Risks of pesticides

[Obamot]

With "conventional" medicine you are at least sure of having the right to crutches!

With unconventional therapeutics, you may be able to make them yourself!

Whereas with a sect (or what not), it's your bank account would be wobbly ...

So if the HONcode allows you to sort sites to access the first category with a 50% chance and a good part of the second with a 25% chance of "better" and also avoid remission with "collaborative" patients, I think this is a good initiative! But that won't guarantee that you will have responsible patients who will have "the response to treatment is going well* ... (Both mentally that metabolically and sometimes intangible that are related to it ...)

... That you let yourself between 3 and 5% for what you recommended with the same unknowns rates (and again, I'm nice.)

[Janic]

With "conventional" medicine you are at least sure of having the right to crutches!
It is this same discourse that is held with regard to intensive "conventional" agriculture: better hazardous chemicals than losing crops ! This occurs only because agriculture "conventional" chose a wrong path which turns against her. For me (I do not speak of others), I see no difference between absorb chemicals through the food system or the medical system, but this concerns me ... selfishly, but I assume!

With unconventional therapeutics, you may be able to make them yourself!

Or better, to refrain in me through an unconventional therapy. But this requires s personally invest and not to wait until it all falls cooked in its beak.
After 45 years of experience, I can only see that this investment has been profitable in terms of health, excluding the "conventional" system, we will see what will be the next 20 !.

So if the HONcode allows you to sort sites to access the first category with a 50% chance and a good part of the second with a 25% chance of "better" and also avoid remission with "collaborative" patients, I think this is a good initiative! But that will not guarantee you that you will have responsible patients who will have "the response to the treatment that is going well * ... (both mentally and metabolically and sometimes intangibly related to it ...)

Experimentally, always, 95% (at random, the 5% being the use of non-conventional) and non 25% and% = 50 0%

[Obamot]

When are you going to respond directly to topics of inquiry?

You can not prove that 50 0% =% and it is about out of proportion!

I will answer but to these precise points only, if you go in other directions HS still, I do not see what answer we could bring more, without falling into "the never-ending story":

1) there are sometimes gross contradictions in some way, which explains - in my humble opinion - because the eternal question of free will is still ruled out (this is not because YOU you understood and that you are a good student, that others are in the process of thinking about it and even less of "taking action").

With "conventional" medicine you are at least sure of having the right to crutches!
It is this same discourse that is held with regard to intensive "conventional" agriculture: better hazardous chemicals than losing crops ! This occurs only because agriculture "conventional" chose a wrong path which turns against her. For me (I do not speak of others), I see no difference between absorb chemicals through the food system or the medical system, but this concerns me ... selfishly, but I assume!

2) No that's not it, the situation is certainly known, because it is what people live. If you have an accident and you break an arm, it is still "conventional" medicine that will put it back in place!
The question is not so much whether a hypothetical system would ideally be better, the question is to do the best, with what exists as it is. And you do it very well in YOUR way despite everything that opposes you to the "theoretical model ..."

3) After I give realistic percentages (80% dégnératives and cardiovascular diseases included, so although I take your second point into account, 5% near ...)

Experimentally

4) No "experimentally", statistically:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladie

The numbers in my post are correct imho.
Roughly speaking, that's 20% of cardiovascular pathologies and 60% of "preventable" degenerative diseases! And that with "collaborative" patients, so in fact my 75% are completely included in the 2nd category, even if I leave the part to "conventional" medicine, for the benefit of the doubt, knowing that it does not 'happens very badly in view of the statistics => but just to say that the HONcode is an efficient sorting system (therefore -5% of insoluble cases to the one or to the bonesetter and other healers, if they succeed) then you Where are you going with 95% of "collaborative" patients, completely out of line, I mean "out of any realistic context", unless I have found the "molecule of self-belief"which would allow you to forcefully follow your instructions to each patient ... im_pen_sable ... (unless your name is Mengele, Hirt or Haagen ...)

[Janic]

Obamot hello

You can not prove that 50 0% =% and it is about out of proportion!

And it goes again spin. Re-read what I wrote JE do not speak THAT Of all those who do not follow the royal road, you speak of those who follow her. It is obvious that we are not talking about the same thing! So that the HONcode applies to your version, it is quite possible, why not?! But not the second and it stops there.

1) there are sometimes gross contradictions in certain words, which can be explained - in my humble opinion - because the eternal question of free will is still excluded (it is not because YOU have understood and you are a good student, that others are in the process of thinking about it and even less of "taking action").

Again we are not talking about the same thing: me of those who are out of system and you of those who are in this system, even if they represent the great majority and therefore the utility of a HONcode applicable to those this.
So it is not a question of good student or not, but in different ways.

Janic wrote:
For me (I'm not talking about other), I see no difference between absorb chemicals through the food system or the medical system, but this concerns than me... Selfishly, but I assume!

