Jump to content

Interesting article re: polygamists' approach to COVID, medical issues


Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church or LDS church, followed government guidelines to protect members of their religious community. On March 25, 2020, the church closed its temples and encouraged members to wear masks. Leaders praised vaccination, which church President Russell M. Nelson, a retired surgeon, called a “literal godsend.” He and other senior members received vaccinations, calling on church members to follow their example.

Fundamentalist branches of Mormonism, however – groups who began separating from the LDS church after it ended the institutionally sanctioned practice of polygamy in 1904 – took a different route. Many fundamentalists have refused to take the vaccine and have sought alternative therapies, including the controversial use of Ivermectin, a drug commonly prescribed to treat intestinal parasites.

Nationwide, about 30% of Americans have not received any vaccine dose against COVID-19. Many express skepticism about government intervention in their families’ health, opinions that are sometimes rooted in misinformation or conspiracy theories.

I wonder if this resistance to the vaccine has more to do with one's sociopolitical stance on government as opposed to basic religious beliefs.

Quote

Wariness toward government and medical authorities can run especially deep in isolated or marginalized communities. As a scholar of Mormon fundamentalism, I’ve seen how, for fundamentalists, such fears are rooted in distrust. From the founding of the LDS church in 1830, its members often faced discrimination and persecution, but conflict decreased significantly after the end of institutionally sanctioned polygamous marriages. Fundamentalist groups, on the other hand, still view the government with suspicion. Many continue polygamy, and fear of being reported to law enforcement keeps them from accessing resources like health care.

I am grateful for the government, but I also don't particularly trust it to do its jobs well, or to restrain itself in terms of size, financial expenditures, regulations, civil liberties, and so on.  Hence the need to be involved in the political process.

Quote

Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, taught that God has a body and that people’s own bodies are sacred gifts to help them reach eternity.
...

Early LDS leaders warned against “poisonous medicines.” Brigham Young, the church’s second president, counseled his community in alternative therapies to keep them away from medical professionals they did not trust.

An often-quoted adage – popularly attributed to Young – is that Latter-day Saints should have knowledge of several herbs “to withstand the scourges of the last days.” Comfrey in particular became a catch-all treatment and remains a staple in fundamentalist homes wary of medical professionals.

 

Hmm.  I've never heard this "often-quoted adage."  A Google search yields a grand total of six hits, which provide the JOD as the source, but I can't find it there either.

Quote

After the turn of the 20th century, when the LDS church began supporting legal prosecution of polygamy and excommunicating members who practiced it, fundamentalist groups became even more isolated and continued to rely on home remedies. During the Cold War, former members of one group recall, their late leader instructed followers that a bitter concoction called “green drink” could preserve the bodies of the most righteous from nuclear fallout.

Does anyone have information about the Church "supporting legal prosecution of polygamy?"

Quote

In my own research within these fundamentalist communities, I’ve seen the use of comfrey firsthand – and even had it prescribed to me for colds.

In 2018, I was doing fieldwork in a rural polygamous community in Nevada during a whooping cough outbreak. Many members deemed vaccines dangerous and were reluctant to enter hospitals for fear of being reported to authorities. At the instruction of their leader, an alternative health practitioner who was esteemed as a prophet, women took to their kitchens and prepared a bitter drink called “anti-plague,” a dark brown liquid made primarily of comfrey.

Today, medical professionals and government agencies warn against consuming comfrey because of potential liver damage. Yet many fundamentalist families deem government interference more risky than the herb.

Oi.

Quote

When people from polygamous communities explain the barriers they face because of their chosen lifestyle, access to medical care for their children is a central concern. This became a central point of debate during the legislative hearings for SB102, a bill signed into law in 2020 that effectively decriminalized polygamy in Utah after years of debate. The new law lowers polygamy to an infraction, rather than a felony, unless connected to other crimes such as abuse.

Since the bill passed there has been significant growth in the number of families seeking community and government resources. In 2019, for example, one nonprofit working with polygamist families reported that 800 victims of crime received assistance, including mental health services and legal support. By the end of 2020, that number had increased to 1,098.

