Remembering the Barefoot Doctors

[Bill Glasheen]

I believe you are the one putting straw-men arguments into this thread and Ian should be congratulated for remaining calm and quite logical in his attempt to address the original topic.

Am I?

Let's start by getting full disclosure from Ian. He is anti-Christan for personal reasons. It's not like I don't understand his point of view. There are intolerant Christians out there - just like there are intolerant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even atheists. But not noting his anti-Christian beliefs at the get-go is like NBC not acknowledging it is owned by GE when reporting a story on GE. (They have now been sold to Comcast.)

Both Ian and Justin - practicing atheists I presume - have been trying to attack my TOLERANCE in and DEFENSE of religious people and their beliefs. This isn't an isolated thread. Note how long this one has gone on. They have been trying REPEATEDLY to get me to defend the existence of God, angels, and other deities. In defending RELIGION and in explaining MY OWN beliefs, I have not once mentioned a belief in God. I've also not mentioned a disbelief in God. Why? Because nobody in this discussion - myself included - can prove or disprove his existence. I keep saying that again and again and again. But nooooo.... We keep getting back to me discounting chi and therefore I have to take on God.

That's bullsheet, George. I call it like I see it.

Please go back to what *I* posted.

Most religions of the world can be summed up with three basic components:

• The Golden Rule
• Dealing with our earthly mortality.
• Concerns about the origin of the Universe

Chi as it is described in the west is a badly-translated word that describes many things in Chinese culture and meridian-based Chinese medicine. It has nothing to do with ethics, (im)mortality, or the origin of the universe.

If you want to worry about the presence or absence of a supernatural being, well knock yourself out. I don't lose any sleep over it. I can live with it, and I can live without it.

I'm abivalent about the idea of God. I can live with one; I can live without one. But I'm very positive on the Judeochristian values instilled in me by my parochial school experience - arthritic hands notwithstanding. (jk)

The essence of Judeochristian teachings isn't in the institutions or even the dogma; it is in the way you conduct your life. The essence of TJ's Statute is that YOU don't get to tell me how.

The most important thing I learned with my Judeochristian training is what I do and not who I associate with.

I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.
In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

Jethro and I get it just fine.

The thread started with chi. Whenever someone wants to bring chi into a martial arts discussion, they'd better be prepared to define what they mean and demonstrate what it does. Otherwise they're going to get challenged by me. Why? Because chi is thrown around in explaining things in martial arts in ways that are not helpful. I'll go as far as to say it is harmful, because it contributes to a type of mysticism that has no place in martial arts. And why?

• Energy from a punch is real; chi is not.
• Injury and death are real; chi is not.
• PTSD is real; chi is not.
• Sequential Summation of Motion (a.k.a. body whip, jing, etc.) is real; chi is not.
• The Survival Stress Reflex (a.k.a. condition red, condition black, "the dump") is real; chi is not.
• Getting thrown in jail for assault is real; chi is not.
• Religion (a.k.a. religiosity, spirituality) and its contribution to medicine and RBSD are real; chi is not.
• Randi's offer of a million bucks ($1,000,000) for proof of the existence of chi is real; chi is not.

What we do is real and measurable. If it isn't measurable and definable in science, then it doesn't exist in this lifetime and in our own measurable sense of reality.

As for God, well... that's His cross to bear.

Unlike ANY of my esteemed colleagues here (including you, George), I have cited numerous (4) articles in the peer-reviewed literature, a Statute that is the foundation for part of our Constitution, a published article by a RBSD expert, my own published article, and a book by a bilingual authority in internal martial arts. And what do I get in return? Arguing.

Ian did cite a well-known study on praying. I concurred with the findings, and noted that I could have predicted the results before the experiment was run. That should have clued Ian in on my beliefs...

Put up, boys. I'm articulating my position clearly and consistently. I'm saying what I do NOT claim as my argument when Ian tries to misrepresent what I say (hence the valid strawman accusation). I'm backing up my discussion with references. If you can't do the same, then you aren't holding up your end of the discussion - no matter how long it goes on.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Both Ian and Justin - practicing atheists I presume - have been trying to attack my TOLERANCE in and DEFENSE of religious people and their beliefs.

That is just not true. It's actually the opposite of what I'm arguing.