2) No that's not it, the situation is certainly known, because it is what people live. If you have an accident and you break your arm, it is still "conventional" medicine that will put it back in place!

No more, no less, that the healer before he is done their competition. But I made it clear at the outset: except surgery who finds justification and she alone! (we do not put back in place a bone fracture with toxic chemicals, but by mechanical manipulations, such as the bones)

The question is not so much whether a hypothetical system would ideally be better, the question is to do the best, with what exists as it is. And you do it very well in YOUR way despite everything that opposes you to the "theoretical model ..."

It is not only that of me, but of all those who were disappointed with the system in place and had to "go elsewhere" by choice or necessity.

3) After I give realistic percentages (80% dégnératives and cardiovascular diseases included, so although I take your second point into account, 5% near ...)

I have not, once again, questioned the figures concerning the percentages of conventional medicine, but their application to heretics who are no longer following this one.
After it is a matter of choice: follow the main herd with its advantages and disadvantages, guarded by dogs herd and end up being clipped (health contributions increasingly important) or chops; or to depart without taking advantage of the group effect and may end up being eaten by the wolf (the goat of Mr Seguin!) or not eaten at all too. Or the first category ends well into chops, that is to say 80% of degenerative diseases and cardiovascular deadly.

Janic wrote:
Experimentally

4) Not "experimentally", statistically:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladie
The numbers in my post are correct imho.
Roughly speaking, that's 20% of cardiovascular pathologies and 60% of "preventable" degenerative diseases! And that with "collaborative" patients, so in fact my 75% are completely included in the 2nd category, even if I leave the part to "conventional" medicine, for the benefit of the doubt, knowing that it does not 'happens very badly in view of the statistics => but just to say that the HONcode is an efficient sorting system (therefore -5% of insoluble cases to the one or to the bonesetter and other healers, if they succeed) then you where are you going with 95% of "collaborative" patients, completely out of the picture, I mean "out of any realistic context", unless you have found the "self-conviction molecule" that would allow you to follow your guidelines. force to each patient ... im_pen_sable ... (unless your name is Mengele, Hirt or Haagen ...

You see it is not yet talking about the same thing! It's like taking two sporting one in the shot and the other rider 100m and compare their statistics. It obviously does not work! *

So the HONcode for your first class and statistics: okay, but do not compare to the second category, off stage!
Then you're obsessed by supposed constraints, obligations and you automatically eliminated either just out of compulsion but rather by choice (which is not the case of the first category, precisely, does not alternative but to bow to the default existing system to substitute a more effective and less toxic system, less dangerous, but off the nails).
So I made it clear that I leaned on MY experience (and that of other people I know intimately) to emphasize that official statistics were applicable only to the first category! But as the second category requires a questioning in depth, it does not attract many people of course!
* NB: We could also compare this to the populations who crowd in the cities for its particular advantages, but who would also like to have the advantages of those who live outside the cities, but without its disadvantages. Gold:"you can not have butter and cake at the same time", it's a question of choice!

[Obamot]

Hello Janic,

Everyone can see that you have not arrived yet to prove that you advance .... Not even if you break the neck of the femur, it is not you who decide in which categories you will be if you do osteoporosis (for example) ...

Due to the division into categories 3, it was clear that I was taking into account the whole population (in fact, it's what interests) and are shown the characteristics of those who would - or would not do - in the big pile of ground: the statistics do not differentiate them.

No less than the "theoretical model", no less than the HONcode (so it was clear that we were not talking about the exclusive specificities of a small group, and it was not for all that that it would have been excluded) go- y Janic embroidery, embroidery ...

There are times when I like old expressions of the French language like: "that's called peeing in your cap and saying it's raining "

[Janic]

Hello Janic,
Everyone can see that you have not arrived yet to prove that you advance ....

Prove what? This would live with me for a few years to check by experienced, not by general statistics which do not apply to particular cases like "we" the Mavericks.
Experiences!" experience sole source of truth"said august Lumière.
I have already quoted a leader of vegetarianism in France (the one who put Rika Zarai back on his feet) who clearly stated: " Do not expect to be cancerous to change the way we live, that is the true wisdom. In addition to 20 years (the publishing time) and extended practice, we have NEVER noted the appearance of cancer in vegetarians OUR WAY"which, statistically, would not appear anywhere.
That's the evidence in question, experiences checked on all individuals who have changed their way of living.

Not even in case you break your neck of the femur, it's not you who will decide in which categories you will be if you do osteoporosis (for example) ..