I am very glad to hear this.  A few years back we had an extended family move into our ward, a married man with his wife and children, and two of his sisters with their children.  The man and his sisters had all grown up in a polygamist goup and had later joined the Church.  Boy, life was very hard for these folks.  Victimhood and learned helplessness was very deeply entrenched into their outlook.  It's good to know our polygamist neighbors are getting more medical and mental health (and legal) support.

Thanks,

Smac

Link to comment

This quote stood out to me. 

Quote

 

Early LDS leaders warned against “poisonous medicines.” Brigham Young, the church’s second president, counseled his community in alternative therapies to keep them away from medical professionals they did not trust.

An often-quoted adage – popularly attributed to Young – is that Latter-day Saints should have knowledge of several herbs “to withstand the scourges of the last days.” Comfrey in particular became a catch-all treatment and remains a staple in fundamentalist homes wary of medical professionals.

 

 

In reading the journals of my pioneer ancestors, I was surprised to see how many were nurses or midwives - using herbs was the norm.  Interesting that this stuck with the fundamentalists.  I also find it interesting that the government seems to be taking the heat today by fundamentalists for this mistrust in medicine, when Brigham Young mistrusted medicine due to the lack of government involvement.   These "poisonous medicines" used in medicine in the early days of the church were a direct result of no government involvement or regulations.  These were the days of snake oils and cure-all elixirs made with toxic led, mercury, and opioids etc. and other toxins.   There were also no regulations on the claims of healing that could be made of any tincture.  No need for testing for side effects or efficacy. Brigham Young was more than right to warn against toxic medicines used by medical "professionals" of the day.  It is a stretch to call these practitioners "professionals" as anyone could practice who wanted to.  Licensure and medical degrees were not required.    It was a free-for-all in medicine led by greed and unregulated corruption.  The government saved medicine by regulating it - making a legitimate profession out of it, requiring prescriptions for medicines, and helping the American public to trust the medicine they take.    

If the government did not get involved, I imagine the Church leaders today would be echoing the early sentiment of Brigham Young.  

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

This quote stood out to me. 

In reading the journals of my pioneer ancestors, I was surprised to see how many were nurses or midwives - using herbs was the norm. 

Folk remedies are very hit and miss.  Web MD has a list of some that actually can have a positive effect.  Conversely, TheHealthy.com has a list of folk remedies that may do more harm than good.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Interesting that this stuck with the fundamentalists. 

I question the authenticity of the quote.  I can't find where Brigham Young is actually quoted as saying it.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I also find it interesting that the government seems to be taking the heat today by fundamentalists for this mistrust in medicine, when Brigham Young mistrusted medicine due to the lack of government involvement.   These "poisonous medicines" used in medicine in the early days of the church were a direct result of no government involvement or regulations. These were the days of snake oils and cure-all elixirs made with toxic led, mercury, and opioids etc. and other toxins.   There were also no regulations on the claims of healing that could be made of any tincture.  No need for testing for side effects or efficacy. Brigham Young was more than right to warn against toxic medicines used by medical "professionals" of the day.  It is a stretch to call these practitioners "professionals" as anyone could practice who wanted to.  Licensure and medical degrees were not required.    It was a free-for-all in medicine led by greed and unregulated corruption.  The government saved medicine by regulating it - making a legitimate profession out of it, requiring prescriptions for medicines, and helping the American public to trust the medicine they take.    

Yep.  The wheel turns.  Circumstances change.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If the government did not get involved, I imagine the Church leaders today would be echoing the early sentiment of Brigham Young.  

In Brigham Young's day, the Saints had to be a lot more self-reliant, but not necessarily to the extent that they needed to resist advancements and opportunities for gaining secular training.  See this article on 19th-century midwives in the Church:

Quote

Before professional doctors and nurses assumed primary responsibility for delivering health care, LDS women played a major role in providing maternity and child health care in their communities. Their efforts continued into the twentieth century with the establishment of maternity and children's hospitals and clinics under the sponsorship of the Relief Society and primary and with some women still serving as midwives in rural areas. The Relief Society also sponsored educational programs to prepare mothers for the delivery and care of infants and children. Concern for the health of mothers and children continues in Relief Society lessons today, and members are advised to seek the best medical care available. Specially trained Church missionaries also assist in programs to improve health care in developing countries.