I'm attacking your INtolerance of people who believe in chi. I would say I'm attacking your intolerance of the belief itself, except you go beyond attacking the belief and into the realm of just mocking the people.

I don't think you should be intolerant of religious people. I don't think you should be intolerant of religious beliefs. All I think is that you need to accord equal tolerance to the belief and the believers of chi as you do to those of God. You have yet to give any good reason for the difference in treatment. All you've done is some handwaving about how great Judeochristian teachings are. And maybe they are great, but that is utterly irrelevant. Similarly, Jefferson's views on religion, while noteworthy for a number of reasons, have nothing to do with this issue.

One issue is that I think is that you're conflating chi with chi's effects. In a given study you can say "chi is not at work" but you can't say "chi is not real"... Just like God. If someone says "God is making me hit harder" would you say "God is not real" or would you say "God is not causing that?" Because when it comes to chi, you're very eager to say "chi is not real" Do you see the double standard now? You're not nearly so dismissive of people who credit God with affecting outcomes.

[Van Canna]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/23 ... -Straw-Man

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm attacking your INtolerance of people who believe in chi.

Inappropriate

I would say I'm attacking your intolerance of the belief itself...

THAT would be appropriate.

...except you go beyond attacking the belief and into the realm of just mocking the people.

Sorry I can't come up with a better word than "chister." What would be the politically correct label? Kister?

Granola head? Such a stereotype exists.

granola-head n. A health food eater, esp. one with an unconventional lifestyle. Usage: slang

I've taught thousands, Justin. I've brought a few such individuals down to earth. It is my duty as a student and teacher of Science and of reality-based martial arts.

If I am mocking a granola head for BEING a granola head, well it is what it is. That's like mocking a spiritually misguided person (e.g. a homicidal bomber) for being a spiritually misguided person.

All I think is that you need to accord equal tolerance to the belief and the believers of chi as you do to those of God.

Should I be tolerant of an adult's belief in The Easter Bunny? The Great Pumpkin? The Mayan belief that the world will end on December 12, 2012? Hitler's belief in a Master Race?

You have yet to give any good reason for the difference in treatment.

Oh yes I have. Try reading what I posted. Repeatedly. What part don't you understand???

One issue is that I think is that you're conflating chi with chi's effects. In a given study you can say "chi is not at work" but you can't say "chi is not real"... Just like God.

Ooo!! Ooo!!

So you are saying that belief in chi in martial arts is a religion? That's priceless!

And now someone is going to tell me this is a strawman argument.

You're not nearly so dismissive of people who credit God with affecting outcomes.

I'm not dismissive of people who credit RELIGION with affecting outcomes. And why? Because such a thing is real and measurable. I've cited the references.

Meanwhile YOU, sir, just engaged in a strawman argument. And now someone is going to tell me this isn't so.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/23 ... -Straw-Man

Good find!

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Sorry I can't come up with a better word than "chister." What would be the politically correct label? Kister?

Then maybe don't use it? This particular phrase isn't really the problem. It's the generally condescending and demeaning tone. It's not a spackle-over-with-PC kind of issue.

Granola head? Such a stereotype exists.

The existence of a stereotype doesn't make it less insulting.

Should I be tolerant of an adult's belief in The Easter Bunny? The Great Pumpkin?

Yup.

Hitler's belief in a Master Race?

Fundamentally different (this was not a belief in a supernatural phenomenon).

Also you lose the thread according to official internet rules.

So you are saying that belief in chi in martial arts is a religion? That's priceless!

See the thing is, I didn't say that. Neither did Ian, for that matter. So yeah, in fact that is a strawman argument, though I would've assumed it was failure to understand what was being said, rather than an intentionally dishonest debating tactic.

I'm not dismissive of people who credit RELIGION with affecting outcomes. And why? Because such a thing is real and measurable. I've cited the references.

I'm sure that's true! However you're also not dismissive of people who credit God with affecting outcomes. I have not at any point been trying to compare chi to religion. I am comparing chi to PARTS of religion. Are you really just not comprehending this, or are you just refusing to discuss anything except a comparison of chi to religion?

I brought up religion exactly once, and that was to find out if you stop thinking chi is a silly, "not real" thing in the context of Taoism. You didn't really answer that question, so who knows. Other than that, I have been comparing God to Chi, consistently. NOT religion. When you take my argument and then pretend like I'm comparing chi to religion then, that is an argument that looks for all the world like a strawman argument.

