|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Simply put, the medical scientific establishment doesn't know how to evaluate a drug-free approach to health problems. It stands to reason that any safe approach to a life-threatening disease, such as atherosclerosis, no matter how low the probable success rate, should be vigorously investigated. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide would benefit from it. For example, if only a few surgical operations are avoided, the savings is a thousands of dollars. And the loss of life is incalculable. Anecdotal and empirical experience regarding the nutritional approach to atherosclerosis has existed for almost 20 years. While reasonable people do not expect 100 per cent success for any therapy, thousands of them can say that they have experienced a remarkable improvement with this approach. Isn't that why we have science, to investigate methods such as nutritional arterial cleansing? It is beyond comprehension that scientific medical studies neither refute nor support the nutritional approach. To understand why the nutritional arterial cleansing has not been investigated, you need to realize that there is no special interest or economic incentive to provide proof, only a large counter-incentive not to do so by those with the means to run such a study. In other words, the only incentive is a general, rather than a special interest. So, if governments won't conduct a study on behalf of their people to verify inexpensive methods already available, who will, especially if it would cost a company millions? And why bother? Should nutritional arterial cleansing not work, it has been shown to be harmless. Furthermore, a large study isn't going to do the average person much good.
Therefore, up to date, there haven't been the outcome studies to document that the nutritional arterial cleansing doesn't work. They don't exist because the regulators and others are opposed to doing the research - because so many people have discovered that nutritional arterial cleansing does work! It's time then for true studies to be done on outcomes of the patient. The medical gold standard of research - the double blind, placebo controlled, crossover study - was great -- but only for infectious diseases. As it's impossible to hold all variables the same, this standard has become outmoded for today's outcome studies; it should go the way of the monetary gold standard. It's also time for medical establishments to place the patient foremost and to understand that doing "no harm" should be the only treatment.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
But not everybody, including medical establishments, agrees that the evidence is enough to act upon. Until formal proof is established, this matter remains a legitimate question of judgment, which varies from one person, or institution, to another. However, the only way to obtain scientifically acceptable proof of the association between nutritional means, such as targeted nutritional supplementation, and atherosclerosis would be to
Such critical test should be performed in a three-to-five-year, $75-million study conducted, for example, by the American Heart Association. The conclusive evidence would be published as a formal proof of the role played by nutrition in the process of controlling atherosclerosis. Unfortunately, such a multi-million study has not been run yet. Should we wait then for "conclusive" evidence, which may be years away and too late for some of us? Can we accept probable evidence? We need to realize that not taking a stand, insisting on waiting until all the evidence is in, is itself - a position and a recommendation! Not taking a stand is not really the neutral position it is made out to be. On the other hand, physicians like to pretend, and many have kidded themselves into believing, that whatever they espouse has been "scientifically proved." Nonsense! A great deal of what established medicine recommends today with good conscience is not formally "proved"! In other words, in medicine it is not uncommon to recommend measures for which only substantial evidence exists.
Example No. 1: And only in early 1985 did a panel of 13 experts convened as part of a National Institutes of Health "consensus conference" conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" that lowering elevated blood cholesterol levels would reduce the risk of heart attacks. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" in fact means "with a high order of probability." Surely this is not formal proof. It's a consensus decision.
Example No. 2:
Existing evidence indicates - not absolutely but with a very high order of probability - that the nutritional arterial cleansing can halt and reverse the atherosclerotic processes in the body.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
| ||||||
 © 1998-2004 ATHEROSCLEROSIS Controlled Nutritionally At 50+. Arterial Cleansing Formula - Reverse Atherosclerosis Without Drugs or Surgery. All rights reserved worldwide. This document may not be copied in part or full without express written permission from the publisher. The information on atherosclerosis and nutrition provided herein is a general overview on this topic and may not apply to everyone, therefore, it should not be used for diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. While reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information on atherosclerosis, Full-Health.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from use of the information herein. |
||||||