At the time the Church was established (1830), the methods of many doctors were experimental and often harsh, and women usually did not call upon men for maternity care because it was thought unseemly. When available, midwives often assisted during childbirth. As the Church grew, leaders called and set apart women to serve as midwives. In Nauvoo in the 1840s, the Prophet Joseph Smith set apart three midwives. After the main body of the Church moved to the Salt Lake Valley, other women were called to serve as midwives both in Salt Lake City and in the outlying settlements. Because midwives were called by priesthood authority, they were accorded trust and respect similar to that given ecclesiastical leaders. They often dispensed herb treatments, passed on by experimentation and word of mouth, and sometimes administered health blessings.

Ward Relief Societies began coordinated health programs in the late 1860s after President Brigham Young assigned two of his plural wives, Eliza R. Snow and Zina D. H. Young, to promote health-care education among the Saints and to train midwives. In 1873 he asked each ward Relief Society to appoint three women to study nursing and midwifery, and a nursing school was opened for their training.

In the same year, President Young said that the time had come for women to study at medical schools in the East. At least six women responded, earning medical degrees in the 1870s. Most influential among these early doctors were Romania Pratt, Ellis Shipp, and Ellen Ferguson, who set up Utah's earliest professional training programs. Dr. Pratt wrote many articles on health. Dr. Shipp opened the School of Obstetrics and Nursing in Salt Lake City in 1878 and taught two six-month long courses each year, from which more than five hundred students eventually graduated. In 1888 she helped found Utah's first medical journal, the Salt Lake Sanitarian. Dr. Ferguson helped initiate plans for the Church-sponsored Deseret hospital, which opened in 1882 and shortly thereafter became the center for the School of Obstetrics and Nursing.

In 1899 the Salt Lake Stake organized the Relief Society Nursing School to provide nursing training especially for women who lived in rural communities and came to Salt Lake City for instruction. The school continued successfully until 1920.

By 1900 there were at least 34 female and 236 male doctors practicing medicine in Utah (Waters, pp. 108-111). The role of midwives began to diminish, but the Church's concern for maternity and child health care continued.

In 1911 the general presidency and general board of the Primary undertook the establishment of a hospital fund and the Endowment of two rooms for children in the LDS Hospital. Primary-sponsored hospital care for children continued, culminating in 1952 in the establishment of the Primary Children's Hospital, which was operated by the Church until 1975, when it was transferred to private ownership (see Hospitals).

In 1912, following the publication of a Utah State Board of Health report linking many infant deaths to inadequate prenatal and postnatal care (Morrell, p. 197), the Relief Society began an intensive program for educating mothers in health care for infants and children. Local Relief Societies sponsored day-long clinics. Stake Relief Societies in Cottonwood, Utah, and Snowflake, Arizona, established their own maternity hospitals. Clinics and health care for children remained high-priority items for Relief Societies until the mid-1930s, when the federal Social Security Act was passed, subsidizing educational programs, prenatal clinics, and immunization programs.

Today, Relief Society women are encouraged to seek appropriate professional medical care and to participate in nursing and first-aid classes. Relief Society manuals include chapters on health care and nursing. Among the full-time missionaries of the Church are a great many young women (approximately 270 in 1990) with health and teaching backgrounds who, in addition to fulfilling proselytizing responsibilities, are assigned to teach disease prevention, nutrition, and home health care to Church members in developing countries. Like the midwives of the early Church, they devote their time and talents to improving health care in the various communities where they have been called to serve.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Folk remedies are very hit and miss.  Web MD has a list of some that actually can have a positive effect.  Conversely, TheHealthy.com has a list of folk remedies that may do more harm than good.

I question the authenticity of the quote.  I can't find where Brigham Young is actually quoted as saying it.

Yep.  The wheel turns.  Circumstances change.

