What would a conventional doctor do?


Recommended Posts

By now you all probably can guess who the following quote is from:

A young man once visited me who complained of headaches, catarrh of the stomach, and nose and throat, hyperacidity of the stomach, constipation and nervousness. He was extremely ravenous, but could digest nothing he ate. A few days before coming to see me he had arrived home from work with an almost irresistible desire for food. He ate a hearty supper and started for the Y.M.C.A., where he was to play in a basketball game. About six blocks from his home he suddenly became dizzy; everything became black and he fainted. This was followed by vomiting, which brought up not only his supper, but food he had consumed at noon the day before. It had not been digested.

Before I continue, I will ask a question. What would a conventional doctor do?

Probably drugs. Drugs would not solve the problem and would add problems.

||

||

||

||

||

V

Scroll down to see the rest of the quote:

||

||

||

||

||

||

V

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

It was that simple and that easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By now you all probably can guess who the following quote is from:

A young man once visited me who complained of headaches, catarrh of the stomach, and nose and throat, hyperacidity of the stomach, constipation and nervousness. He was extremely ravenous, but could digest nothing he ate. A few days before coming to see me he had arrived home from work with an almost irresistible desire for food. He ate a hearty supper and started for the Y.M.C.A., where he was to play in a basketball game. About six blocks from his home he suddenly became dizzy; everything became black and he fainted. This was followed by vomiting, which brought up not only his supper, but food he had consumed at noon the day before. It had not been digested.

<...>

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

So, according to this story, the man vomited while unconscious. How did he survive without suffocating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By now you all probably can guess who the following quote is from:

A young man once visited me who complained of headaches, catarrh of the stomach, and nose and throat, hyperacidity of the stomach, constipation and nervousness. He was extremely ravenous, but could digest nothing he ate. A few days before coming to see me he had arrived home from work with an almost irresistible desire for food. He ate a hearty supper and started for the Y.M.C.A., where he was to play in a basketball game. About six blocks from his home he suddenly became dizzy; everything became black and he fainted. This was followed by vomiting, which brought up not only his supper, but food he had consumed at noon the day before. It had not been digested.

<...>

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

So, according to this story, the man vomited while unconscious. How did he survive without suffocating?

Did you ever have the experience of fainting? I tend to assume that unconsciousness lasted for only a few seconds. And "followed by" does not mean immediately.

Your nitpick tells me you refuse to believe the last sentence in the story. Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By now you all probably can guess who the following quote is from:

A young man once visited me who complained of headaches, catarrh of the stomach, and nose and throat, hyperacidity of the stomach, constipation and nervousness. He was extremely ravenous, but could digest nothing he ate. A few days before coming to see me he had arrived home from work with an almost irresistible desire for food. He ate a hearty supper and started for the Y.M.C.A., where he was to play in a basketball game. About six blocks from his home he suddenly became dizzy; everything became black and he fainted. This was followed by vomiting, which brought up not only his supper, but food he had consumed at noon the day before. It had not been digested.

<...>

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

So, according to this story, the man vomited while unconscious. How did he survive without suffocating?

Did you ever have the experience of fainting? I tend to assume that unconsciousness lasted for only a few seconds. And "followed by" does not mean immediately.

Your nitpick tells me you refuse to believe the last sentence in the story. Why?

Oh. come on. If anyone is a nitpicker surely it is a member of the species on your avatar.

jts, I cut you a lot of slack when I thought you were just a regular American, but now.... really, even for an Albertan, there is just no excuse for locking yourself in the shed with the crystal set permanently tuned to Radio Kookiepants.

I know the Oilers have suffered great injustices in the past decades, but still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...see now that it is official that our Northern Lost Tribes of Canadian Families are worth $40,000.00 more than the American family ....

she reappears!!!!

Welcome back lady!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

Is shooting the messenger a valid option?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

Blood work to see if there were a toxin or micro-organism causing the symptoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

By now you all probably can guess who the following quote is from:

A young man once visited me who complained of headaches, catarrh of the stomach, and nose and throat, hyperacidity of the stomach, constipation and nervousness. He was extremely ravenous, but could digest nothing he ate. A few days before coming to see me he had arrived home from work with an almost irresistible desire for food. He ate a hearty supper and started for the Y.M.C.A., where he was to play in a basketball game. About six blocks from his home he suddenly became dizzy; everything became black and he fainted. This was followed by vomiting, which brought up not only his supper, but food he had consumed at noon the day before. It had not been digested.

<...>

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

So, according to this story, the man vomited while unconscious. How did he survive without suffocating?

Did you ever have the experience of fainting? I tend to assume that unconsciousness lasted for only a few seconds. And "followed by" does not mean immediately.

Your nitpick tells me you refuse to believe the last sentence in the story. Why?

Oh. come on. If anyone is a nitpicker surely it is a member of the species on your avatar.

jts, I cut you a lot of slack when I thought you were just a regular American, but now.... really, even for an Albertan, there is just no excuse for locking yourself in the shed with the crystal set permanently tuned to Radio Kookiepants.