Anyhow you either accept the comparison between chi and God or you don't. If you don't think chi can be usefully compared to god, then please say why. Because almost everything you've said so far is about religion, and is religion is not what I'm comparing chi to.

Let's recap the thread a bit
Here's how I started this thread:
"Comparing chi and religion is really apples and origins."

And hey! Look how you responded:
"So once again... No comparison between chi and religion. They have nothing to do with each other. "

So we agree! Fabulous. But then you went off on a tangent about how it's impossible to disprove god (which I agree with) and implied that's why you don't criticize when people talk about god. Yet it's equally impossible to disprove chi and yet at every turn you try to "bring them down to earth." Why?

[Bill Glasheen]

Sorry I can't come up with a better word than "chister." What would be the politically correct label? Kister?

Then maybe don't use it? This particular phrase isn't really the problem. It's the generally condescending and demeaning tone. It's not a spackle-over-with-PC kind of issue.

I'm not buying it, Justin. There's nothing patently offensive about "chister." Do believers in chi wish to disassociate themselves from the belief? What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The existence of a stereotype doesn't make it less insulting.

The existence of foolish beliefs in martial arts will get you - AND YOUR STUDENTS - killed. That's beyond PC; that is dangerous and irresponsible.

So did I hurt someone's feelings? Well... that suks less than death, don't you think? Maybe in a Van-Canna-like, ice-water-down-the-pants way, I got somebody's attention. GOOD!!!!

Should I be tolerant of an adult's belief in The Easter Bunny? The Great Pumpkin?

Yup.

Hitler's belief in a Master Race?

Fundamentally different (this was not a belief in a supernatural phenomenon).

Also you lose the thread according to official internet rules.

Excellent sense of humor aside...

You skipped over the Mayan belief in the end of the world on December 12, 2012. What's up with that? My ordinal silliness scale was intentional. I frankly think that's the right dose of silliness.

However you're also not dismissive of people who credit God with affecting outcomes.

I am APPROPRIATELY giving credit to RELIGION (religiosity/spirituality) affecting outcomes, and I provide the references. But this seems to bother both you and Ian a lot. You get frustrated because I REPEATEDLY won't take your God-squad bait.

NOT MY PROBLEM. NOT MY DEBATE.

I have not at any point been trying to compare chi to religion. I am comparing chi to PARTS of religion. Are you really just not comprehending this, or are you just refusing to discuss anything except a comparison of chi to religion?

God is off the table in my discussions. You can talk God all you want. You and Ian keep trying to draw me into the God room; I'm stopping at the doorway. I've never gone there, so it isn't appropriate to stick that label on me.

I'm talking about the benefits of religion, religiosity, and spirituality. I'm defending the rights of individuals to practice the religion of their choice. Furthermore, doing so may have very real benefits. And I'll teach that in both medicine and in martial arts. Look, ma, I didn't say "God!"

Anyhow you either accept the comparison between chi and God or you don't.

Ponder it all you want. It's never been part of my discussion.

If you don't think chi can be usefully compared to god, then please say why.

Because nobody told me they use God to increase their punching power.

it's equally impossible to disprove chi and yet at every turn you try to "bring them down to earth." Why?

Because it's my duty as a martial arts instructor to teach people how to avoid getting killed. Is that real enough?

Because it is my duty as a health services researcher to indicate which medical practices are evidence-based, and thus worthy of reimbursement with either policyholder or taxpayer dollars. Is that real enough?

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

In looking for Vonnegut quotes (another subject), I found the following. I kind of like it, and think it apropos.

- Bill

About astrology and palmistry: they are good because they make people vivid and full of possibilities. They are communism at its best. Everybody has a birthday and almost everybody has a palm.

- Kurt Vonnegut

[Valkenar]

There's nothing patently offensive about "chister." Do believers in chi wish to disassociate themselves from the belief?

Do you really buy this or are you just goofing aroud now? Are you seriously saying chister is not a disrespectful phrase? Anyway, the point isn't the phrase it's the general approach, as I said.

The existence of foolish beliefs in martial arts will get you - AND YOUR STUDENTS - killed. That's beyond PC; that is dangerous and irresponsible.

The same can be said of God. Lots of people believe god will protect them from illness. Now you might turn that around and say "hey, their belief that god will protect them from illness actually does help them" and you'd be right. But is it your position that a belief in chi cannot help in the same way a belief in god can?