In Brigham Young's day, the Saints had to be a lot more self-reliant, but not necessarily to the extent that they needed to resist advancements and opportunities for gaining secular training.  See this article on 19th-century midwives in the Church:

Thanks,

-Smac

That was an interesting article on midwives in the early church, thanks for sharing.  Interesting that this was an ecclesiastical calling, and the article confirms that my ancestors were not unique in their use of herbs within the church.   It also interestingly mentions that these midwives also gave blessings of health.  I also noted that in one ancestor journal the claim was made that they were healed by the blessing of a "prophetess set apart by Joseph Smith".  I have never been sure what to make of that, but it looks like blessing of healings by women were not terribly unusual.  "Prophetess" on the other hand, I don't know. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Folk remedies are very hit and miss.  Web MD has a list of some that actually can have a positive effect.  Conversely, TheHealthy.com has a list of folk remedies that may do more harm than good.

I agree.  The problem is that the industry of herbals and supplements is unregulated.  You don't know if you can trust what you are taking.  Many have been found to not have the ingredients they claim and often have toxins like led at high levels.   I only buy herbs from companies that do 3rd party testing to show purity, verify dosage, and test for pesticides and heavy metals.   Quite a few herbals and supplements have lots of good evidence and studies to support their use.  I do like that they listed "sex" as a medicine in your link of alternative medicines :).   

Sometimes herbals work way better than any prescription medicine with fewer side-effects.  My doctor prescribed me Wellbutrin for anxiety.  What a mistake that was!  It had the complete opposite effect - I started having panic attacks on it and thought I was having a heart attack.  He then recommended I try some herbals before starting SSRI's (as they can also have nasty side effects).  There simply are no good prescription medicines for anxiety.  They all have limited efficacy and some potentially serious side effects and dependency issues.  He wrote an Rx for Ashwagandha, CBD, and green tea (which happens to also be on the list you linked to.  I decided to take L-theanine in tablet form (the active ingredient of green tea).  What a Godsend this combo was!  It has all but cured my chronic anxiety and I have never slept better in my life.  I wake refreshed and rested, I am more alert during the day, I am happier, I have better mental clarity, and I feel like I have gotten my life back from crippling anxiety.  I sleep like I was a little kid again.  Other herbals that have good evidence that I am aware of are St. Johns wart (depression), Acacia powder (stimulant without the jitters of caffeine/prebiotic), peppermint (GI issues), turmeric (anti-inflammatory and antidepressant).  There are quite a few really good herbals, the hard part is finding a good and trusted source.   

A lot of the herbal industry is completely corrupt though.  For instance, look at this local Utah CBD company that almost sold me with their 3rd party testing guarantee.  They have a brick and mortar in Lehi near the outlets called CBD 7:  Med 7 CBD – #1 Recommended Full Spectrum Hemp CBD Oil by Healthcare Professionals  If you click on the "testing" link, you can look at all the 3rd party testing.  Go ahead and try it.  It is shocking!  First problem I noticed is that the bottle claimed to have 50 mg/ml of CBD, yet the test only showed less than 4 mg/ml of CBD.  Second problem I noticed is that the 3rd and 4th page, which tested for heavy metals and pesticides, was the exact same on every single product listed.  How could the results be the exact same down to a fraction of a microgram for every single product.  That is impossible!   On closer examination, I noticed a date on the top of the page from 3/29/2018!  This was supposed to be the test results of products manufactured in 2021.    In other words, they weren't really testing each batch and fraudulently claiming that they were.  I also noticed that these test results were for a CBD company called "Green Remedy" out of Kentucky, and not Med7 (a Utah based company).  I did some research and these companies are not related.  So, this Utah based CBD company somehow got 3rd party test results for a product from 2018 from a totally different company's product and are trying to pass it off as test results for their products from 2021.  It is completely fraudulent.  The first 2 pages in every report are legitimate (which actually proves that the dosage on the bottle is a lie).  The last 2 are fraudulent.   They actually have the cahones to post this online and think that no one will notice.   I emailed them several times to see if it was a simple mistake, or what.  No response.  I returned the product and the lady had no answer for me.  I want to report this fraud, but I don't know who to even report it to.  This kind of crap makes me SO angry and also so greatful for government regulation in medicine.  I wish they would better regulate the herbal industry.  This is unacceptable and rampant. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

This quote stood out to me. 

