In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 14 2016 04:49 Simberto wrote: I am constantly amazed by how much some conservatives care about other peoples genitals.
If i want to insert a 15-inch rubber horse cock into my anus, why does that matter to Ted Cruz? Controlling other peoples sex lives is a pretty weird fetish, and an actually dangerous one since it explicitly involves not getting consent of the other party involved.
Its about how literal that group or person takes the new testament right?
On April 14 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote: [quote] But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints?
"Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places.
But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should.
Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD".
Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
Well, she doesn't wear a white coat. Many of her clients are referred by their medical doctors, most others are from word of mouth. I doubt she has ever had a client that didn't know she wasn't a medical doctor.
On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:
On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote: The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.
I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.
my sister was in school/some kind of internship for 6-7 years
Glad to hear that but certainly you understand that not everyone will act like that and there will be plenty of ND's who are perfectly fine with pretending to be actual doctors (short of saying they are because that is illegal).
Same deal as Dieticians and Nutritionists. Plenty of the latter mean well but there are also plenty who want to make easy money off of people who don;t know better.
I fail to see how any of that is an issue, though. There are dirt bag attorneys with real law degrees who can practice law. And those people can ruin lives just as quickly. Even when Doctors are accredited and licensed, that doesn't mean I'm going to get good medical treatment. Or that they are not going to bill my insurance company into the ground just because they can.
Again, this is the "if there is no perfect standard then how can there be any standard at all?!" defence. It doesn't hold up and it never will.
The fact that some teachers are shitty teachers does not mean I have a right to open my own private school, tell people I'll teach them useful things that will help them with their employment problems and then jerk them around. If I made a for profit school that existed only to defraud the vulnerable I'd be shut down.
Stop trying to use that defence, or at least be consistent and advocate that the existence of death makes all healthcare ultimately futile.
Expect you have provided zero evidence to prove these people are frauds. You just assume they are. And it is not like there are not venues for people to seek relief if there are frauds or people doing harm. You seem to want to regulate something without any real evidence it is a problem.
So please, prove there is a problem that needs to be solved beyond your own personal biases against the practice.
The ineffectiveness of alternative medicine is well documented in large studies you can find everywhere on the internet, apart from that for a drug to be licensed you need to prove effectiveness beyond placebo, it actually needs to do something. The burden of proof isn't on anybody else's side. We're not operating on "take whatever you want until random shit starts to happen". This is not how medical science works.
On April 14 2016 03:04 OtherWorld wrote: [quote] "Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places.
But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should.
Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD".
Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
Well, she doesn't wear a white coat. Many of her clients are referred by their medical doctors, most others are from word of mouth. I doubt she has ever had a client that didn't know she wasn't a medical doctor.
On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:
On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote: The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.
I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.
my sister was in school/some kind of internship for 6-7 years
Glad to hear that but certainly you understand that not everyone will act like that and there will be plenty of ND's who are perfectly fine with pretending to be actual doctors (short of saying they are because that is illegal).
Same deal as Dieticians and Nutritionists. Plenty of the latter mean well but there are also plenty who want to make easy money off of people who don;t know better.
I fail to see how any of that is an issue, though. There are dirt bag attorneys with real law degrees who can practice law. And those people can ruin lives just as quickly. Even when Doctors are accredited and licensed, that doesn't mean I'm going to get good medical treatment. Or that they are not going to bill my insurance company into the ground just because they can.
Again, this is the "if there is no perfect standard then how can there be any standard at all?!" defence. It doesn't hold up and it never will.
The fact that some teachers are shitty teachers does not mean I have a right to open my own private school, tell people I'll teach them useful things that will help them with their employment problems and then jerk them around. If I made a for profit school that existed only to defraud the vulnerable I'd be shut down.
Stop trying to use that defence, or at least be consistent and advocate that the existence of death makes all healthcare ultimately futile.
Expect you have provided zero evidence to prove these people are frauds. You just assume they are. And it is not like there are not venues for people to seek relief if there are frauds or people doing harm. You seem to want to regulate something without any real evidence it is a problem.
So please, prove there is a problem that needs to be solved beyond your own personal biases against the practice.
The ineffectiveness of alternative medicine is well documented in large studies you can find everywhere on the internet, apart from that for a drug to be licensed you need to prove effectiveness beyond placebo, it actually needs to do something. The burden of proof isn't on anybody else's side. We're not operating on "take whatever you want until random shit starts to happen". This is not how medical science works.
That is not the current topic, we are discussing the ND committing fraud and committing the unauthorized practice of medicine. Not proving the effectiveness of the treatments.
On April 14 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote: [quote] But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should.
Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD".
Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
Well, she doesn't wear a white coat. Many of her clients are referred by their medical doctors, most others are from word of mouth. I doubt she has ever had a client that didn't know she wasn't a medical doctor.
On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:
On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote: The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.
I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.
my sister was in school/some kind of internship for 6-7 years
Glad to hear that but certainly you understand that not everyone will act like that and there will be plenty of ND's who are perfectly fine with pretending to be actual doctors (short of saying they are because that is illegal).
Same deal as Dieticians and Nutritionists. Plenty of the latter mean well but there are also plenty who want to make easy money off of people who don;t know better.
I fail to see how any of that is an issue, though. There are dirt bag attorneys with real law degrees who can practice law. And those people can ruin lives just as quickly. Even when Doctors are accredited and licensed, that doesn't mean I'm going to get good medical treatment. Or that they are not going to bill my insurance company into the ground just because they can.
Again, this is the "if there is no perfect standard then how can there be any standard at all?!" defence. It doesn't hold up and it never will.
The fact that some teachers are shitty teachers does not mean I have a right to open my own private school, tell people I'll teach them useful things that will help them with their employment problems and then jerk them around. If I made a for profit school that existed only to defraud the vulnerable I'd be shut down.
Stop trying to use that defence, or at least be consistent and advocate that the existence of death makes all healthcare ultimately futile.
Expect you have provided zero evidence to prove these people are frauds. You just assume they are. And it is not like there are not venues for people to seek relief if there are frauds or people doing harm. You seem to want to regulate something without any real evidence it is a problem.
So please, prove there is a problem that needs to be solved beyond your own personal biases against the practice.
The ineffectiveness of alternative medicine is well documented in large studies you can find everywhere on the internet, apart from that for a drug to be licensed you need to prove effectiveness beyond placebo, it actually needs to do something. The burden of proof isn't on anybody else's side. We're not operating on "take whatever you want until random shit starts to happen". This is not how medical science works.
That is not the current topic, we are discussing the ND committing fraud and committing the unauthorized practice of medicine. Not proving the effectiveness of the treatments.
Well to practise medicine you need to be effective. As Kwark is saying, that is the image that ND people are relying on when someone enter a medical practice, they seek treatment.
If you sell people a service that doesn't do anything you're a snake oil salesman, not a doctor and you're arguably committing fraud. I don't consider the illusion of medical treatment to be a viable service.
On April 14 2016 03:18 OtherWorld wrote: [quote] Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
Well, she doesn't wear a white coat. Many of her clients are referred by their medical doctors, most others are from word of mouth. I doubt she has ever had a client that didn't know she wasn't a medical doctor.
On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:
On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote: The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.
I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.
my sister was in school/some kind of internship for 6-7 years
Glad to hear that but certainly you understand that not everyone will act like that and there will be plenty of ND's who are perfectly fine with pretending to be actual doctors (short of saying they are because that is illegal).
Same deal as Dieticians and Nutritionists. Plenty of the latter mean well but there are also plenty who want to make easy money off of people who don;t know better.
I fail to see how any of that is an issue, though. There are dirt bag attorneys with real law degrees who can practice law. And those people can ruin lives just as quickly. Even when Doctors are accredited and licensed, that doesn't mean I'm going to get good medical treatment. Or that they are not going to bill my insurance company into the ground just because they can.
Again, this is the "if there is no perfect standard then how can there be any standard at all?!" defence. It doesn't hold up and it never will.
The fact that some teachers are shitty teachers does not mean I have a right to open my own private school, tell people I'll teach them useful things that will help them with their employment problems and then jerk them around. If I made a for profit school that existed only to defraud the vulnerable I'd be shut down.
Stop trying to use that defence, or at least be consistent and advocate that the existence of death makes all healthcare ultimately futile.
Expect you have provided zero evidence to prove these people are frauds. You just assume they are. And it is not like there are not venues for people to seek relief if there are frauds or people doing harm. You seem to want to regulate something without any real evidence it is a problem.
So please, prove there is a problem that needs to be solved beyond your own personal biases against the practice.
The ineffectiveness of alternative medicine is well documented in large studies you can find everywhere on the internet, apart from that for a drug to be licensed you need to prove effectiveness beyond placebo, it actually needs to do something. The burden of proof isn't on anybody else's side. We're not operating on "take whatever you want until random shit starts to happen". This is not how medical science works.
That is not the current topic, we are discussing the ND committing fraud and committing the unauthorized practice of medicine. Not proving the effectiveness of the treatments.
Well to practise medicine you need to be effective. As Kwark is saying, that is the image that ND people are relying on when someone enter a medical practice, they seek treatment.