. Yet would it there osteoporosis! One of the peculiarities of non consumption of dairy products is precisely to avoid it. (It must be that these lifestyle choices have any use!) Always the same, we must compare like with like, which is not the case here.
I also already mentioned the case of a friend (which I followed very closely) suffering from debilitating arthritis for many years and could not lift his arms above chest. After implementation of some dietary guidelines, he gradually raised his arms wide above his shoulders, WITHOUT PAIN and of course without any medication or painkillers. The doctor who followed him did not understand what was happening because osteoarthritis is always going to get worse, not regressing and, as usual, he would not believe that it was only following upon dietary change.
But after a while, we got used to this permanent doubt (without experience) and it does not matter, what matters is his own lived experience, because if he had expect to practice the entire population put it, it would not advance an inch.

[Obamot]

No one other than yourself puts you in a category that you would call "non-conformist" ...

No more than nobody excludes you by treating you as such (or what do I know, since you give yourself several hats), on the other hand you stop pretending a little that because you would have "such or such label", that will give you a right superior to others, to judge for example that the HONcode would be "this or that" which was not the meaning of the discussion, but the fact that websites do not respect ethical principles, and that the HONcode would be there to overcome this problem: unless you are against ... As it is, I wonder if you know very well where you are, since you sometimes do not follow your own principles:

must be so that nothing can substitute

[Janic]

No one other than yourself puts you in a category that you would call "non-conformist" ...

I call unethical ... those who do not comply with ... !!! to whatever you like, not only regarding this. Catholics called it heretical. (For that concerned religion), so this is just an observation, not a claim.

No more than anyone you excluded yourself treating as such (or what not, because you give yourself several hats)

Bizarre perception of the subject! Excluded are never on their own (except to get lost on the highest mountain to be alone in this world), the conservative society managed without problem!

on the other hand you stop a little to pretend that because you would have "such or such label", that will give you a right superior to the others, to judge for example that the HONcode would be "this or that"

not worth taking the fly! I remind you this is HONcode (and I have nothing against that matter) that you assumed applicable to all the situations, I just pointed out that this was not the case for part of "caregivers" not recognized as such and therefore not included in the list (in France !!!!) It is possible that if their status of separated, unrecognized, was recognized, that they would like to adhere to it (but I do not speak on their behalf obviously)

that was not the direction of the discussion, but the fact that websites do not respect ethical principles, and that the HONcode would be to address to the problem: unless you are against ..

.

I do not have to be against by principle, I have never said or supported such a speech, I said and I repeat that this does not concern a part of unrecognized caregivers and therefore where it is unenforceable without more !
I'm not the website spokesperson, or anything other that I know of, nor seeks to recognize either!

In the state, I wonder if you know very well where you are located, since you happen not to follow your own principles:

My principles are: everyone is free to choose with its advantages as disadvantages, I am not the head of anyone of conscience (besides they are in ficheraient completely and it is happy)
The interest of forums it is to express points of view (often different depending on the individual and that's fine) and not to impose anything on anyone! On the other hand, it can be used to see and have a different perspective depending on the subjects treated and then do what everyone wants with them (we are in the virtual, not in everyday reality)

[Obamot]

Hi Janic,

It seems to me that it has still not been understood what the purpose of the HONcode is, and the fact that it is a process of "voluntary registration" and adherence to principles (and not a battle between "conventional" VS "unconventional" or whatever) ... A kind of self-discipline that one would apply to oneself, nothing else (therefore taking responsibility for one's own actions, assume your identity when you sign an article, know where you are, what are your qualifications, etc: in short to post THE UNION MINIMUM to which those who frequent sites on such important issues should be entitled that their health, that seems legitimate to me). And we understand that the rest of the argument that would oppose that (for any reason whatsoever), is nonsense not to assume what we are (or is not) done (or do not) etc. This is why some do not adhere to the HONcode, because they have not made the wish for transparency, which would eventually reveal a hidden side in them. If you are not a helicopter pilot, you are still not going to pretend that you are an "unconventional", simply because "you do not you feel accepted by the whole community of those who have their patent"! You are a pilot or you are not one: point bar!

Afterwards, the reasons you have to pilot and the way you pilot your machine (military, mountain rescue, tourism or whatever) we do not care, that's another subject .... The principle HON is knowing who to deal with, not how we treat! So if someone has serious qualifications in the field of health so much the better, he will not hesitate to say it: if he does not have any, do not come and cry, let him move on. It is in all the trades the same (after one can agree or not with a model of "good professional practices", but it is still another subject which has nothing to do, in my humble opinion .) there is a point where you have to stop beating around the bush, Janic.

And even someone who would practice a particular discipline (effective but not yet recognized in the state) and therefore not affiliated with the HONcode for reasons that are its own, absolutely nothing would prevent to apply to itself the same principles, just for the sake of ethics!. Or even others in addition, more rigorous still (which is my case even if I am already an affiliate ...) So we should stop answering "next to" arguments which seem to be opposed in appearance (but only in appearance), just to avoid answering it or by pure ideology, it lacks fair play.

RTDC and good day ...