 

In reading the journals of my pioneer ancestors, I was surprised to see how many were nurses or midwives - using herbs was the norm.  Interesting that this stuck with the fundamentalists.  I also find it interesting that the government seems to be taking the heat today by fundamentalists for this mistrust in medicine, when Brigham Young mistrusted medicine due to the lack of government involvement.   These "poisonous medicines" used in medicine in the early days of the church were a direct result of no government involvement or regulations.  These were the days of snake oils and cure-all elixirs made with toxic led, mercury, and opioids etc. and other toxins.   There were also no regulations on the claims of healing that could be made of any tincture.  No need for testing for side effects or efficacy. Brigham Young was more than right to warn against toxic medicines used by medical "professionals" of the day.  It is a stretch to call these practitioners "professionals" as anyone could practice who wanted to.  Licensure and medical degrees were not required.    It was a free-for-all in medicine led by greed and unregulated corruption.  The government saved medicine by regulating it - making a legitimate profession out of it, requiring prescriptions for medicines, and helping the American public to trust the medicine they take.    

If the government did not get involved, I imagine the Church leaders today would be echoing the early sentiment of Brigham Young.  

 

We should profoundly distrust government health officials and their worker bees. I'm not picking on Dr. Fauci, necessarily, but the question of medical health and regulation of medicines should be left to one's physician and commerical payors.  I think public health administriation is a more serious affront to our happiness and well-being than government interference with markets and commercial transactions. I speak from experience; I represent large hospital chains and medical groups.

If your doctor prescribes a horse medicine for you to take, then all power to that.  Why would the government get involved to stop that other than being a**wipes.   

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

We should profoundly distrust government health officials and their worker bees..

Enough with the personal attacks.  You know what I do.

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 the question of medical health and regulation of medicines should be left to one's physician and commerical payors. 

How well did that work out before government regulation of of medicine and professional medical licensure?

13 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I speak from experience; I represent large hospital chains and medical groups.

In other words you have a very limited and biased perspective that does not take into account the holistic history of medicine in America.

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

If your doctor prescribes a horse medicine for you to take, then all power to that.  Why would the government get involved to stop that other than being a**wipes.   

For the same reason that they should get involved if your doctor is prescribing mercury or heavy opioids for a simple head ache.  Doctors should have regulated standards of practice to keep them in the scope of safe medicine based on evidence.  This is GOOD for medicine.  It helps us to trust medical professionals.  Without such regulation it would be like the days of Brigham Young where medical "professionals" were not trusted and people relied on folk herbs because medicine was poisonous.  

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, pogi said:

That was an interesting article on midwives in the early church, thanks for sharing.  Interesting that this was an ecclesiastical calling

I have a certificate indicating my great great was set aside to be a midwife after taking a course.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

If your doctor prescribes a horse medicine for you to take, then all power to that.  Why would the government get involved to stop that other than being a**wipes.

I've read this three times and it still seems to me like you're saying government should turn a blind eye to malpractice. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

This kind of crap makes me SO angry and also so greatful for government regulation in medicine.  I wish they would better regulate the herbal industry. 

I use consumerlabs.com which does their own testing and tracks studies for effectiveness to choose supplements. Worth the yearly fee.
 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I've read this three times and it still seems to me like you're saying government should turn a blind eye to malpractice. 

My comments were not about malpractice.  But in a free society, patients ought to be able to be free to use a physician who has malpractice claims or judgments against him or her.  Just as we should be free to use bogus ineffective supplements if that gives us some psychic benefit.  Do we really want the government to take over our medical care and tell us we can't use opiates, Vitamin D or some other substance to treat our maladies?  WHy would anybody trust the government with medical care?