You skipped over the Mayan belief in the end of the world on December 12, 2012. What's up with that?

Oops. That was an oversight. I meant to read up on this, since I don't know why or even if they believed the world would end. For all I know their calendar just wasn't made to go that far in a Y2K bug type oversight, but I forgot to go back and do so.

I am APPROPRIATELY giving credit to RELIGION (religiosity/spirituality) affecting outcomes, and I provide the references.

Sure. And I acknowledge that. But before you weren't be explicit about your rejection of my contention. Now you're admitting that you simply don't care to discuss it, which while not convincing, is at least comprehensible.

God is off the table in my discussions. You can talk God all you want. You and Ian keep trying to draw me into the God room; I'm stopping at the doorway. I've never gone there, so it isn't appropriate to stick that label on me.

Okay, and you're within your rights to do so. But I called you out on treating chi and god differently, not chi and religion. The religion part is a red herring. It would've made more sense to just start by saying "I refuse to discuss that" to begin with. I called you out on being too eager to back up god and other specific elements of faith. Nothing says you have to respond to that, but now it seems like you're saying "no comment" rather than "you are incorrect."

Compare it to this. Suppose I was arguing that nukites are silly and nuksters should stop using them, but that sanchin strikes are cool for people that like them. One might say "but those strikes are both flat-hand techniques, why the distinction?" Now if I start talking about how sanchin-the-kata is a solid foundational kata that teaches stance and many other good things, I would be absolutely correct, but I wouldn't be addressing the point. Sure, I can say "no thanks, I refuse to discuss sanchin strikes outside the context of sanchin" but your point about how silly it is to just offhand dismiss nukites when you approve of sanchin strikes. On the other hand, if I said something about the angle that a nukite is delivered at and how it's different from sanchin, then I might still be wrong (nukites are useful, imho), but at least I'd be addressing the question. Of course, I would be within my rights, as you are, simply to say "nah, I believe what I believe and I refuse to accept your criticism"

Because nobody told me they use God to increase their punching power.

Well that's not a very good reason. That's tantamount to admitting that you are less ready to tolerate chi simply because more people believe in it. While you definitely shouldn't be more ready to believe chi just because lots of people believe in it, lacking anecdotes for people who think God is directly helping them isn't a good reason to dodge the question.

But as I said, if you want to give a "no comment" that's your right. There's no reason you have to defend your biases on the internet.

[Van Canna]

Maybe in a Van-Canna-like, ice-water-down-the-pants way, I got somebody's attention. GOOD!!!!

[IJ]

More later. I'll need to reply to charges that are false. BUT, just to point this out, I've heard from numerous martial artists just in the UFC arena that God helps them fight. Diego Sanchez just came to mind. He's doing pretty darned well, although Penn stopped him in their recent bout. But Penn stops a lot of people. Undeafeated at lightweight for 8 years! I would say neither belief in chi nor belief in God is likely to be an impediment in combat UNLESS one forgets the wink wink maxim that "Chi helps those who help themselves" and fails to adequately prepare, believing oneself invincible (see "Yellow bamboo nutjobs")

Opinion: if I am not supposed to discuss whether God is real or not, but rather only whether religion is useful, then we shouldn't discuss whether chi is real or not. Perhaps chi is almost always bound up with claims about its action, but it might be present and silent, you know, the way Deists thought God might be watching.

[IJ]

Ok, made it home. Time to write. Here's the whammy:

"Let's start by getting full disclosure from Ian. He is anti-Christan for personal reasons. It's not like I don't understand his point of view. There are intolerant Christians out there - just like there are intolerant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even atheists. But not noting his anti-Christian beliefs at the get-go is like NBC not acknowledging it is owned by GE when reporting a story on GE."

Whoa, mister. Maybe ask a question instead of make an assertion? You're saying I'm anti-christian, for one, and for someone who gets irate when anyone conflates religion with anything God, Gods, or spirit, and for someone who carefully attacks belief in chi instead of chisters, that is remarkably imprecise and a bit defamatory. Some of the most wonderfully kind people I've ever met have been Christians, actually, and that includes a bunch I've mentioned here, including people I 100% disagreed with, like my very kind and nonjudgmental Biblical literalist geology roommate, the two ministers who offered to marry me and my partner, risking their livelihoods to support equality, and there are also Christian thinkers I'm fond of (having mentioned Shelby Spong). There are tons of others spanning the range from methodist to episcopalian to catholic to evangelical to mormon that I think very highly and I am not antiTHEM in the slightest. Didn't I just solicit DONATIONS to a christian charity?

