Many sheeple still fall for the big money promoted products and techniques.

There are others that can actually learn by the SoHK (School of Hard Knocks)
by actual experience instead of listening to "conventional" doctors preach
about things they have absolutely no schooled training in... like Nutrition
or preventative health.

This is not to say that the whole text is not BS to some degree. As the
"conventional medicine" quacks do, they have stretched some of the findings.

BTW: Some of your statements below actually contradict themselves in the
same paragraph. Your "evidence based medicine" should include al the failed
trials that have been discarded. Doctors should reveal their sources. It
wasn't taught them in medical school..

Here is another quack based website www.quackwatch.com where MDs express
radical comments, based on hearsay, about subject matter they have no
training in, for money and.or publicity.

Where there is a buck to be made there is a liar.

-----------
"David Paste" wrote in message
...

On Oct 31, 1:48 pm, "Eric" wrote:
The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think
critically. This link may be useful to you:

http://www.badscience.net/

Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally
as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone
else's opinion.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two
categories too, but my categories a

1. Evidence-based medicine, and
2. Wishfull-thinking based bull****.

There is also a US based site:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.

But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value
when it contains such glaring errors as

"Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being starved."

Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be
produced?
DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?

And the even more-established-to-be-bull****:

"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic
buildup."

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.