I know the Oilers have suffered great injustices in the past decades, but still.

I <3 Carol! Well, except for the socialist part...and the anti 2nd amendment part...oh, never mind. I hear you're rich? This isn't just some currency conversion trick now is it? And what is this "hockey" thing? Is it anything like a real sport like caber tossing? Or Crossfit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

Blood work to see if there were a toxin or micro-organism causing the symptoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Finally an answer to the question.

The cause of the symptoms was the man was eating and not digesting. The solution was to stop eating for a bit to let the digestive system solve the problem and thereafter live right to not let the problem happen again.

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

The conventional doctor, not recognizing the obvious, would look for something mysterious and then probably would prescribe a drug (a poison). The cause of the problems (eating without digesting) would continue. The problems would continue, plus problems would be added from the drug.

The quack's way got to the cause and was simple and worked.

It was obvious he was not digesting his food. That alone justified taking him off food. Food not digested does the body no good and is a burden to the body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

But as soon as you asked the question you answered it: "Probably drugs."

Referral to a psychiatrist?

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

Blood work to see if there were a toxin or micro-organism causing the symptoms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Finally an answer to the question.

The cause of the symptoms was the man was eating and not digesting. The solution was to stop eating for a bit to let the digestive system solve the problem and thereafter live right to not let the problem happen again.

I placed this man on a short fast, then taught him how to live, with the result that his catarrh, hyperacidity, indigestion, constipation, headache, nervousness and morbid appetite all ended.

The conventional doctor, not recognizing the obvious, would look for something mysterious and then probably would prescribe a drug (a poison). The cause of the problems (eating without digesting) would continue. The problems would continue, plus problems would be added from the drug.

The quack's way got to the cause and was simple and worked.

It was obvious he was not digesting his food. That alone justified taking him off food. Food not digested does the body no good and is a burden to the body.

How do you know what a "conventional doctor" would do? What's "conventional?"

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody answered the question. What would a conventional doctor do?

But as soon as you asked the question you answered it: "Probably drugs."

Referral to a psychiatrist?

--Brant

Conventional doctors usually prescribe drugs. That is simply a fact of observation. So it's a reasonable guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know what a "conventional doctor" would do? What's "conventional?"

--Brant

A conventional doctor is a doctor who is approved by government. Usually an allopath. They come from an approved by government medical school. They do cut poison burn. If they do anything else, they risk being not approved. They don't use fasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They do cut poison burn." I simply don't know what you mean by this. I can infer drugs.

So, an unconventional doctor never graduated from an accredited American medical school, is not licensed and can't write prescriptions?

The conventional doctor is a quack?

You are an unconventional doctor?

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They do cut poison burn." I simply don't know what you mean by this. I can infer drugs.

So, an unconventional doctor never graduated from an accredited American medical school, is not licensed and can't write prescriptions?

The conventional doctor is a quack?

You are an unconventional doctor?

--Brant

Do I need to explain common knowledge things?

Cut, poison, burn means surgery, drugs, radiation.

An unconventional doctor is either unlicensed or else acts like one who should not be licensed.

Quack can be defined as a doctor whose doctoring is not based on science. If government says what science is, then unconventional (not approved by government) doctors are quacks. If science means hygiene (the science of health), then all non-hygiene doctors are quacks to the degree that their doctoring is contrary to health science.

I am not a doctor, unless being my own doctor counts.

I posted the first message in this thread as an example of how simple and easy the solution was. A doctor wasn't even necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, according to this story, the man vomited while unconscious. How did he survive without suffocating?

Did you ever have the experience of fainting?

Yes. I recall fainting several times, e. g. when singing in the school choir as a nine-year old.

Your nitpick tells me you refuse to believe the last sentence in the story. Why?

I'm not saying all these recommendations are wrong. Reducing hyperacidity for example has many health benefits.

But I have a gut feeling that the writer may have 'embellished' his story by adding a touch of drama with the 'fainting' ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against licensing of physicians, medical schools and the government telling doctors what to do. I am against prescriptions for all drugs--eventually, for there needs to be a transition period. It's an open question whether the Department of Justice or the FDA is more corrupt. Right now I suspect that it's the Department of Justice, but in the corruption business the FDA has more staying power. I am also against Medicare and Medicaid. I was against Medicare before there was Medicare in the 1960s. If Obamacare isn't thrown out so many doctors will stop being doctors what good quality of medicine we have--which isn't competitive with what we could have except for rules and regulations covering everything--will evaporate under our feet. We already pay much too much for medicine than we should have to when compared to socialist Europe. A lot has to do with administrative costs for regulation and doctor compliancing.

That said, people with superficial understanding of medicine and human physiology who come on message boards and lecture as authorities on such really piss people like me off. I know more than they do because of my own medical training and hands on experience. I have 25 years of taking care of people with various medical conditions and if you aren't a true expert I know you for that. I hate hearing actual medicine powered by a deductive ideology. The only people who do that are medically incompetent. You can be for freedom in medicine knowing next to nothing about medicine if you know about freedom. If you also know about medicine you might be able to combine the two, maybe; that's a special area of expertise you may be able to demonstrate--or not. The medicine has to predominate. It's not my expertise. I can suggest certain things to be investigated, but that's about all except for an immediate emergency and I'm all you've got.

