Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.
Perhaps this passage should be repeated: "My intention is that the thread focus is on the rights of parents to decide for their children. Of course medical issues may be discussed, if they seem necessary."
Anyway, the quote function of the TWeb editor does not include Tweb quotations, so I have to copy parts of Rogue06's posts http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post201708
to here.
Much of the ideology and methodological underpinnings of naturopathy are in conflict with the paradigm of evidence-based medicine. Their training adds up to a very small amount of that of primary care doctors.
For shame, rogue. "Much" as in the first sentence, which was underlined, presumably by rogue, could be "Little." But no, rogue evidently felt he had to reinforce the slant of the paragraph. The next sentence is also objectionable. While it might be true that many "naturopath doctors" are woefully undertrained as compared to other medical doctors, is it still not possible that many naturopath doctors are well trained in mainstream or conventional medicine, as Dr Stengler claims to be?What would rogue feel after reading this? "Many complaints have been made about the studies and trials conducted or paid for by Big Pharma companies. All too many of those studies and trials may be poorly designed, poorly conducted, and poorly reported; or they may be outright frauds. Moreover, many trials appear to have been not reported presumably because the sponsor did not like the results."
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Let me assume argendo that every parent is free to make health decisions for his or her offspring; we have a disease similar to measles and rubella, but is different; there is a vaccine that is 100% effective against the putative disease but has alleged bad side effects; we have almost, but not quite, herd immunity against the putative disease (hereinafter just "h.m.").
Now what inference can we draw? As the scenario above is, we need to make more assumptions or definitions. For a few things, when do we determine the world has achieved h.m.? What is exactly h.m.? How to determine the degree of h.m.?
Thinking about such questions, I've come to suspect h.m. is a vain concept.
Comment