Reply #87: more of the same

[Celebration]

Re: scientists not agreeing-- sure, it is fine. And when they don't agree on something, I make the choice, okay, not a 17-16 vote of some committee, all of whom say science backs them, if you don't mind. Furthermore, if I want to try something that a friend recommended, with gusto, and with little scientific backing, I wholeheartedly assert my right to do so.

Let me reiterate that there are fraud statutes that apply to what you call snakeoil salesmen. If you don't like the way it is enforced take it up with the state attorney general.

There is certainly no conspiracy that LLLT is not offered by physicians here, or many physicians anywhere, and I never claimed there was. What I do assert is that physicians in general do not readily embrace innovative techniques that are useful and even proven, due to time pressures, and inertia, and lack of pharmaceutical reps. That doesn't mean they conspire to do it. That's the way they act--they aren't compelled to act that way, and they don't conspire to act that way. They just do (as a general rule--there certainly are exceptions). A good way to correct that is by consumer demand (me going to a chiropractor as an example).

Of COURSE LLLT works the same whether it is proven or unproven. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. I first tried it when it was "unproven" and it worked, and was later "proven" to work. LOL. So I guess I was stupid to try it since it was unproven, right? I don't think so. It is kind of a joke because of course in Sweden and Italy and Russia it was "proven" to work years earlier. Meanwhile diabetics in the USA continue to lose limbs without having access to this "proven" remedy. (In truth here it may not yet be yet "proven" for wound healing in the USA--however, it is "proven" for wound healing in other countries). It is not a conspiracy--but whatever it is, it is dumb. Really dumb dumb dumb. And I refuse to be a part of dumb.