In the example citied to start this thread the patient may have been suffering from a life-threatening intestinal blockage requiring immediate surgery. I once knew a world-class surgeon who operated on his own wife for that, but too late, She died on the operating table. The little girl from the Poltergeist movies died of the same thing. Not from the surgery, but from the condition. The diagnosis was too late. It's true an earilier diagnosis may have resulted in a different and effective treatment part of which might have been fasting. A lot would have to do with what causes the blockage. The doctor in the example who did what he did might have made the correct diagnosis and come with the correct treatment without being merely lucky. There simply wasn't enough information conveyed here for any one to know. Conventional vs unconventional doctoring is inane.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quack's way got to the cause and was simple and worked.

It was obvious he was not digesting his food. That alone justified taking him off food. Food not digested does the body no good and is a burden to the body.

It till does not solves the poor man's problem. Why is he not digesting? That is the question. If the cause could be found then perhaps his digestion could be restored. In the mean time he would need nourishment which could be administered intravenously. Glycogen introduced directly into the blood can be used by the cells of his body. Under normal circumstance the liver converts glucose to glycogen to be metabolized by the cells.

Bob Kolker

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quack's way got to the cause and was simple and worked.

It was obvious he was not digesting his food. That alone justified taking him off food. Food not digested does the body no good and is a burden to the body.

It till does not solves the poor man's problem. Why is he not digesting? That is the question. If the cause could be found then perhaps his digestion could be restored. In the mean time he would need nourishment which could be administered intravenously. Glycogen introduced directly into the blood can be used by the cells of his body. Under normal circumstance the liver converts glucose to glycogen to be metabolized by the cells.

Bob Kolker

Why is it so hard to understand that the reason why he was not digesting was abuse of the digestive system? And why is it so hard to understand that taking a break from food restores the digestive system? And why do you argue against success? And why do you equate fasting with starving?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard to understand that the reason why he was not digesting was abuse of the digestive system? And why is it so hard to understand that taking a break from food restores the digestive system? And why do you argue against success? And why do you equate fasting with starving?

"abuse" is a moral judgement, not a scientific/medical/biological description of the problem. Using "abuse" loosely will take you down the road to crackpot Dysfunctions have chemical physical causes. One of the things a well trained and equipped doctor can do is determine the cause. If one knows the cause he is on his way to formulating a treatment or cure.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quack's way got to the cause and was simple and worked.

It was obvious he was not digesting his food. That alone justified taking him off food. Food not digested does the body no good and is a burden to the body.

It till does not solves the poor man's problem. Why is he not digesting? That is the question. If the cause could be found then perhaps his digestion could be restored. In the mean time he would need nourishment which could be administered intravenously. Glycogen introduced directly into the blood can be used by the cells of his body. Under normal circumstance the liver converts glucose to glycogen to be metabolized by the cells.

Bob Kolker

Why is it so hard to understand that the reason why he was not digesting was abuse of the digestive system? And why is it so hard to understand that taking a break from food restores the digestive system? And why do you argue against success? And why do you equate fasting with starving?

We can accept this because of the out-come. We can't accept this before treatment for several different causes might result in the symptoms. And they were all symptoms--and non-testing for signs--and evaluation of those. It's obvious you don't keep cramming food into someone who can't pass stool. You don't want him to aspirate his own vomit. That's like the first of many steps to come.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard to understand that the reason why he was not digesting was abuse of the digestive system? And why is it so hard to understand that taking a break from food restores the digestive system? And why do you argue against success? And why do you equate fasting with starving?

"abuse" is a moral judgement, not a scientific/medical/biological description of the problem. Using "abuse" loosely will take you down the road to crackpot Dysfunctions have chemical physical causes. One of the things a well trained and equipped doctor can do is determine the cause. If one knows the cause he is on his way to formulating a treatment or cure.

Abuse of the digestive system means just that. Let it be moral. Whatever. It is a choice.

Any violation of any of these rules is abuse of the digestive system.

* Do not eat more than than you can digest.

* Do not eat anything you can't digest well. (Perhaps beans.)

* Do not put anything in your food that impairs digestion. (Some spices might do that.)

* Do not eat food too cold.

* Do not eat 2 foods in the same meal that have conflicting processes of digestion.

* Do not eat at a time of physical or emotional stress that impairs digestion.

* Do not eat when you are too sick to digest.

* Do not eat unless you are hungry. (Shelton)

(I'm probably forgetting a few.)

Shelton identified the cause and the remedy. Give the gut a rest and teach him how to live. The problem goes away and stays gone. What do you find wrong with that?

Abuse is a perfectly correct word. If it's not in the vocabulary of most doctors, too bad for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now