The child is now supposedly permanently damaged as a result. So the drug prescribed was HEALING his condition? I find it hard to believe...

[www.khou.com]

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the drug prescribed was HEALING his
> condition? I find it hard to believe...


Why?

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Why do I find it hard to believe? Because if a med is withheld and a person dies, I don't assume that the drug was healing the body. Otherwise the patient would eventually be able to go off said drug. In this case, the mother researched and found an alternative to the thyroid med. The doctors say that by going off the drug, the child was permanently damaged but I wonder if it's more complicated than that. I am very concerned with criminal charges against a parent for not complying with doctors. If it was due to neglect or malice, of course she should be charged. But wanting an alternative? Nope. And the other issue is that meds also can hurt the body! It's not like meds are 100% safe!

Remember for thousands of years we didnt have drugs,and the human race survived.

OH..........AND.............HOW MANY FRICKING COMMERCIALS DO WE SEE EVERY SINGLE DAM DAY FOR A LAWSUIT AGAINST A DRUG KILLING OR DAMAGING SOMEONE?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

HUH???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2012 01:53AM by eaglefly.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do I find it hard to believe? Because if a med
> is withheld and a person dies, I don't assume that
> the drug was healing the body. Otherwise the
> patient would eventually be able to go off said
> drug.

I see, so your emphasis is on "healing". My question then is: whats wrong with the drug being used for "maintaining" health, where healing is not possible from the point of view of traditional medicine? Surely, the effect is identical: you fail to give the child a drug that was healing the illness, and the child suffers. You fail to give the child a drug that was keeping the illness at bay, and the child suffers.


banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this case, the mother researched and
> found an alternative to the thyroid med. The
> doctors say that by going off the drug, the child
> was permanently damaged but I wonder if it's more
> complicated than that. I am very concerned with
> criminal charges against a parent for not
> complying with doctors. If it was due to neglect
> or malice, of course she should be charged. But
> wanting an alternative? Nope. And the other issue
> is that meds also can hurt the body! It's not like
> meds are 100% safe!

Well, wanting an alternative can very much constitute the neglect you mention, where wanting the alternative is *unreasonable*. Law addresses people as beings who are capable of recognising reasons for or against actions, of deliberating and of acting on these reasons. And reasons are objective - a reasonable outcome of one's deliberation does not depend on one believing or doubting the alternative or traditional medicine, but on one taking the available facts for and against adopting each of the approaches and objectively weighting them against each other. What this means is that, for example, where there exists a scientifically supported evidence of the efficacy of some traditional drug, normally it would outweight the existing evidence of the efficacy of some alternative medicine supported by Dr Mercola's article or John Rose's post on this forum (no offence to either) Each case is thus approached on it's particular facts, and therefore it is wholly irrelevant whether on the whole traditional medications are 100% safe or adequate to support human health on most occasions, or whether by contrast they are failing miserably to do so most of the time. What matters is the available evidence of the effects of traditional and alternative approaches in this particular case, evidence upon which the reasonable person can make the reasonable decision.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

eaglefly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember for thousands of years we didnt have
> drugs,and the human race survived.
>
> OH..........AND.............HOW MANY FRICKING
> COMMERCIALS DO WE SEE EVERY SINGLE DAM DAY FOR A
> LAWSUIT AGAINST A DRUG KILLING OR DAMAGING
> SOMEONE???????????????????????????????????????????
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> ??????????????
>
> HUH???????????????????????????????????????????????
> ????????????????????????/


Exactly my point The amount of evidence we have of variois drugs' harmfulness is irrelevant for as long as it is *reasonable* to take the particular drug in circumstances of the particular case at hand.


HOWEVER, the amount of information we have of various drugs' harmfulness may *of itself* constitute a reason against taking the particular drug at issue. That is, the amount of such information may suggest that the scientific approach which was used to qualify these harmful drugs for the treatment was inferior, and therefore should not be relied upon as sufficient support with our particular drug. And if the situation is so then we may well find that an alternative approach supported by Dr Mercola's or John Rose's statements will outweight the matter.

The question however is, are we there yet? Personally, I don't think so but in future, one may never know.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2012 07:42AM by chat.

There are NO Chemical Solutions for Lifestyle Related Problems!!!

However, when some of our Organs are Impaired or Damaged, we can use Hormones from other animals, like Insulin and Thyroxine, but these are Not Synthetic Chemicals like all of the other DRUGS foisted on us in the name of “Medicine” and in my book, Hormones should not be called a Drug.

I don’t have any of the details to this case, but if they were giving her child Armour Thyroid, then she was in the Wrong. But if they were giving her child Synthroid, it is the Mis-Directed Doctors who should be thrown in jail.

I coached a woman last year with Thyroid problems and when she went to her doctor on Day 50 of her Juice Fast/Feast, they said her Blood Pressure was better than ever and her temperature was 98.2 and it had not been above 98 for 10 years and that if her temperature stays that high in 30 days, she can go off her Thyroid Medication. And then, when she went back in 30 days, they took her off the Medication, but then, they said that she should stop doing the Juice Feast!!! I guess a patient healed is Money Lost!!!

Peace and Love..........John

The child was an infant when diagosed; I am assuming(without knowing what the medicine was) that the medicine had actions on a barely formed brain that seaweed would not. Hence the diagnosis of brain damage now.

Infant hypothyroidism is exceedingly aberrant and very serious.