Posted by Larry Hoover on February 18, 2007, at 20:34:21 [reposted on February 24, 2007, at 11:32:32 | original URL]
In reply to Re: definitions » Larry Hoover, posted by munificentexegete on February 18, 2007, at 16:20:58
> Hiya Lar!
Hey.
> the point I am making is that we have the medical technology to test for chemical imbalances, receptor dysfunction function, ect. Rather than accepting that we have such physical disease without evidence after a 5 minute consultation without any tests, and potentially needing medication to correct the disease for the rest of our lives as is the case with diabetes, I am merely pointing out that such medical statements can be questioned. The tests exist, they can be used for any purpose not just for testing cancers, and they can be used on a daily basis if required.
The tests you reference have not been correlated with anything useful, i.e. they have no meaning. Yet. If they were useful, we'd be using them. You can be darn sure of that, what with the profit to be made from medical testing. A doctor may not know what he's dealing with, but he knows that money can be made from ordering tests.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:735727
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20070223/msgs/735744.html