Oil pulling

[Kitiara]

I use henna.

[mater deum]

Hi Kitiara:  This is off the original topic but...   I used henna too for awhile but it made my hair too thick.  I hated the mucky mess of using henna.  Like smearing goose poo on one's head.  Most people don't know that the henna they use to dye dark colours (like black,again)  contains  chemicals.  It isn't pure henna.

[NeroXIV]

What reason for objection do you have then?

I already gave them.

I might think paying money to see a movie like Borat is silly but that is not a good enough reason to object to someone else's right to see the movie.

Who objected to anyone's right to do anything?

Why aren't you ranting against the silly hair dye habit some people have?

The only "ranting" here is yours. The skeptics have all maintained their cool and wit.

[NeroXIV]

Most people don't know that the henna they use to dye dark colours (like black,again)  contains  chemicals.  It isn't pure henna.

This gives us some insight into the delusional woo woo mind: believing pure henna doesn't contain chemicals.  

[mater deum]

"cool" and "wit"


Two words one cannot use to describe Nero.

[mater deum]

Henna- Lawsonia inermis.  The plant.  Used as a dye for skin, nails and hair. Yes, it has chemicals in it. Duh.  But it does not dye black.  If you have a henna package that says that it can dye your skin or hair black, it is not henna in the package.  Got it, Nero?  Think you can understand that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henna#Black_henna

[St. Jimmy]

Is there a demonstrable danger to soaking one's teeth with coconut oil for 20 minutes?  I'm willing to say -probably not.  What reason for objection do you have then?  Why are you anti-oil pulling?  What is your reason for objecting to another person doing a little experiment?  Cost?  Wow, that's going to really cost him a fortune.  Dangerous?  Show us the danger.  Silly?  I might think paying money to see a movie like Borat is silly but that is not a good enough reason to object to someone else's right to see the movie.    Give you heads a shake.  Women soak their head in chemicals every 2-4 weeks to cover gray hair.  Isn't that a costly, dangerous and silly thing to do?  My, yes, it is.  Why aren't you ranting against the silly hair dye habit some people have?

It might be dangerous if they stop their usual, recognised dental treatments and adopt the unproven alternative. If they happen to have a poor-quality product, say full of sugar or something, then it would be actively bad for their teeth. I have no problem with other people experimenting- if they want me to believe their results however, I need evidence that their experiments are valid.

To reverse the question: show us the danger of dyeing one's hair.

Nero meant "cool" not in the vague trendy sense, but in the sense that he hasn't been going on and on at great length circumventing your points as you have his.
And as for wit... well the joke about keyboards is a start. And getting people to shut up.

JOKE WARNING: How do you know what goose poo in your hair feels like?

[mater deum]

Cool has several meanings.

Do you actually think anyone will give up brushing and flossing for swishing sweetened oil?  Yeah, right.


Hair colour dangers.  Quick notes:  PPD in hair colouring products.  Look it up for yourself.  Hair colourists have higher than expected rates of certain cancers.  (bladder, I think)  It's a dangerous occupation because they are in contact with the chemicals all day for many years.   Women who use hair dyes with high concentrations of PPD (that depends on the company and the colour) often have skin irritation, loss of hair, etc.

Just adding this after a quick search:  "Associations between personal hair dye use and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, acute leukemia and bladder cancer were observed in at least one well-designed study".  Another journal had a similar remark with the added comment on higher incidence of hematopoeitic cancers in those who dye their hair.  Obviously, it needs to be studied a bit more and people should be cautioned to perhaps reduce their exposure.

[Guy Noir]

"cool" and "wit"


Two words one cannot use to describe Nero.

[mod]
Yet another direct personal attack.

Mater, you have been kicked from several topics in the past for this behavior. If you continue to do this a more drastic course of action may be necessary.
[/mod]

[Guy Noir]

Most people don't know that the henna they use to dye dark colours (like black,again)  contains  chemicals.  It isn't pure henna.

This gives us some insight into the delusional woo woo mind: believing pure henna doesn't contain chemicals.  

[mod]
That was also uncalled for.
[/mod]

I would like to remind people to address the argument and avoid attacking the person making it.

[NeroXIV]

In my opinion, Guy Noir is objecting to "isolated, mild mockery" in both cases. However, I shall comply.

