Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Research for Beginners › Vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study - Page 3

post #41 of 71
5/23/12 at 9:25am

i didn't say doctors should be unbiased towards alternative medicine, i think they should remain unbiased towards treating individuals who choose 'unproven' methods such as nutrition for better health.  if they want to have a better sample of individuals, they need to serve them.  I do not seek 'alternative' advice from my Dr., never thought to, but the only alternative method I use to keep my family healthy and whole is good wholesome nutrition.  If I needed more intensive healing therapy, then I'd seek it.  So far, a nutrient rich diet has proven a very effective deterrent to disease.

 

Dr's are in a service.  Medicine is not God, religion, or even the Truth.  medicine and science have made many mistakes over the centuries, and it is not the supreme right.  so those who practice it cannot worship it.  they cannot deny that there might be something other than it.  when scientists and dr's believe that they are the only greater good, the only truth, medicine can hit it's darkest times.  the manhattan project is a good example.  medicine is in the service industry of keeping people healthy, and like other service industries, should not dictate to each person what they must choose, but must allow choice.

 

and those who do think science to be the only Truth, the inerrant right, should realize that they are ascribing to a faith-system.  they should take the same approach to their evangelism that they take to those who preach any religious doctrine.  they believe in a truth, but they cannot force in on others.  if it is true, then it will win out.  but one is never converted by dogmatic lectures or an absolutist stance, but by seeing the practical truth as it plays out.  

Sponsored Links
post #42 of 71
5/23/12 at 9:31am
Thread Starter 
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I do feel for doctors who are worried they might be held liable, though.
post #43 of 71
6/6/12 at 5:01am

Thanks for posting the OP , Rrrrachel , great stuff thumb.gif

BTW , our wonderful pediatrician , that was already my ped , when I was growing up as well as my kids , when we were living in Germany , said to me once , that his problem is , if he does something and it doesn´t go well , he gets blamed for it and if he doesn´t do something , and it doesn´t go well , he gets blamed , so he sometimes feels caught between a rock and a hard place !

Can´t say , I really blame him ! 

post #44 of 71
6/6/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassiani View Post

i didn't say doctors should be unbiased towards alternative medicine, i think they should remain unbiased towards treating individuals who choose 'unproven' methods such as nutrition for better health.  if they want to have a better sample of individuals, they need to serve them.  I do not seek 'alternative' advice from my Dr., never thought to, but the only alternative method I use to keep my family healthy and whole is good wholesome nutrition.  If I needed more intensive healing therapy, then I'd seek it.  So far, a nutrient rich diet has proven a very effective deterrent to disease.

 

Dr's are in a service.  Medicine is not God, religion, or even the Truth.  medicine and science have made many mistakes over the centuries, and it is not the supreme right.  so those who practice it cannot worship it.  they cannot deny that there might be something other than it.  when scientists and dr's believe that they are the only greater good, the only truth, medicine can hit it's darkest times.  the manhattan project is a good example.  medicine is in the service industry of keeping people healthy, and like other service industries, should not dictate to each person what they must choose, but must allow choice.

 

and those who do think science to be the only Truth, the inerrant right, should realize that they are ascribing to a faith-system.  they should take the same approach to their evangelism that they take to those who preach any religious doctrine.  they believe in a truth, but they cannot force in on others.  if it is true, then it will win out.  but one is never converted by dogmatic lectures or an absolutist stance, but by seeing the practical truth as it plays out.  

 

But nutrition is proven to help people achieve better health. There are always differences in opinion on what kinds of nutrition helps - but Dr's seem to agree that having a nutritionally balanced diet is good for people. I have always been asked about my childs health and nutrition at Dr's appointments - and now that he's verbal they ask him what fruits and veggies he likes, does he eat alot of them, what are his favorite foods, etc. Nutrition has always been an important part of living a healthy life, I don't think its alternative.

post #45 of 71
6/6/12 at 11:40am

Super-Single-Mama, I completely agree with you.


But for some reason, some doctors seem to have a different perspective.

 

My celiac friends and colleagues often report being lectured by their doctors for trying a gluten-free diet--even when their gluten-free diet is healthy (no refined flours, sugary snacks, etc) and balanced (lots of leafy greens, fresh fruits, veggies, meat, fish, chicken, etc.). 

Luckily, my doctors have been very supportive.

 

I have two colleagues with breast cancer. They went to different doctors in the same practice. Both had chemo and surgery.  One, with her doctor's approval, also went on the "Blaylock" diet, which is very similar to the gluten-free diet above, but also calls for no dairy, no pork, no red meat, with as much organic as possible.  

The other asked her doctor about trying that diet, and was ORDERED by her doctor not to try any "crazy diets like that."

 

Very few doctors have any education about nutrition, which is sad.

post #46 of 71
6/6/12 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
There's abig difference between getting good nutrition and the blaylock diet.
post #47 of 71
6/6/12 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Super-Single-Mama, I completely agree with you.


But for some reason, some doctors seem to have a different perspective.