Perhaps you meant I was antiChristian-ITY. That would be a lot closer to the truth, but again, your happiness to assume that because I've been the target of bigotry from some Christians means that I'm against the whole enterprise is a real leap. I'm certainly antifundamentalist christianity and violent christianity, and anti-restrict yourfreedomchristianity. But that doesn't mean I care too much about the majority of christians who do their worship without messin' in other's affairs. I may not agree with them on some matters of religious doctrine--but to about the extent that you don't! You've said the existence of God can't be proved, and that puts you completely at odds with Christian thinking that is certain he's out there (and many other details). That's my only gripe with it in principle: pseduocertainty. Apparently you share my concern.

Further, there is no special anti-christian pseudocertainty. I care a lot MORE about Islamic pseudocertainty because of the propensity for that to turn violent. In general, I worry more about religions that don't want to live and let live, and want to spread over the earth--that's just for practicality. My distaste for pseudocertainty extends equally to a Jewish conviction that we can't have bacon cheeseburgers if we want or even the Bahai belief in deity, although I think their ethics are a model for almost all to consider. And it isn't just religion: I have the SAME distaste for chi pseudocertainty, as I hope is perfectly evident from my posts early in this thread. If I'd made them about religion I'm sure that would be ammunition that I'm antichristian / prejudiced, but the fact is they were perfectly welcome because we're permitted to trash chi here. Lemme be clear here: I attack, just as seriously, pseudocertain doctors who don't understand the limits of their tests, diagnoses, or treatments and especially those who think they can tell based on their BS "art" that someone needs X not Y antibiotic and go and deviate from trial and guideline standards. In fact I expect more from trained professionals. So does that make me "antimedicine" for personal reasons?

Both Ian and Justin - practicing atheists I presume - have been trying to attack my TOLERANCE in and DEFENSE of religious people and their beliefs. This isn't an isolated thread. Note how long this one has gone on. They have been trying REPEATEDLY to get me to defend the existence of God, angels, and other deities. In defending RELIGION and in explaining MY OWN beliefs, I have not once mentioned a belief in God.

Nope, I think this borders on libel. I have never, not once, attacked your tolerance of religious people and am super tolerant myself. You keep bringing up that Jefferson freedom stuff and I've responded every time that the rights of religious people have never been in question. I'm just questioning the data underlying their beliefs. Not only do I support their rights (the sign I rotated during the San Diego Prop 8 protest read "Did you vote away my rights?" on one side and "I will ALWAYS support yours" on the other), I also get along with them fabulously in work (patient and colleague) and social settings. HALFWAY through the intern year the orthodox Jewish interns at Beth Israel were shocked to learn I wasn't Jewish. This is a nonissue! Not guilty! I just don't share the faith.

Back to trial data and your reminders that you've posted peer reviewed data. First, I want to remind you that you've posted observational data, and I've explained two classic reasons why it's not proof that religion is useful: the first is the very plausible possibility we confused cause and effect, the second is that there are unmeasured confounders, and I gave an example about how reliance on associations led to the huge HRT debacle. Remember blasting the premature adoption of BMT for breast cancer? Similar mea culpa from medicine on HRT, and the strength of the data was as good as what you posted. You've also skipped over the negative effects noted in the trials: negative religious coping, and possibility of harm in interventional trials.

Beyond that, let me get all gedanken on you. Disclaimer: I share your lack of enthusiasm for chi use in martial arts. Let's imagine a study of chi's utility that could very plausibly occur and might mirror the religion studies. Say we go to China, where chi belief could be widely tied to martial arts practice--that's how they talk about martial arts. Then we do an association study and find out that chi belief is associated with better outcomes in fights. Do we then champion chi as "useful" if this makes it past peer review? I wouldn't. BUT I will say that using the concept of chi metaphorically to describe energy transfer (no empty force nonsense, no meridians, etc) would strike me as particularly harmless if it helped make the concept alive for students. One might counter this isn't really "chi" as usually practiced, but all available evidence suggests that that's also true of religion without any supernatural features.