Not actionable in isolated cases:
Comments such as "You don't know what you're talking about," or "Obviously you have a comprehension problem."
One or two phrases focused on the perceived flaws of other users.
Isolated, incidental, mild namecalling.
Isolated, mild mockery.

[Guy Noir]

In my opinion, Guy Noir is objecting to "isolated, mild mockery" in both cases. However, I shall comply.

Not actionable in isolated cases:
Comments such as "You don't know what you're talking about," or "Obviously you have a comprehension problem."
One or two phrases focused on the perceived flaws of other users.
Isolated, incidental, mild namecalling.
Isolated, mild mockery.

Judged it on the basis of namecalling. It was isolated but not incidental since it was the apparent point of the post.

Also used it to head of the exchange going any further. On further consideration I probably should have issued a single general warning for both of you but was a bit quick on the trigger.

[St. Jimmy]

Cool has several meanings.

Do you actually think anyone will give up brushing and flossing for swishing sweetened oil?  Yeah, right.

Yes.
It may even be necessary, to test the validity of the claim, or the extent to which the oil is useful, and such an experiment should be supervised. I'm entirely open to the idea that it might work, but I owuld take the whole thing very seriously, it's not just something one can do fo the fun of thinking one is doing something sciency.

Hair colour dangers.  Quick notes:  [...]

I don't dye my hair, so I'm not personally bothered, but for constiency I would like to say that you asking me to do the research isn't how this sort of thing works. I'm not interested in the claim, it's none of my business. It was your original point, so it' syour job to prove it if you would have me or others take it seriously.

Please don't take this as animosity, I just want to get at the truth -which you may well be in the knowledge of- I just just need satisfying evidence.

[NeroXIV]

Judged it on the basis of namecalling. It was isolated but not incidental since it was the apparent point of the post.

The point of my post was that the term "chemical" is often misused by irrationalists. The namecalling was incidental and indirect.

[jj]

Judged it on the basis of namecalling. It was isolated but not incidental since it was the apparent point of the post.

The point of my post was that the term "chemical" is often misused by irrationalists. The namecalling was incidental and indirect.

Ahh, yes, like the guy pushing organic fruit at me at the PCC telling me "there are no chemicals in this fruit".

Yeah. Right.

[mater deum]

  I rather doubt that the vendors of certified organic fruits and vegetables are clueless as to what 'organic' or 'certified organic' means.  The term 'natural' is absolutely useless and misleading. However,  'certified organic' has a clear and definitive meaning.  It's the average consumer who is confused about these terms, not the stores/wholesalers.   As for the vendor who supposedly said "It doesn't have chemicals in it"-  She/he was perhaps sloppy in his/her use of language.  Foods have 'chemicals' in them.  Certified organic fruits and produce, however, don't use certain chemicals in the growing and processing stages.

jj:  You honestly didn't understand the meaning of the statement "It doesn't have chemicals in it"?   You couldn't comprehend the true meaning of the statement.  Are you such a literalist? There must be many times in conversation and debate when things fly over your head then.

[NeroXIV]

She/he was perhaps sloppy in his/her use of language.  Foods have 'chemicals' in them.  Certified organic fruits and produce, however, don't use certain chemicals in the growing and processing stages.

So the vendor meant to say, "this fruit doesn't have certain chemicals?" You could say the same thing about a vat of bleach.

[mater deum]

Do you understand how pointless your rebuttals are?  You sound completely idiotic.

[RedGreene]

Nero - there is nothing wrong with you that can't be cured with a little prozac and a polo mallet.

[Pyrrho]

[mod]mater_deum has been kicked from the topic.[/mod]

[NeroXIV]

Nero - there is nothing wrong with you that can't be cured with a little prozac and a polo mallet.

Care to elaborate?

[kebod]

This forum has degenerated to an exchange of insults, not an exchange of ideas. Eventually, the interesting posters will either be kicked off or fed up enough to quit participating. Then this forum will be left to those who can only tear others' quotes apart, quibble with the placement of quotation marks,  question the spacing between words, question one's grammar, routinely belittle the other writers, unable to contribute their own intelligent insights, unable to see that there are valid health practices different from their own. Because their insults are subtle, not blatant, they are allowed to stay.

The administrator is allowing insulting statements from Nero: "How much crystal meth were you doing?" "It's stupid." Calling someone's ideas stupid is the same as calling the writer stupid.

Posters like Nero want to see someone lose it and get kicked off. If you want to try to continue the on-going conversation on this forum, just ignore him.