 

My celiac friends and colleagues often report being lectured by their doctors for trying a gluten-free diet--even when their gluten-free diet is healthy (no refined flours, sugary snacks, etc) and balanced (lots of leafy greens, fresh fruits, veggies, meat, fish, chicken, etc.). 

Luckily, my doctors have been very supportive.

 

I have two colleagues with breast cancer. They went to different doctors in the same practice. Both had chemo and surgery.  One, with her doctor's approval, also went on the "Blaylock" diet, which is very similar to the gluten-free diet above, but also calls for no dairy, no pork, no red meat, with as much organic as possible.  

The other asked her doctor about trying that diet, and was ORDERED by her doctor not to try any "crazy diets like that."

 

Very few doctors have any education about nutrition, which is sad.

 

I'm not one to agree with crazy diets either - but staying away from fried foods, too much sugary processed junk (I do eat it in moderation - I have a serious sweet tooth), is just good practice. I highly doubt your second friends doctor would have supported her in eating McDonalds every day, and was concerned that on some crazy diets people do not get enough nutrients and so they can be just as counter productive as eating fried junk every day.

post #48 of 71
6/6/12 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's abig difference between getting good nutrition and the blaylock diet.

Do you have any idea what the Blaylock diet is? 

 

Here are his guidelines, hardly shockingly crazy:

 

1. Eat lots of vegetables.

2. Avoid excessive carbohydrates (the worst culprits in his opinion are sodas and fruit drinks, pasta and bread)

3. Avoid most red meats.

post #49 of 71
6/6/12 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's abig difference between getting good nutrition and the blaylock diet.

Rrrrrachel, please tell us exactly what this big difference is. Be sure to use mainstream-science, peer-reviewed studies to support your claim!
post #50 of 71
6/6/12 at 6:41pm
Thread Starter 
It's more about the claims that blaylock makes that aren't backed by science.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 6/6/12 at 7:03pm
post #51 of 71
6/6/12 at 6:54pm

I have no idea what the Blaylock diet  is...So don't think I am sticking up for it when I say this....

 

But I do want to say that Rrrachel, you admit that you use alternative remedies for your kids even though they haven't been scientifically proven to work, but you feel they do.  Can't you imagine people might want to do that with a diet plan?  :)

post #52 of 71
6/6/12 at 7:02pm
Thread Starter 
Sure, people can do whatever they want. I'm just pointing out that just because a doctor doesn't support a specialized fad diet doesn't mean he doesn't support or know about good nutrition. Although I agree that doctors could stand to learn a lot more about nutrition.
post #53 of 71
6/6/12 at 8:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's more about the claims that blaylock makes that aren't backed by science.

Please elaborate. Which claims aren't backed by science?

post #54 of 71
6/6/12 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's more about the claims that blaylock makes that aren't backed by science.

Would you mind supporting this statement with some facts--preferably backed by science?

post #55 of 71
6/7/12 at 3:45am
Thread Starter 
The importance of broths and stocks, the benefits of blending vegetables before you eat them . . . That's off the top of my head. It's a fad diet. I can see how a doctor who has probably seen his cancer patients tie themselves in knots doing all kinds of crazy diets would react to the idea.
post #56 of 71
6/7/12 at 4:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The importance of broths and stocks, the benefits of blending vegetables before you eat them . . . That's off the top of my head. It's a fad diet. I can see how a doctor who has probably seen his cancer patients tie themselves in knots doing all kinds of crazy diets would react to the idea.

My understanding is that blended and lightly cooked vegetables are recommended over raw, whole vegetables because of increased nutritional absorption, which seems especially important in someone who is ill.

Broths and stocks are recognized in every culture as being curative for minor illnesses.

You think that sounds like a crazy, fad diet?
post #57 of 71
6/7/12 at 4:49am
Thread Starter 
This is tangential. It is a fad diet. A dr can support proper nutrition without supporting a brand name diet
post #58 of 71
6/7/12 at 7:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

This is tangential. It is a fad diet. A dr can support proper nutrition without supporting a brand name diet

I wouldn't call it a brand name diet, its not like people are buying it off the TV because of Marie Osmond and I would hardly call it a fad, bone broths are, as Taximom pointed out, an excellent source of bioavailable vitamins and minerals, I guess Chicken soup has crossed over into the crazy fad diet camp. Yes this may be veering off the subject, but your posts are so dismissive, I suspect it is nothing to do with the diet, but everything to do with of the name Blaylock. I suspect had Paul Offit recommended it, it would be just fine.

post #59 of 71
6/7/12 at 7:51am
Thread Starter 
If Paul offit recommended it I would still wonder where the science was, but yes I'm suspicious of what blaylock is selling.
post #60 of 71
6/7/12 at 7:54am
Thread Starter 
I'm suspicious of ALL diets like this, by the way. I don't believe in miracle foods that of you just add them to your diet your problems will be solved or in foods that are so awful they're causing all your problems. I don't think there's one right way to eat for everyone, but in general I think a variety of nutritious foods in sensible portions with occasional treats is common sense.
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccination Research for Beginners › Vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study