If you sell people a service that doesn't do anything you're a snake oil salesman, not a doctor and you're arguably committing fraud. I don't consider the illusion of medical treatment to be a viable service.
Yes, but the US legal system doesn’t give a shit about your own personal standards for fraud on the subject. It has its own. And it doesn’t care if you consider the any practice of naturopathic medicine to be the same as a snake oil merchant, because that isn't how being charged with a crime works. It a little more nuanced than the broad hypothetical examples people are so fond of in this thread.
On April 14 2016 03:18 OtherWorld wrote: [quote] Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
Well, she doesn't wear a white coat. Many of her clients are referred by their medical doctors, most others are from word of mouth. I doubt she has ever had a client that didn't know she wasn't a medical doctor.
On April 14 2016 03:23 hunts wrote:
On April 14 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote: The thing is, doctor is not exclusive to the medical field and the term is not regulated. Just like priest isn't exclusive to Catholics. We have to go way beyond the title itself to see if someone is being deceptive and it is worthy a fraud charge.
I highly doubt these ND's have the PHD's required to be called doctors outside of the medical field. I doubt most of them have anything better than a liberal arts B.S or even a high school diploma.
my sister was in school/some kind of internship for 6-7 years
Glad to hear that but certainly you understand that not everyone will act like that and there will be plenty of ND's who are perfectly fine with pretending to be actual doctors (short of saying they are because that is illegal).
Same deal as Dieticians and Nutritionists. Plenty of the latter mean well but there are also plenty who want to make easy money off of people who don;t know better.
I fail to see how any of that is an issue, though. There are dirt bag attorneys with real law degrees who can practice law. And those people can ruin lives just as quickly. Even when Doctors are accredited and licensed, that doesn't mean I'm going to get good medical treatment. Or that they are not going to bill my insurance company into the ground just because they can.
Again, this is the "if there is no perfect standard then how can there be any standard at all?!" defence. It doesn't hold up and it never will.
The fact that some teachers are shitty teachers does not mean I have a right to open my own private school, tell people I'll teach them useful things that will help them with their employment problems and then jerk them around. If I made a for profit school that existed only to defraud the vulnerable I'd be shut down.
Stop trying to use that defence, or at least be consistent and advocate that the existence of death makes all healthcare ultimately futile.
Expect you have provided zero evidence to prove these people are frauds. You just assume they are. And it is not like there are not venues for people to seek relief if there are frauds or people doing harm. You seem to want to regulate something without any real evidence it is a problem.
So please, prove there is a problem that needs to be solved beyond your own personal biases against the practice.
The ineffectiveness of alternative medicine is well documented in large studies you can find everywhere on the internet, apart from that for a drug to be licensed you need to prove effectiveness beyond placebo, it actually needs to do something. The burden of proof isn't on anybody else's side. We're not operating on "take whatever you want until random shit starts to happen". This is not how medical science works.
That is not the current topic, we are discussing the ND committing fraud and committing the unauthorized practice of medicine. Not proving the effectiveness of the treatments.
Well to practise medicine you need to be effective. As Kwark is saying, that is the image that ND people are relying on when someone enter a medical practice, they seek treatment.
If you sell people a service that doesn't do anything you're a snake oil salesman, not a doctor and you're arguably committing fraud. I don't consider the illusion of medical treatment to be a viable service.
I'm only passively paying attention but we're not trying to throw out all of eastern/natural medicine are we? Much of western medicine comes from studying indigenous people's natural remedies and then extracting an active ingredient from whatever they were using. I think it's reasonable to make them disclose they are not a medical doctor, but having seen some doctors recently that wouldn't be an inherently bad thing to me.
To me going to a doctor is usually about access to diagnostic tools (if you're lucky) and drugs, I've rarely had an experience that goes beyond putting percentages of likelihood on the stuff one could have read from webMD. I imagine like my school, walmart, etc... that isn't the same experience others get at the doctor.
I believe I remember Freud making a link between the homophobia of some institutions (church, army, sport teams) and their obvious latent homosexual culture. Might be someone else. Macho and homophobic people are almost always obviously repressed gays.
There was another research article that I can't seem to find right now... had to do with a comparison between a homophobe's reaction to same-sex intimacy video clips and an accepting person's reaction to same-sex intimacy video clips, and the body basically betrayed the homophobe more frequently and their reactions were basically getting turned on faster, etc. It was very much "My mind says No but my body says Yes".
Who is the blonde woman and why is she allowed on MSNBC?
After seeing how even the great Rachel Maddow got sucked into the blatant Hillary bias, I didn't think MSNBC allowed people with integrity on their network.
On April 14 2016 06:25 DickMcFanny wrote: Who is the blonde woman and why is she allowed on MSNBC?