Maybe this forum is meant to be an opportunity for exchange of like-minded ideas among those who already agree with each other. Maybe it was never meant to be a forum for different ideas. I guess now I know what a skeptic is.

[Molly Bloom]

I live with a skeptic.  A very articulate and thoughtful skeptic.  Our early days of debating made me fall in love with him.  Perhaps because my Dad is a physicist and an engineer.  Love of my Dad left me searching for my perfect Mr. Spock.

Kebod, Oil Pulling is a skeptic's dream subject.  It's so bizarre and wacky, and there is no proof it does anything at all except some obscure research by a Ukranian doctor that has yet to be published in english.  It is an old Russian Folk Remedy and practiced in the Auyuvedia tradition for thousands of years.

It is undebateable.  Unless we have scientific proof, published by some agency that is recognized by the skeptic posters, we are beating our heads against the wall.  Interestingly enough, skeptics are also skeptical about those organizations that are supposed to be authorities.   Skeptics are skeptical about most everything.  It would be much more interesting to find out what a skeptic believes is absolute truth and go from there.

But here's the rub.  You and I know it works in mysterious ways.  We actually cannot be dissuade from it's benefits.  And we also know there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of people throughout the world that feel the same.  Can we convince Nero or others here of that fact?  Absolutely not.  

My secret fantasy is that while they are debating you, they are secretly swishing oil around their mouths, perhaps to "hedge their bets".  From all the amazing dental testimonials we've read, I sort of feel sorry for those that are NOT oil pulling. It's an easy, benign and simple process that can't hurt anyone.  

My skeptical hubby oil pulls every day.  His dentist cannot get over the change in his gums.  He has avoided surgery, pain and cost.  Both of us look like we have had our teeth professionally whitened.  My proof is up close and personal and does not need proof from scientific, double blind studies.   But the skeptics need this proof.  As far as I'm concerned, debate is over.

Molly

[Kitiara]

Um.
In light of Mater's demise on the subject, I admit I quail.
Well, about henna...
If you cover grey, you need to do red first [ask an artist].
To counter the green of henna, you need to use red, also. The result is as stated, not desirable in texture, but you can get used to working with it. I compare it to a mudpack on my head.

[NeroXIV]

Posters like Nero want to see someone lose it and get kicked off. If you want to try to continue the on-going conversation on this forum, just ignore him.

Nice to have you back, kebod!
The website you sent us to claims that oil-pulling cures cancer and AIDS. Do you agree with this claim?

[NeroXIV]

My secret fantasy is that while they are debating you, they are secretly swishing oil around their mouths, perhaps to "hedge their bets".  From all the amazing dental testimonials we've read, I sort of feel sorry for those that are NOT oil pulling. It's an easy, benign and simple process that can't hurt anyone.

To really hedge your bets, you would have to practice every "easy, benign and simple process" that offers amazing testimonials. Do you feel sorry for everyone who is not doing ayurveda, homeopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, unaani, chiropractic, naturopathic, reiki, herbalism and feng-shui all at the same time? Are they close minded not to?

[A-number]

Holy cow, you people are talking about henna now ?  I am in a shock ! while I am at it, I might as well confirm what MD said, henna is natural plant that turns the hair reddish over time, actually very very red. If the package says it turns it black, she is right, that means it is not natural. My family's females used it for millenias. Aaaaall of them have like "horse's tail" type of pony tails, and many of them have hair that go aaall the way down to their freaking knees, it's no joke. I used it with other plants, it strengthens the hair and speeds up its growth. As far as balckening the hair, there is another plant that my fam use, I know the name in local language only, it's called "Takkaout", that, if used over time, it really turns the hair pitch black no questions asked. And yes, it is A Plant, not a chemical.


I just wanted to add a comment in regard to the term "organic". One time I was at a store and checking out the hair products section they had, I stumbled upon a container labeled "organic hair mayonaise", and the term organic was Huge & boldly printed across the container, I think it was even green colored !!! when I turned the "box" to read the ingredient section, First it went down the box it was that long, and 2, there was not a single ingredient that was natural in there, aaaaall were but chemicals.

[slimpickins]

Lead, mercury, and other harmful metals and toxins can build up our systems to dangerous levels and also applies to all animals. That's why you should not eat carp and very little Tuna.