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

I use consumerlabs.com which does their own testing and tracks studies for effectiveness to choose supplements. Worth the yearly fee.
 

There you go.  This is the type of source we should use and rely upon, and not some worker bee feeding at the taxpayer's trough.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

There you go.  This is the type of source we should use and rely upon, and not some worker bee feeding at the taxpayer's trough.  

Lol…as soon as consumerlabs has the ability to fine someone and enforce their payment for lying about a product, I might start thinking that could work.  Consumerlabs says itself it does not have the ability to test all products nor can it keep up with the latest versions, test every batch of a med, etc.  There is no way this type of coverage is enough even if one assumes everyone is educated enough and savvy enough to use such services and can afford the yearly fee to pay for the info.

Preying on low income, low educated, the desperate, those with dementia or other mental issues….self serve regulation leaves the vulnerable exposed. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I use consumerlabs.com which does their own testing and tracks studies for effectiveness to choose supplements. Worth the yearly fee.
 

How much is the yearly fee? 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Enough with the personal attacks.  You know what I do.

How well did that work out before government regulation of of medicine and professional medical licensure?

In other words you have a very limited and biased perspective that does not take into account the holistic history of medicine in America.

For the same reason that they should get involved if your doctor is prescribing mercury or heavy opioids for a simple head ache.  Doctors should have regulated standards of practice to keep them in the scope of safe medicine based on evidence.  This is GOOD for medicine.  It helps us to trust medical professionals.  Without such regulation it would be like the days of Brigham Young where medical "professionals" were not trusted and people relied on folk herbs because medicine was poisonous.  

I don't know what you do.  I consider myself an expert in health care.  I get paid to be an expert.  There is some value to having government study and approve procedures and medicines, but I think the cost of funding it outstrips its societal benefit.  Government can't cure everything.  I'd like to see all the government health care workers get off the dole and into private care; costs would drop.

There is no doubt that health care in the past was suboptimal.  That is the nature of civilization's progress.  The answer is not to hire a bunch of government workers to tell us what to do with our health care.

I doubt any doctor today would prescribe mercury or heavy opiods for a simple head ache.  Let the tort law address this issue, not some government worker bee. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Enough with the personal attacks.  You know what I do.

How well did that work out before government regulation of of medicine and professional medical licensure?

In other words you have a very limited and biased perspective that does not take into account the holistic history of medicine in America.

For the same reason that they should get involved if your doctor is prescribing mercury or heavy opioids for a simple head ache.  Doctors should have regulated standards of practice to keep them in the scope of safe medicine based on evidence.  This is GOOD for medicine.  It helps us to trust medical professionals.  Without such regulation it would be like the days of Brigham Young where medical "professionals" were not trusted and people relied on folk herbs because medicine was poisonous.  

I lack both your experience and Bob's.  That said, the terrible story of Christopher Duntsch is pretty good evidence for why the practice of medicine needs to be regulated.  But in that instance, the failure in oversight was at the local level.  Perhaps Bob is referencing defects in federal public health administriation?  

My generalized sense is that lawyers tend to be pretty cynical about the federal government, as its actors seem to have nearly unlimited impunity, near-total immunity from accountability for errors or misconduct (except when the feds themselves want it), massive amounts of red tape and bureacracy and administrative bloat, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

But in a free society, patients ought to be able to be free to use a physician who has malpractice claims or judgments against him or her. 

Because the medical profession is so good at getting out the info about their fellow practioners…I had to beg to be taken by one doctor because my current doctor was treating me like a guinea pig first and then ignoring me because she didn’t personally approve of the off label use of the on,y meds that worked for me without severe complications.  He was fearful it would get out he was poaching another doctor’s patients.

Nor can I get any negative opinions about other doctors for related issues when one doctor feels it is out of their comfort zone.  
 

And going on the internet and looking at consumer reviews…what a useless effort for actual medical treatment.  It is more about charisma and whether they make you wait or answer messages, bill too much.  Patients don’t have the ability to know what treatment is best because they don’t usually experience all of them.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

heavy opiods for a simple head ache

Have you paid attention to the opioid crisis?  There were plenty of doctors being very careless about prescribing until the government got involved.