Let's try another one. Here, when people get sick and Christianity is widespread, people often cope with illness with religious coping and ritual. Let's say in China belief in chi is widespread and they commonly cope with acupuncture and ginseng etc. I would bet money that in China, one could find that "acupuncture and ginseng coping" was associated with improved outcomes. Maybe "negative acupuncture experiences" work the other way. Does that show that chi is real? No, and that's not Bill's point with religion. But does it show that chi would be "useful" and proven in the peer reviewed literature? I think just as much. Believing in something and using it to cope would reasonably help with coping if only because of the placebo effect--something we can easily pick up with studies of acupuncture. Many show benefit. This is another example of the fair comparator point I was making earlier.

But wait there's more. You also get the following concept absolutely free! Whenever one reads a study, one has to consider the population studied. Lousy summaries read, "beta carotene increased risk for lung cancer" or "benazepril prolonged kidney function in advanced kidney disease." The REAL messages of those studies were actually that beta carotene supplements at X dose increased the risk of lung cancer in Finnish smokers, and that benazepril at X dose prolonged kidney function in a carefully selected group of Chinese kidney patients who tolerated the drug during a run in phase. Those are key distinctions. Maybe Finns already eat too much beta carotene and we don't, etc.

So who was studied in Bill's religion studies? Nonspecific religion and spirituality? Not really; we'd have to go back to each and carefully review the selection criteria, but my suspicion is that we're generally talking about Christians, and ones who believe in higher powers, and perhaps some other religion adherents who share that belief. I meet them all the time at work--lots of people want us to buy a little more time for God to intervene. I'm not belittling that wish. BUT if we're to say that religiosity is useful because of the trials, we are compelled to believe that the higher power part is important. That's the patient population (until I'm shown otherwise, of course). And that means that the issue of belief in God / higher powers is not something we can "take or leave" when discussing this data. NB: I personally do not believe that these association studies prove that (see limitations above), but I also believe I can't just give benazepril willy nilly without making sure my patients are like those in the trial. Make sense?

Miscellaneous observations:

"Chister" sounds a heck of a lot like "Christer" which is a term I would hesitate to toss around unless I knew the Christians present didn't mind. But let the chi believers speak for themselves.

One doesn't "practice" atheism. One practices the scientific method and other rational explorations of the world, and finds one believes in theism in proportion to the evidence.

[gmattson]

But for best results, lets stay on subject.

SaTerra tells me he is a terrible typist and responding in the conventional manner is very difficult. I suggested he send me a audio cd and I'd convert it to a TalkShoe interview. I hope you all enjoy the clip:

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/20285

[robb buckland]

I'm reading this and wondering if the music I'm about to play in "the man cave" while thinking EVIL thoughts and 'Devilishly 'pulverizing my heavybag is inapropriate ? The Metallica and Ramones pisses my wife off (and the neighbor too (probably because its 5am , but maybe because I'm disrupting the flow of his 'chi'.) I wonder if I should switch to organ music ...Hmmmmm .Father Bill is it wrong for me to question ...is my inquisitivness going to effect the very foundations of my Sanchin ? How much chi will it take to unfreeze this drive way and shovel this snow for me ? My confesion ...I love this forum ...(but now I'll be laughing while I'm hiting the bag...damn it.)

[gmattson]

Wait till we get you at WinterFest. . . Saterra will make you so mellow with his acupuncture that you won't be able to fight!

Seriously, I try to keep an open mind in these things and can only speak for my own (and friends like Bill Bauknecht) experiences who have had successful experiences relating to health issues.

For me, acupuncture and chiropractic works to keep my body "balanced" and helps me fix things before something breaks down and it has to be removed or radiated or chemically altered. I believe people should take better care of themselves and availed themselves of "alternative" health methods along with continuing to visit MDs to let you know how you are doing.

There are many non-evasive treatments for "out of balance" body functions that MDs don't recognize . . . because the person hasn't deteriorated in health enough to fall into a sickness category!

It isn't surprising that the medical community won't acknowledge any value in what someone like Saterra does, since his treatments aren't considered necessary by conventional medicine.

Most of you know Bill Bauchnecht . . . a person who has somehow become the world's longest multiple mialoma survivor and by his own admission, has been helped using "alternative" healing methods along with the best modern medicine is able to provide.