Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The meds are consistent, it's us humans that aren't.
That's just the way it is.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Your question about pneumonia can apply pharmaceuticals also. People may be treated for pneumonia using Cipro, for example, but maybe they could have recovered alone either way.
Keep in mind that antibiotic resistance is making more antibiotics obsolete. Garlic was one of the original antibiotics before people had a name for it. They just knew that garlic stopped outbreaks. Modern research has corroborated this.
Unfortunately, we have smarter bugs that can survive garlic.
One day far in the future, our great-grandchildren will be debating whether penicillin ever did kill germs or whether it was all placebo.
It is also very possible that our cancers are more sophisticated than they used to be. We really don't have any way of knowing. We can't go back in time to compare.
Some people will survive pneumonia without any treatment at all, but many did not. Not many infections are 100% fatal even if no treatment is used.
Garlic may have antibacterial properties, but what is the dose? The amount of the active ingredient will vary from one bulb of garlic to another. People ate garlic daily to ward off the plague during the Middle Ages, but people still succumbed to it by the thousands.
Antibiotics can actually be observed killing bacteria. When a urinary infection is suspected, for example, a few drops of urine are placed on a culture plate. Small discs containing antibiotics commonly used to treat urinary infections are also placed on the culture plate. As whatever bacteria that are in the urine grow in the culture, antibiotic from the discs will spread into the culture and, if the bacteria are sensitive to that antibiotic, there will be an area around the disc where no bacteria grow.
Cultures from other areas can be performed in a similar fashion.
Breast cancer, which has the advantage - for lack of a better word - of being easy to observe, was first described a few millennia ago. There is no real reason to suspect cancers behave differently now than they did in the past. We just have better ways to diagnose them. Those methods are now being used to look for cancer in ancient remains. Like here:
While it's true that many drug companies are documented as being evil money grubbers, I don't think that they are all trying to rip off or harm patients intentionally.
A drug has to go through a process of red tape and clinical trials that last years. It's tested on human guinea pigs who can actually earn a meager living from it. Sometimes these people die, have severe reactions or abnormal blood work. But usually they don't and the drug makes it through short term phase.
There is no way to test what the long term symptoms of a drug are without the use of more human testing, which is the medical system. Anyone who takes a relatively new drug for long term use is part of the test group.
Some people will survive pneumonia without any treatment at all, but many did not. Not many infections are 100% fatal even if no treatment is used.
Garlic may have antibacterial properties, but what is the dose? The amount of the active ingredient will vary from one bulb of garlic to another. People ate garlic daily to ward off the plague during the Middle Ages, but people still succumbed to it by the thousands.
Now we're starting to go in circles. I provided three links about garlic being shown in clinical studies to kill microbes. It's not guesswork. We know it kills germs.
People today still die from pneumonia, by the thousands. Modern treatments are not always enough. Does this mean Cipro is ineffective?
We don't know enough about that mummy's body chemistry to determine if he could have tolerated modern treatment. Cancer has always been among us. The question is whether it changes.
Why is there no reason to think our illnesses don't change? Epigenetics is real.
Could be all the testing today, promotes more cancers.
I don't understand. What testing??? How does breast cancer testing promote cancer? Are you implying that mammograms promote cancer? One low dose focused beam mammogram per year? It may be the only exposure to medical radiation any one woman receives in an entire year. That is negligible.
One reason society "sees" more breast cancer is an artifact of reporting. More and more are found early (so more patients are living with it, talking about it, getting treated for it before the desperate end stages), more accurately diagnosed and actively treated (again so more patients exist statistically), and found as an eventual cause of death. More death certificates actually state that the person died from cancer. That was not always true in the past. Cancer had a stigma so was not discussed. I'm sure the odds of developing various cancers have also grown, but its important to understand the role that recordkeeping plays.
Why is there no reason to think our illnesses don't change? Epigenetics is real.
Yes, we now realize viruses, bacteria, fungi, other microorganisms develop resistance to drugs. The ones that survive treatment with the standard weapons are that much harder to eradicate. One reason for combining cancer chemotherapy drugs instead of using only one. Lessening the odds that some cancer cells survive.
If any of the women in my family died from B.C. no one knew and they lived long long lives into 80-90's and no testings.
I choose to believe my OPC's will keep cancers away and many cancer research facilities are using these OPC's (pycnogenol and grape seed ex) in their research.
Also, believe daily small dosing of iodine is needed for all tissues in the body including breasts.
My mother or some old person I remember saying, if one doesn't die from something cancer will get you. Who knows.
Those machines crushing our breasts NEVER felt right to me and that was over 25 yrs ago. I found a doctor who did thermography testing but never did that test either. I'm just not going to live in fear.
But again, everyone has choices.
Last edited by jaminhealth; 08-03-2017 at 09:45 PM..
Now we're starting to go in circles. I provided three links about garlic being shown in clinical studies to kill microbes. It's not guesswork. We know it kills germs.
People today still die from pneumonia, by the thousands. Modern treatments are not always enough. Does this mean Cipro is ineffective?
We don't know enough about that mummy's body chemistry to determine if he could have tolerated modern treatment. Cancer has always been among us. The question is whether it changes.
Why is there no reason to think our illnesses don't change? Epigenetics is real.
There is a substance in garlic that can kill microbes. The tricky part is how much would it take to treat a specific infection in a specific body part. Take that urinary infection, for example. Does the active ingredient in garlic get into the urine? Will that ingredient reach a concentration that will kill bacteria in the urine? Are all bacteria susceptible to it or only some? If I go to the store and buy some garlic, how much do I need to take to treat my urinary infection?
If the pneumonia is bacterial and caused by an organism resistant to Cipro, Cipro will not work. When choosing an antibiotic for pneumonia, a doctor looks at what his local lab is seeing as the bacterial causes (from cultures) and what the resistance patterns are for those bacteria.
Note that treatment is usually started before culture results are available and may be altered depending on the response of the patient and the results of cultures.
By the way, Cipro is not even mentioned in this article.
What I said was I see no reason to suspect that "cancer" - which is more than one disease - has changed. There is no reason to suspect that epigenetic mechanisms were not in play in the past. Just because they are only now being characterized does not mean they are new, only that we did not know about them before.
I don't understand. What testing??? How does breast cancer testing promote cancer? Are you implying that mammograms promote cancer? One low dose focused beam mammogram per year? It may be the only exposure to medical radiation any one woman receives in an entire year. That is negligible.
One reason society "sees" more breast cancer is an artifact of reporting. More and more are found early (so more patients are living with it, talking about it, getting treated for it before the desperate end stages), more accurately diagnosed and actively treated (again so more patients exist statistically), and found as an eventual cause of death. More death certificates actually state that the person died from cancer. That was not always true in the past. Cancer had a stigma so was not discussed. I'm sure the odds of developing various cancers have also grown, but its important to understand the role that recordkeeping plays.
The US did not even begin keeping centralized cancer statistics until the early 1970s. Computerization played a big role in that, as did the advent of effective treatments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