And those of us who really need them are shafted now by the irresponsible actions of these numerous doctors who just cared about making a buck.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't know what you do.

You have insulted my profession a dozen times on here, and I have reminded you a dozen times that I am a public health nurse.  Let's make it a baker's dozen now.  

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I consider myself an expert in health care.  I get paid to be an expert. 

You are an expert at law that specialized in a very one-sided and biased side of health-care.  Big difference. 

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

There is some value to having government study and approve procedures and medicines, but I think the cost of funding it outstrips its societal benefit.  Government can't cure everything. 

Thanks for some acknowledgement of societal benefits, but I think that the costs of health, wellness, and trust that regulation provides far outweighs any financial costs.  Government can't cure everything, but they can keep corruption in check.  If all of medicine was like the unregulated herbal industry, we'd be screwed!  The free-market is not fixing the herbal industry.  Corruption is rampant!  The victims are countless.  Some times the costs are worth it.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I doubt any doctor today would prescribe mercury or heavy opiods for a simple head ache. 

You can thank the government for that.    While they may not prescribe mercury (they used to) heavy metals at toxic levels would for sure be found in the medicine they prescribed if the industry wasn’t regulated.

You have never heard of the opioid epidemic?  Why do you think it started?  Greed and corruption of big pharma and doctors.  Doctors were prescribing it like Aspirin.  They knew what would happen and they still pushed it.  Countless victims.  Countless addicts.  Countless dead. The only reason that a doctor wouldn'  recommend a heavy opioid today for a simple headache is because opioids are so heavily regulated now.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this resistance to the vaccine has more to do with one's sociopolitical stance on government as opposed to basic religious beliefs.

It seems to me that many who are part of high demand conservative religions tend to lean right in their politics and many extremely right.   I think it is rooted in their religious beliefs.  See the locked thread on the Benson book.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

While they may not prescribe mercury (they used to) heavy metals at toxic levels would for sure be found in the medicine they prescribed if the industry wasn’t regulated.

They have been found in herbal remedies and ‘health’ food…because they were tested by private groups after they have been available on the shelf for awhile, not before they were allowed to be sold, but also because the FDA is testing.

Examples both found on CL’s website…

Quote

On April 3, 2019, the FDA released the results of its tests that found dangerous levels of lead and nickel in certain kratom products. The agency tested 30 products sold on websites such as krakenkratom.com and by retailers such as Gaia Ethnobotanicals, Sunstone Organics LLC and Happy Hippo LLC. The newly released test results include product and retailer names and websites, and the exact amounts of lead and nickel found in each product.

 

Quote

Dried or roasted seaweed has become a popular snack, providing a tasy, crunchy, and vegan-friendly source of protein, fiber, and iodine, an essential nutrient for proper thyroid function. However, recent ConsumerLab tests revealed that some seaweed snacks contained so much iodine that they could be dangerous to consume on a regular basis, and most were contaminated with concerning levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead and cadmium. 

Four of the six popular seaweed snacks selected, purchased, and tested by ConsumerLab exceeded, in a single serving, the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) for iodine for children or adults, and/or contained unacceptable concentrations of lead or cadmium, or arsenic. For example, one product contained more than 16 times the UL for iodine for adults and as much as 90 times the limit for children, depending on their age. It also exceeded limits for lead and cadmium. Another product containined three times the California Prop 65 limit for cadmium as well as exceeding iodine limits for children. 

Although iodine is important for proper thyroid function, getting too much iodine can impair thyroid function and have other adverse effects. The amount of iodine per day that one can safely tolerate ranges from 200 mcg in young children to 1,100 mcg in adults. Among the seaweed products tested by ConsumerLab, amounts of iodine provided ranged from 66.5 mcg to more than 18,000 mcg per suggested serving. Heavy metal contamination is a known issue with seaweed foods, and, although some products bear warning labels indicating that they may pose a risk of reproductive harm (typically due to lead), the amounts and types of toxic metals they contain are typically not listed. 