PS: And it is a pity to respond each time "alongside" the arguments of the interlocutors, by an untimely slicing of secondary considerations. It's a shame because it takes us away from the main topic of discussion every time. But it goes with the rest.

[Janic]

Obamot hello
I appreciate your point of view, but the difference is the criteria proposed in 8 points for which there is no question of not WANT to join but not ABLE to. So:
1. Authority
Indicate the qualification of editors
[...] -when the qualification is not recognized even when the editor has all the professional qualifications (related to its "illegal" exercise) needed.
2. complementarity
Complement and not replace the doctor-patient relationship
[...] - When this complementarity is not recognized and the patient must have to replace the doctor-patient relationship with the patient-illegal relationship.
3. Confidentiality
Preserve the confidentiality of personal information submitted by visitors to the site
(...) When there is no recognition of the qualification and therefore a non-recognition of medical confidentiality by judicial authorities in cases of impeachment.
4. allotment
Quote the / source (s) of published information and date the health pages
[...] -when The information is short-circuited by the "authorities" medical official in place, in France.
5. Justification
Justify any claims about the benefits or disadvantages of products or treatments
[...] -when therapeutics are not recognized, despite their effectiveness and even their innocuity, because in opposition to the dogmas in place. The justification comes by the exercise results and not the other way around. (Expels homeopathy)
6. Professionalism
Make the information as accessible as possible, identify the Webmaster, And provide a contact address
(...) (this is only valid for the sites you think about, and I do not know.)
7.Transparence funding
Present sources of financing
(In general the sources of funding are the "fees" left to the therapist after consultation like any therapist.For hidden resources, the tax services impose automatically on the external signs of wealth as for any profession: Such as prostitution, drugs, etc., whose resources are not known)
8. Honesty in advertising and editorial policy
Separate advertising policy of editorial policy
[...] - when the information is hidden for the same reasons as above and the contact address can only be confidential (to avoid persecution and possibly prosecution for illegal practice of medicine, Even by qualified and even highly qualified doctors)

All this to say that even with the best will of a "parallel" to recognize the validity of a HONcode, he could not apply it to himself for lack of recognition of his exercise "Professional" since it is not recognized as such, but as exercising illegally A medical profession Punishable by law, Which obliges him to discretion, obviously. It would be otherwise if the (French) legislation changes ... which is not soon!

It seems to me that it has still not been understood what the purpose of the HONcode is, and the fact that it is a process of "voluntary registration" and adherence to principles (and not a fight between "conventional" VS "unconventional" or what do I know)..

Unfortunately this is the case with the order of doctors and the prosecution of illegals.

assume his identity when signing an item, know where one is, what are his qualifications etc: brief display TRADE UNION LOW which should qualify those attending sites on such important issues as health , it seems to me legitimate).

Always the same problem ! Without official recognition, any article (the law allows everyone to write what he wants, but prohibits direct and individual prescriptions, as well as medical practice) claims discretion on its author.
There is indeed a kind of hypocrisy admitted!

If you are not a helicopter pilot, you are still not going to pretend that you would be an "unconventional", simply because "you would not feel accepted by the whole community of those who have their license "! Are you a pilot or you are not: period!

Not that easy ! It is like driving, there is on one hand the practice (one can drive and even drive without a license) on the other the legislation that not allowed this conduct without official recognition by the permit. The question therefore is not in skill, but recognition of these! (Whether driving or care). and, always, in parallel, a taxi driver may not exercise if he's license, even though he knows by heart every corner of the city and is an ace driver (some race car drivers, too young to have the permit travel at insane speeds much better than those their Official pocket paper, if the law their forbidden roll out of a circuit)

After the reasons that you have to drive and how you pilot your vehicle (military, mountain rescue, tourism or what not) we royally tape is another topic .... The principle HON is knowing to whom one has to do, not how how to heal!

In Swiss ! not in France !

So if someone has serious skills in the field of health as best he does not balk to say: if it does not, do not come crying, he passes his way.

Re belotte that will decide the issue in skills? By examination with incompetent medical professionals on the subject and therefore unfit to decide the professional value in question? Or multiple business success stories that will be denied automatically by evoking placebo effect, psychological condition, results of previous official late therapies, etc ... or even by outright denial that an illegal can get results where the school of medicine has failed.
So we do not simply the same route, the same experiences, the same therefore not experienced the same reactions to certain factual situations.
I'm not a therapist and it does not interest me also, but I have had occasion to quote some anecdotes that are calling other than a little common sense and against which conventional medicine had is white cabbage. Should I have to show their credentials before giving an opinion on individual cases and indicate the way forward? Or let things go, indifference!

absolutely nothing would prevent to apply to itself the same principles, just for the sake of ethics!

There I agree entirely to moral ethics, but not for a membership to an institutional system. But there always I speak only for myself and not on behalf of any system or institution.