Interesting.  Thanks to our modern water filtration systems, there are lower amounts of metals in our drinking water than in the past when most people drank unfiltered well water or stream water.  So if heavy metals are a "problem" now, they sure must have been a problem back in the day.

As for the fish part, as long as the fishing is at least 10 miles out to see, there should be just about no heavy metals in it.  Only if the fishing is done right next to a factory runoff (like the cases in the 1960s in Japan) is this a serious issue (and most fishing now is not done next to a factory anymore).

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, and the oceans contain many contaminants from modern industry, which accumulate up the food chain....another reason not to eat animals that eat animals! Studies have shown that sharks living in the cleanest waters off Alaska are so toxic, that they should not legally be allowed in the sea.

What the liver can not filter out properly can be released in other ways and sweating is a good example. After a deep sweat, which comes after 20 minutes of continuous perspiration, has shown to contain heavy metals, pestacides and the like.

It would seem that sweating out toxins would be worse then letting them pass through one's system.  If toxins are being sweated out, then they are passing through quote a bit of the body.

Sweating out toxins is an accepted method of detoxification. Toxins escape through pores, when the tiniest capillaries expand, and release stored substances.

That is why studies have shown that people who exercise moderately AND use a sauna(which is great for deep sweating)  have almost as low cancer rates as long-distance runners who also deep sweat.

What about those that exercise are in better health, and that is the reason why they have low cancer rates?  Or how about those that exercise usually do not eat as much "junk food" as others would?

Our bodies function wonderfully but not perfectly. We naturally release pain killers into our blood stream but sometimes we need to take an aspirin. Our bodies naturally fight off infection and heal burns but we may also need aloe vera. Both aloe and aspirin are plant based remedies.

Actually, most over-the-counter medications are "plant-baised" remedies.  The plants are just processed, that is all.

As to the subject of oil pulling, what if it is really doing the same thing as those "whiteners" or "white strips" are doing?

Just some thoughts.

[slimpickins]

Yes, some of the "old remedies" might have worked a bit in some cases.  However, we have modern medicine that is much more effective, and has undergone case studies.

Folk medicine has played a large role in preserving life through thousands of years. Even animals self-medicate with different herbs!
Incorrectly-prescribed conventional medicine is actually responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the modern world, not to mind the side-effects that force patients to add another pill to the mix.
Johnny-come-lately has much to learn yet.

[slimpickins]

Jim, Slippery Elm Bark is for appendicitis. You must take it before the problem gets critical, though. It is for any inflammation in the digestive tract, inc. sore throat. It is a good idea to see that you do not get dehydrated, and that you do not overload your liver with fats, as well.
Nice new avatar.

Really...does slippery elm bark have antibiotic properties? Appendicitis is an infection, not an inflammation--inflammation is not necessarily the result of infection, nor is it the same thing.

The appendage -itis refers to inflammation of that part. Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix due to an infection.

[NeroXIV]

Incorrectly-prescribed conventional medicine is actually responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the modern world, ...

Can you tell us where this fact is documented?

[JJM]

Incorrectly-prescribed conventional medicine is actually responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the modern world, ...

Can you tell us where this fact is documented?

The source of that "fact" is an unquiet mind.  But, seriously, medical mistakes do harm a large number of people.  Keep in mind, these people are very sick and difficult to treat.  

People who harp on this overlook the harm caused by quacks, deliberately (not accidentally) doing what is known to be harmful.  Chiros cause strokes administering "treatments" of no proven benefit.  Naturopaths treat cancer with laetrile (known to be ineffective), while the opportunity to medically cure the condition goes away.  A quack recently killed a boy with autism by chelation; which is useless for his condition.  Admittedly, this list is smaller than the list of medical error; but only because quacks see fewer really ill people.  

What about the flip side- what disease did a quack ever contribute to curing?  Fifty years ago, every spring brought the prospect of polio; that is no longer true in the developed world (and small pox is extinct).  We had hospitals (sanitaria) devoted to people with tuberculosis; they were rendered obsolete in the 1960s.  In 1969, my friend had "invariably fatal" Hodgkins lymphoma; 15 years later my cousin was lucky that it was the kind of cancer he got (he is still healthy, a farmer and volunteer fire fighter).  

When you bash medicine, you show your ignorance of all the good things it has done.  Look at The ten greatest public health advances in the 20th century and tell me what your favorite quack has contributed.