Only two products passed all of ConsumerLab's tests of qualty and were Approved.

There are tons more then 6 versions of seaweed snacks on the market, CL can’t afford to test them all.  So at best a very small snapshot.

Also most of the warnings on consumerlabs are reports of FDA findings.  The highest value IMO is how they organize the FDA work and other research and then test a few products for content.  They don’t test to see if the supplement does what it says.  To suggest that it is better to rely on a private group rather than the government ignores the reality that the private group itself heavily relies on the government for the best info.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

We should profoundly distrust government health officials and their worker bees. I'm not picking on Dr. Fauci, necessarily, but the question of medical health and regulation of medicines should be left to one's physician and commerical payors.  I think public health administriation is a more serious affront to our happiness and well-being than government interference with markets and commercial transactions. I speak from experience; I represent large hospital chains and medical groups.

If your doctor prescribes a horse medicine for you to take, then all power to that.  Why would the government get involved to stop that other than being a**wipes.   

Despite the track record of “third party” testers being a trainwreck of graft and deception? The free market knows how to make money and it is not by giving consumers accurate data.

A while back the FDA sought permission to test supplements. Not to determine if they work. They just wanted to be allowed to verify that the product label matched what was actually in it. They did this because some testing showed a lot of supplements didn’t match the label.

The supplements industry ran a massive lobbying campaign with big name stars and commercials telling everyone that the government was trying to take away your vitamin C pills. Congress killed the idea so the supplement industry can continue to put whatever they want in the bottle.

I am especially disturbed by recent changes in stores where supplements are packaged a lot more like medicine and put right next to medicine. As one person put it:

“I just noticed CVS has started stocking homeopathic pills on the same shelves with--and labeled similarly to--their actual medicine. Telling someone who trusts you that you're giving them medicine, when you know you’re not, because you want their money, isn’t just lying--it’s like an example you’d make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong.”

The whole ‘get government out of medicine’ schtick seems like the ideal course of action if you want to get back to the days when Brigham Young could (largely correctly) say that most medicine is poisonous. Maybe it is a personal preference but I don’t want to go back to that.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that many who are part of high demand conservative religions tend to lean right in their politics and many extremely right.   I think it is rooted in their religious beliefs.  See the locked thread on the Benson book.

Okay.  I see the correlation, but I'm more skeptical of the purported causation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

You have insulted my profession a dozen times on here, and I have reminded you a dozen times that I am a public health nurse.  Let's make it a baker's dozen now.  

You are an expert at law that specialized in a very one-sided and biased side of health-care.  Big difference. 

Thanks for some acknowledgement of societal benefits, but I think that the costs of health, wellness, and trust that regulation provides far outweighs any financial costs.  Government can't cure everything, but they can keep corruption in check.  If all of medicine was like the unregulated herbal industry, we'd be screwed!  The free-market is not fixing the herbal industry.  Corruption is rampant!  The victims are countless.  Some times the costs are worth it.

You can thank the government for that.    While they may not prescribe mercury (they used to) heavy metals at toxic levels would for sure be found in the medicine they prescribed if the industry wasn’t regulated.

You have never heard of the opioid epidemic?  Why do you think it started?  Greed and corruption of big pharma and doctors.  Doctors were prescribing it like Aspirin.  They knew what would happen and they still pushed it.  Countless victims.  Countless addicts.  Countless dead. The only reason that a doctor wouldn'  recommend a heavy opioid today for a simple headache is because opioids are so heavily regulated now.  

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry.  I've never heard of you.  I haven't paid any attention.  

The opioid crisis is being addressed by tort law.  Not regulation.  Haven't you read the news?  Government regulators are in big pharma's corrupt pocket.  

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm sorry.  I've never heard of you.  I haven't paid any attention.  

The opioid crisis is being addressed by tort law.  Not regulation.  Haven't you read the news?  Government regulators are in big pharma's corrupt pocket.  

While this happens to an extent they are nowhere near as deep in that pocket as the ‘third party’ testers that some want to replace the government with to hold industries accountable. At least the government is not being directly funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...