[quote=Veritas] I am not so sure that NIH or any of the other government sites are any more honest than the quack sites. Some in the corporate medical profession seem to profit from keeping people sick rather than curing them. [/quote]
On what non-anecdotal evidence do you base these statements? And I’m not talking “honesty”. I’m talking scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, you’re not alone in your broad-based judgements. Statements identical to yours are being repeated by millions of Americans, including some of our esteemed presidential candidates. And I will probably regret asking this, but what in the world does the “corporate medical profession” and your allegation that they are keeping people sick have to do with the NIH? What IS the “corporate medical profession”?
[quote=Veritas]No need for you to attack me or come up with your pathetic two conclusions. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind and I do not. [/quote]
You’re right. I do have an axe to grind. But not with you.
If you had read the statement carefully, and endeavored to comprehend it, you would have realized that I (1) stated that I didn’t understand WHY you had posted it, (2) that, in the absence of any information to that effect in your post, I was left to determine whether it was (a) you were profiting from it, or (b) you had had an altruistic motive in doing so. Since I did not elaborate on Possibility #1, and addressed only Possibility #2, it would appear that I was NOT of the opinion that you had posted the information in the pursuit of personal profit. And despite what njtosd assumed in another post, I am well aware of your lengthy history as a Pigg’s poster, and took that as further evidence of your just wanting to share what you believed to be important and scientifically-accurate health information.
I didn’t attack you. However, I did attack the source of your information, and I don’t regret doing so. I admit to having major issues with people, such as the “researcher” in your source website (and, I suspect, owner of the site), who disseminate false or distorted health-related information in an effort to sell a product, or advance an agenda. I am particularly angered when they claim impressive-sounding credentials, and partner that with a claim that they promote only “natural” remedies and cures.
Over the years, I have spent countless hours (i.e., thousands) counseling patients, and also family members and friends, who have heard about the latest “miracle” cure from a friend or a magazine article or a “health website” that was actually a marketing site. And contrary to what you and others on this thread may believe, I never dismiss anything out of hand that I haven’t checked out thoroughly.
I don’t research things to prove that they’re not true. I wish that I did since that would take next to no time at all: one can always find “evidence” to support their opinion. To support a position, you have to approach the subject with a completely open mind. So what that means is that I spend a tremendous amount of time trying to establish the validity of the information someone has given me. Since I initially decided to respond to your original post, I have done several lengthy literature searches (and that’s not the same as a Google search), and I’ve read a few dozen scientific papers regarding the role of Vitamin D in preventing both a wide variety of cancers, and in preventing serious illnesses. I’ve also done exhaustive research on the authors of these papers and articles, in addition to reading a large number of articles in a variety of publications, some geared to laypersons, other to the medical/scientific community. I did this for the initial post, and I did it again following the more recent ones.
Just to establish a point you raised. Despite your statement to “Keep drinking that NCI and NIH Kool Ade”, that, in no way describes how I approach these issues. Despite my trust in the competence of the NIH, NCI, and CDC, and in the validity of the information they post on their sites, I wouldn’t automatically take their word for anything. I trust the information they disseminate because it is *always* accompanied by the references to scientific research studies/publications that they have cited, and I read THAT material AND cross-reference it, before accepting, or rejecting, the particular agency’s opinions. Because I go to those lengths to establish validity, I feel comfortable telling those who have consulted me that they should use these agencies to gather their own information when necessary.
In case you don’t remember, YOU started this thread with this statement: “Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.” That would be the very same National Cancer Institute (NCI) I referred you to in my post. If you feel more comfortable doing so, you can subscribe to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Cell, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Environmental & Molecular Mutagenesis, Cell & Molecular Biology, and many other journals to establish that you are directly accessing information from the scientists and researchers conducting these studies, rather than placing your trust in agencies that you believe lack scientific integrity. Subscriptions to the journals can be quite expensive (several hundreds of dollars yearly for each one), but virtually all of the reputable peer-reviewed journals post their contents in PubMed, which contains over 20 million biomedical lit citations. But keep in mind that it’s run by the NIH and National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
[quote=Veritas]You probably think Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food is good for you because the government has approved of it, too.[/quote]
I know nothing about this subject, and honestly don’t have the time to delve into it right now. Since I don’t sense that you’re actually asking for a discussion of the pros and cons of Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food, I’ll simply make sure that I avoid it if I’m offered any.
However, if you have important information on its safety, or lack thereof, I wish you would share it. I mean that sincerely. I’m sorry that I didn’t adopt a “kinder, gentler” way of casting my doubt on the source of information in your original post, but I’m not always politically correct in these situations. I honestly was not attacking you, Veritas, and I apologize if it sounded that way.