[bigtim]

Ahh, yes, like the guy pushing organic fruit at me.....

I usually act surprised and respond "Oh, that's awesome, I really hate the synthetic fruit"....

Though, the USDA does have an official Organic label[footnote]http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html[/footnote].

[bigtim]

I am curious at the sheer number of single digit posters that are here, and all apprently on the same "side".  Gives me cause to pause and wonder if they are perhaps not the same person..... but then maybe I'm just suspicious....

Some posters have made claims of the benefits of OP.  They have been asked for their proof.  They have given as their proof their "claims".  Then they argue against those asking for proof.

You make a claim that this action has had certain benefits.  You must provide evidence to show that claim is accurate.  Force of argument does not make a claim true.  Testimonials do not make claims true.

So far no one has shown any evidence to support their claims.  You'd think that those with an apparent emotional interest in convincing people that OP works would put the effort into documenting it's benefits.  If this simple act had the wonderous benefits that it's claimed to it should be quite easy to collect some real evidence to this fact.

A great number of fallacious arguments have been made in the support of OP.  Review the list here and see for yourself http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[slimpickins]

Incorrectly-prescribed conventional medicine is actually responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the modern world, ...

Can you tell us where this fact is documented?

The source of that "fact" is an unquiet mind.  But, seriously, medical mistakes do harm a large number of people.  Keep in mind, these people are very sick and difficult to treat.

Tis true I have an unquiet mind, the best type don't you think?
I am not used to debating with such experts as yourselves, but here's some links that cite well-known medical journals.

ezinearticles.com/?Can-the-Cure-for-Headaches-be-Worse-Than-the-Pain?&id=150166  
http://www.newstarget.com/000865.html

Unfortunately, todays doctors are forced to follow approved protocols, and may face legal actions if they deviate from the accepted procedures. What has been dismissed is the fact that not everybody will respond in the same way to medication, thanks to the wonder of biochemical individuality.

People who harp on this overlook the harm caused by quacks, deliberately (not accidentally) doing what is known to be harmful.  Chiros cause strokes administering "treatments" of no proven benefit.  Naturopaths treat cancer with laetrile (known to be ineffective), while the opportunity to medically cure the condition goes away.  A quack recently killed a boy with autism by chelation; which is useless for his condition.  Admittedly, this list is smaller than the list of medical error; but only because quacks see fewer really ill people.

Nobody is overlooking the harm caused by 'quacks', and of course there is a negligent/ bad/ mad subsection of alternative therapists, just as there are those in the medical profession, and every other. I don't think laetrile is 'known' to be ineffective, but it is a partly-synthetic substance, and as any other vitamin, is safest and most effective in its natural form, which is as a bitter component. Though nature often signals poisons by their bitter flavour, bitters do have an important role to play, including stimulating production of enzymes, which will have a knock-on positive effect.

What about the flip side- what disease did a quack ever contribute to curing?  Fifty years ago, every spring brought the prospect of polio; that is no longer true in the developed world (and small pox is extinct).  We had hospitals (sanitaria) devoted to people with tuberculosis; they were rendered obsolete in the 1960s.  In 1969, my friend had "invariably fatal" Hodgkins lymphoma; 15 years later my cousin was lucky that it was the kind of cancer he got (he is still healthy, a farmer and volunteer fire fighter). When you bash medicine, you show your ignorance of all the good things it has done.  

Much of the practices of 'quacks', and folk medicine are the foundations of modern medicine (which is a very young science), and it would be foolish to assume nature has nothing left to teach us. Contrary to bashing pharmaceutical drugs, I think some are fantastic, although misused in the main. What will we do when antibiotics are rendered useless within a couple of decades? It's great your cousin had a happy outcome, but many others have had others cancers brought on by the radiotherapy, and their immune-systems annihilated in the process, leaving them open to other diseases.

In answer to your question, my favourite folk medicine is digitalis (foxglove), which has kept my father alive, and aspirin (salicylic acid from willow), which has also helped. I think early vaccinations (spreading pus into a wound), was probably viewed as a quack practice originally, and fluoridation is a controversial topic, which I strongly object to on the grounds of mass medication. Too much fluoride in the water can cause the same mottling effect as too little.
Physiotherapy uses practices based on the fact that different areas formed from the same cluster of cells ie reflexology, and early acupuncture charts correlated neatly with yet-to-be-discovered lymphatic vessels.

