Funny you should say that. It reminds me that I want to write a piece titled "Your body is not a car". Unlike a car, a body can repair itself. If you get a minor cut, it closes on its own, without repair by a doctor. Not so with a car. Scratch the paint, the scratch is permanent -- unless you repair it.
There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You can fix your own body without visiting a doctor, and you can fix your own car without visiting a mechanic. Sometimes a doctor or a mechanic will fuck up, and sometimes those cases intersect with the cases where you could have fixed the problem yourself.
This is not an argument against either doctors nor mechanics.
You probably get dismissed as a quack when you suggest that all doctors do is "nuke your body with toxic chemicals". I would say that 90% of the times I have ever been to a doctor the doctor has either told me "walk it off" (read: let your body fix itself), or "here are some stitches, now walk it off". (And I am the sort of person that heavily leans towards ignoring the problem and avoiding doctor visits...)
The point is the body will try to repair itself if it can. A car will not.
For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack.
I don't see how the mechanism of the car being fixed is terribly important. Either you fix it, a mechanic fixes it, or it stays broken. Either your body fixes your body, a doctor fixes your body, or it stays broken. Arguments against doctors and mechanics, even if they were legitimate (and they are not) are not arguments in favour of magic.
I don't pretend to know anything about your situation, but in the cases of cancer we nuke the body because the evidence shows that doing that is better than a placebo. Chemotherapy is not an argument against modern medicine. It is actually a great argument for it.
Even if it were an argument against modern medicine, that would not make it an argument in favour of alternative 'medicine'.
You can slander doctors all day, but "doctors suck" does not logically imply "alternative medicine isn't bullshit"
Well, but it is significant. Can we back up a minute here? On the small scale, is it true that your body will generally repair a small scratch with zero "treatment" but your car will not? Can we agree on that point, before talking about doctors or mechanics?
My analogy is not perfect, but in it the actions of an immune system map to the actions of a car owner.
If you get sick, you can see a doctor, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your immune system). If your car breaks, you can see a mechanic, or you can try to fix it yourself (with your hands).
Do you think that mapping is sufficiently flawed to render conclusions I draw from it invalid?
So you are not willing to grant that, on a small scale, the body heals itself? You are unwilling to concede that one point? Why? You admit your analogy is imperfect, yet you do not wish to concede that my point has any basis in rationality while calling me insane elsewhere in this discussion.
Even assuming I am insane, is there some big problem with admitting that a scratch on a person will heal by itself without any treatment but a scratch on a car will not and will remain a permanent defect? Can we agree on that much or can we not?
How the hell are you reading a denial of the existence of the immune system in my post? You must have some serious persecution complex issues if that is what you think I just said. You just keep digging yourself into your hole though... and yet you are confused why people don't take you seriously...
You can heal some injuries without going to a doctor, and you can fix some car difficulties without doing to a mechanic.
You read that as me denying that your body can heal yourself? What the hell? I cannot possible see how you could have so much difficulty understanding.
I don't know how anyone could be expected to have an intelligent conversation with you on this topic. You are completely closed off to it.
If your car has a damaged part, they replace it. With CF, they often outright replace the damaged lungs -- as if the body is like a car and needs a replacement part because it can't grow its own.
They nuke the body with poison, then stand back and wait for your lungs to fall below a certain level of functionality. You can put a different type of gas in your car, it will never heal, not even a scratch. You can put different food in your body and see big, big changes. Doctors acknowledge this when they blame obesity, heart disease, etc on your diet and lifestyle. They turn around and dismiss it when it comes to healing.
I am sorry you are so flustered. We should probably drop it if it upsets you so much.
"For very deadly conditions like I have, nuking the body is the standard practice. They do the same thing with cancer. That is a statement of fact. It shouldn't be used as a flimsy excuse to call me a quack."
What makes a person is a quack is not observing when a spontaneous remission occurs, but the connections one makes to determine why that has occurred. Besides, generally, "quack" refers to the practitioners and "authorities", not the victims of quackery.
My advice is not to feed this troll. She will dodge and weave, then blame people for not understanding her. She also doesn't know what she's talking about -- she insists there are no progressive genetic conditions without environmental factors. Dozens of such conditions falsify her position.
There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.