswoman.

    Like

  8. Claire06 goes by many names on youtube and fake profiles on facebook. She and a few others try to attack anyone helping people with alternative and holistic nutritional approaches compared to the quack dangers of pharmaceutical drugs that are known to sham people out of money by buying tablets to control or suppress the problem. It's really a money making scheme and you end up dying or seriously affected by adverse effects of the salesperson's drugs. Please be aware of misleading lies like person's like Claire06, Stephen Barrett aka quackwatch, David Gorksi aka scienceblogs, wikipedia articles on alternative health which are edited by pharmaceutical agents and they write their OWN biographies, many have fraud charges against them. Please research Pharmaceutical dangers and Pharmaceutical deaths. People like Claire06 promotes pseudosciences like psychiatry ( a known fraud and quack profession that schemes money on poor people by selling worthless and dangerous drugs like paxil, prozac, ritalin, zyprexa etc. Please check the dangers of all these drugs and note what people like Claire06 are doing by prescribing them. They are charlatans by profession.

    Like

  9. You are right, Ricardo. If you examine, for example, the strong criticism by the medical industry against the latest study that was not favorable to mammography you see that their accusations are specious, false, and shrouded in politics: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/critique-latest-anti-mammogram-study-scientific-or-political
    But many people don't want to see the truth, for various reasons, even if you put it right in front of them. Hence, not many people possess common sense ..

    Like

  10. Mammography is invasive radiation. Hundreds of studies show this to cause breast cancer. The latest study showed that it was worthless in even detecting cancer in the first place. Medical thermography is the safest and most effective way in detecting breast cancer. Claire06 is a misleading pharmaceutical salesperson !

    Like

  11. Presently there are fraudulent studies “marketing by the drug industry” and promoters of drugs and dangerous quack screenings are currently being investigated as schemes. GSK and Merck were two companies that over 3 billion dollars were payed for fraud in studies.

    Like

  12. International Journal of Health Services, 31(3):605-615, 2001.

    Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and overdue.

    Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U. S. media and the cancer establishment- the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)- mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected. Furthermore, screening should be recognized as damage control, rather than misleadingly as “secondary prevention.”

    Like

  13. DANGERS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY
    Mammography poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide still remain uninformed.

    Radiation Risks
    Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1- 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2). Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50 (4); risks are even greater for “baseline” screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States (6).

    Cancer Risks from Breast Compression
    As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle “cancerous breasts with care- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells” and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8).

    Delays in Diagnostic Mammography
    As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to the ACS's aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded and overwhelmed. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined (9).

    Like

  14. UNRELIABILITY OF MAMMOGRAPHY
    Falsely Negative Mammograms
    Missed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women owing to the dense and highly glandular structure of their breasts and increased proliferation late in their menstrual cycle (10, 11). Missed cancers are also common in post-menopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, as about 20 percent develop breast densities that make their mammograms as difficult to read as those of premenopausal women (12).

    Interval Cancers
    About one-third of all cancers- and more still of premenopausal cancers, which are aggressive, even to the extent of doubling in size in one month, and more likely to metastasize- are diagnosed in the interval between successive annual mammograms (2, 13). Premenopausal women, particularly, can thus be lulled into a false sense of security by a supposedly negative result on an annual mammogram and fail to seek medical advice.

    Falsely Positive Mammogram
    Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, resulting in needless anxiety, more mammograms, and unnecessary biopsies (14, 15). For women with multiple high-risk factors, including a strong family history, prolonged use of the contraceptive pill, early menarche, and nulliparity- just those groups that are most strongly urged to have annual mammograms- the cumulative risk of false positives increases to “as high as 100 percent” over a decade's screening (16).

    Overdiagnosis
    Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment are among the major risks of mammography. The widespread and virtually unchallenged acceptance of screening has resulted in a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a pre-invasive cancer, with a current estimated incidence of about 40,000 annually. DCIS is usually recognized as micro-calcifications and generally treated by lumpectomy plus radiation or even mastectomy and chemotherapy (17). However, some 80 percent of all DCIS never become invasive even if left untreated (18). Furthermore, the breast cancer mortality from DCIS is the same- about 1 percent- both for women diagnosed and treated early and for those diagnosed later following the development of invasive cancer (17). That early detection of DCIS does not reduce mortality is further confirmed by the 13-year follow-up results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study (19). Nevertheless, as recently stressed, “the public is much less informed about over-diagnosis than false positive results. In a recent nationwide survey of women, 99 percent of respondents were aware of the possibility of false positive results from mammography, but only 6 percent were aware of either DCIS by name or the fact that mammography could detect a form of 'cancer' that often doesn't progress” (20).

    Quality Control
    In 1992 Congress passed the National Mammography Standards Quality Assurance Act requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that screening centers review their results and performance: collect data on biopsy outcomes and match them with the original radiologist's interpretation of the films (21). However, the centers do not release these data because the Act does not require them to do so. It is essential that this information now be made fully public so that concerns about the reliability of mammography can be further evaluated. Activist breast cancer groups would most likely strongly support, if not help to initiate, such overdue action by the FDA.

    Like

  15. FAILURE TO REDUCE BREAST CANCER MORTALITY
    Despite the long-standing claims, the evidence that routine mammography screening allows early detection and treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortality, is at best highly questionable. In fact, “the overwhelming majority of breast cancers are unaffected by early detection, either because they are aggressive or slow growing” (21). There is supportive evidence that mammograms are a serious danger to women worldwide.

    Like

  16. Radiation Risks of Mammography

    Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1– 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial— and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)— the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2). Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50 (4); risks are even greater for “baseline” screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States (6).

    Cancer Risks from Breast Compression
    As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle “cancerous breasts with care— for fear of accidentally disseminating cells” and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8).

    Delays in Diagnostic Mammography
    As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to the ACS's aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded and overwhelmed. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined (9).

    REFERENCES

    1. Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995.

    2. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.

    3. Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49– 52.

    4. National Academy of Sciences– National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D. C., 1972.

    5. Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86( 21): 1571– 1572, 1994.

    6. Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992.

    7. Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338– 346.

    8. Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992.

    9. Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on. Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s