As for other folk practices, I have had mixed results, but refuse to believe we have all the workings of the body exposed, and as a very fine piece of machinery evolved over millenia, think we are bound to be affected by subtle influences from all aspects of our environment.  

Slainte.

[NeroXIV]

Incorrectly-prescribed conventional medicine is actually responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the modern world, ...

The article slimpickins cited came from "International Socialist Review, was written by an "alternative health care activist," and states:

The pharmaceutical industry already kills well over 100,000 people every year from correctly [note: this was misquoted by slimpickins as "incorrectly;" they are talking about adverse drug reactions] prescribed drugs in hospitals alone.

Assuming this is true, and medicine certainly takes high risks, that places it below number 80 on wikipedia's List of causes of death by rate (source: the WHO), somewhere lower than benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The second article was written by Dr. Larry A. Johnson, D.C., which means  "Doctor of Chiropractic," which makes it difficult to take seriously, chiropractic being a bunch of phony baloney. But it has pretty much the same numbers.

Please explain where you came up with "more deaths than any other cause in the modern world!"

[slimpickins]

Nero,

I have read that statistic several times from different sources, and they all cite pretty reliable bodies in their articles, but I don't think we'll find one source we can agree on, with mutual suspicion of motives.

Regardless of 'facts', there really is no way to get an accurate tag on that number, especially with the pharmaceutical PR campaigns that smooth away any unsettling results. Remember we are dealing with the wealthiest companies in the world. If they really had our best interests at heart, why aren't their miraculous products being doled out to the poor and sick of the world? Why are these medicinally-treatable diseases still rampant, while the owners of the cure are busy trying to convince the rest of us we need more pills to help us concentrate or sleep or slim or get it up?

Non-food form items will knock the body out of sync, as it's faced with a molecular bundle unknown in nature, and therefore unknown to our bodies (please, ya gotta believe in evolution!) . With our vast, but far from complete knowledge of the human body and its chemistry, we know how important, and indeed essential, trace amounts of certain compounds are. Surely a barrage of strange new substances will have tremendous effects on the body, not all of them good. With this increasing interference from foodstuffs, cosmetics, cleaning products, the air and water, it hardly seems appropriate to take even more concentrated deliberate doses for trivial complaints.

I have experimented with pharmaceuticals for various ailments, and was unhappy with the results. So they gave me anti-depressants. Uncomfortably numb wasn't really my thing, so I started looking into it myself, and discovered the benefits of subtler medicines and therapies. Having had the advantage of studying science, I am really comfortable with finding most therapies can slot alongside accepted chemical, biological and physical processes. If we can't measure the effect, it could be due to the crudeness of our equipment, not because it doesn't exist. Look at that particle accelerator they are building in France, a huge undertaking necessary to examine our smallest known particles.  We have seen how much energy that tiniest of things contains and and know that physics changes entirely at quantum level, although our measuring interferes with some of the attributes. Why would the human body, the most complex form we know, not exhibit finer, more delicate processes than we can gauge, or even comprehend? It's missing the point. It was minute genetic differences that spared the survivors from the fossil record.

Ignoring unscientifically-verifiable facts is laudable in the lab, in closed known systems, but when that is applied to the most sophisticated machine we have ever beheld, it will limit how much we can comprehend.   Instead we foolishly believe we know better than nature in our short reign, and while chemistry is only one jigsaw piece we seem determined use it to frame the whole picture.  I refuse to believe humans are simple enough in function to respond to generic remedies, and think that the pharmaceutical industries are the biggest swindlers and quacks of us all.

[NeroXIV]

I have read that statistic several times from different sources, and they all cite pretty reliable bodies in their articles, but I don't think we'll find one source we can agree on, with mutual suspicion of motives.

You don't seem to understand. I accepted your statistic.

[NeroXIV]

Nero,
...
drug companies are bad
...
drugs are bad
...
drugs are bad because quantum physics
...
not everything can be measured
....

Why did you address your cute little essay to me? Thanks, but I just wanted some evidence for "prescription drugs are the world's biggest killer!"

[slimpickins]

Sorry Nero, but lacking definite evidence, I tried to circumvent the proving of  my previous point, and get to the heart of the issue by giving you a view of the workings of a delusional woo woo mind.

Judging by your summary of my 'cute little essay', I'd imagine you find these points difficult to believe. Isn't all baloney phoney?