After seeing how even the great Rachel Maddow got sucked into the blatant Hillary bias, I didn't think MSNBC allowed people with integrity on their network.
lol they took her off set for 15 minutes when she talked about the absurdity of the idea of non-coordination between candidates and their superPACs. It was pretty funny because the whole set got super awkward and they cut to commercial very quickly.
On April 14 2016 06:25 DickMcFanny wrote: Who is the blonde woman and why is she allowed on MSNBC?
After seeing how even the great Rachel Maddow got sucked into the blatant Hillary bias, I didn't think MSNBC allowed people with integrity on their network.
Like, has there ever been anything but pure bias on that network? Did we raise our standards for MSNBC?
On April 14 2016 06:25 DickMcFanny wrote: Who is the blonde woman and why is she allowed on MSNBC?
After seeing how even the great Rachel Maddow got sucked into the blatant Hillary bias, I didn't think MSNBC allowed people with integrity on their network.
Like, has there ever been anything but pure bias on that network? Did we raise our standards for MSNBC?
I've never seen the channel, my only point of contact with MSNBC was the Rachel Maddow podcast, and I always felt like she did damn fine analysis.
It's only in the wake of the 2016 presidential debate when it became very apparent to me how wrong I was.
On April 14 2016 06:25 DickMcFanny wrote: Who is the blonde woman and why is she allowed on MSNBC?
After seeing how even the great Rachel Maddow got sucked into the blatant Hillary bias, I didn't think MSNBC allowed people with integrity on their network.
Like, has there ever been anything but pure bias on that network? Did we raise our standards for MSNBC?
I've never seen the channel, my only point of contact with MSNBC was the Rachel Maddow podcast, and I always felt like she did damn fine analysis.
It's only in the wake of the 2016 presidential debate when it became very apparent to me how wrong I was.
They are not as terrible as Fox news, but they are cut from the same "pander to one side of the political spectrum" cloth. I think that Maddow is one of their better shows, but that is because she straight up admits she is biased and doesn't pretend to be news. The rest of the network, however...not so much.
There was also a radiolab on that particular "herbal" remedy.
Whenever people start glorifying "double blind" studies in the healthcare field I always think of how just a decade ago doctors were saying that there was no evidence that HGH added muscle mass. I just wish that supplements were required to accurately list exactly how much of what was in the pills or whatever that are being sold.
Also this is jumping topics, but holy shit Ivanka is brilliant. I know Trump is leaving her the family legacy and I 100% see why. Girl is gonna run the world.
On April 14 2016 06:44 ticklishmusic wrote: Also this is jumping topics, but holy shit Ivanka is brilliant. I know Trump is leaving her the family legacy and I 100% see why. Girl is gonna run the world.
How do you interpret her not being able to vote for her dad in the primary?
On April 14 2016 04:49 Simberto wrote: I am constantly amazed by how much some conservatives care about other peoples genitals.
If i want to insert a 15-inch rubber horse cock into my anus, why does that matter to Ted Cruz? Controlling other peoples sex lives is a pretty weird fetish, and an actually dangerous one since it explicitly involves not getting consent of the other party involved.
I mean, there's no evidence he does. He just argued that banning it isn't unconstitutional. So, you know, an SG defending a law, which is the job, despite what many SGs and AGs around the country appear to believe.
I mean, really, what is your business with me shoving bags of homegrown wheat up my butt or in my mouth?
On April 14 2016 06:44 ticklishmusic wrote: Also this is jumping topics, but holy shit Ivanka is brilliant. I know Trump is leaving her the family legacy and I 100% see why. Girl is gonna run the world.
How do you interpret her not being able to vote for her dad in the primary?
I don't think its a reflection on her intelligence at all. She either forgot or doesn't care.
There was also a radiolab on that particular "herbal" remedy.
Whenever people start glorifying "double blind" studies in the healthcare field I always think of how just a decade ago doctors were saying that there was no evidence that HGH added muscle mass. I just wish that supplements were required to accurately list exactly how much of what was in the pills or whatever that are being sold.
Many pharma drugs were originally synthesised from natural herbs.Aspirin anyone? No point dismissing everything out of hand.That said the only reason to go to an ND now is to get lab tests ordered.You can get all other advice and supplements far cheaper online at the click of a button.
On April 14 2016 06:44 ticklishmusic wrote: Also this is jumping topics, but holy shit Ivanka is brilliant. I know Trump is leaving her the family legacy and I 100% see why. Girl is gonna run the world.
How do you interpret her not being able to vote for her dad in the primary?
I don't understand in what world this would mean anything pertaining to intelligence. What exactly are you asking?
EPT
