Guest guest Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 I guess the question is...do the quacks work? I mean really, if you can go to a quack that isn't going to put you on medicine that has side effects or make you dependant on them, but instead makes you lay there as they wave their hands over your body or push on seemingly random points to bring relief or a cure, what is the problem? Also, how many doctors do you know that can actually really cure anything? I imagine in much of the modern medical paradigm much of what I do is quackery (Reiki, Emotional Freedom Technique, CranioSacral Therapy, Ayurveda etc...) but people keep coming back. I don't ask them too. In fact, I even say, just see how you feel and if you notice you are improving, we'll do some more work. I believe in using what ever works, while doing the least harm. I'd go to another quack any day as long as they can provide me a route to get results. Does that make sense? Best Wishes, Ryan Kurczak _www.havenofhealing.net_ (http://www.havenofhealing.net) _www.kriyayogaonline.org_ (http://www.kriyayogaonline.org) In a message dated 10/6/2005 10:52:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nicetok writes: What is criterion to issue the licence to practice medicine? Is it intention, results, and acceptance by patients? In the UK many people including the Royal family go to quacks and not the licenced people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Drgesh What is criterion to issue the licence to practice medicine? Is it intention, results, and acceptance by patients? In the UK many people including the Royal family go to quacks and not the licenced people. My wife Dory is a nurse and does not allow me anywhere near qualified doctors. Bob. durgesh mankikar <d_mankikar wrote: without a License to practice medicine. Durgesh Mankikar,MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 I would say a quack is someone who practices medicine who both does not have good intentions and who does not produce results. In the southern part of the US, there are some sects who dance with poisonous snakes as a way of showing spirituality. No doubt these people have good intentions but would you want to go to them for help? Their results are very questionable. I have seen some people who try to heal but it is probably a waste of time a nd money to go to them. I think that is one reason why many people around the world are seeking alternatives since some MD's do not produce good results. I believe that the results have to be significantly above the placebo effect. I'll leave that for someone else to measure. Some people who do not have certificates produce good results but yet are not certified. Many energy healers would fall into this category. I think it is both intention and result. GB Khalsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Please do not take the sentence out of context, and put your own interpretation and look at it in an unbiased form. I repeat what I had said--- > Definition of a Quack is , It sounds and looks like a duck !!! > No, all kidding aside, a quack, is somebody, who is not trained in > Medicine, but prescribes it. A Pretender. That is true for any branch > of Medicine. Such people sound very convincing, have a great sense of > public appeal, etc,,, but are just not trained to do what is really > necessary. It is like letting your car be "fixed" by somone who > pretends to be a "mechanic". It says very clearly "That is true for any branch of Medicine", which includes Ayurveda, Homeopathy, or any " pathy". If you do not go to somebody, who is trained in Ayurveda, but is talking convincingly, then you indeed are going to a "Quack". How would you know that the treatment entails Ashwagandha or a " rasayana" , or a simple meditation or exercise ? Unless, everyone on this List is saying that Ayurveda means do what ever you think is right, whether it is true or not, and whatever appeals to your brand of philosophy, whether it is correct by all accepted definitions of Ayurvedic treatment or not, let us atleast agree that indeed Ayurveda is a Science, and unless you prescribe and follow its tenets, you are going to a Quack !!! That just does not justify what your opinion is about the Royalty or whatever. I am sure Prince Charles goes to a reputed Ayurvedic Practitioner, or calls him / her to the palace, and not just somebody from this internet based ayurveda on line, without any training in Ayurveda, but is a loud mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 So I take it from your last paragraph you are of the opinion that participants on this forum are quacks? That is interesting. So why do you participate? > That just does not justify what your opinion is about the Royalty > or whatever. I am sure Prince Charles goes to a reputed Ayurvedic > Practitioner, or calls him / her to the palace, and not just > somebody from this internet based ayurveda on line, without any > training in Ayurveda, but is a loud mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 Durgesh That is rude, uncouth and uncalled for. I am amazed and feel hurt by your uncivillised behaviour. I think you owe all of us an unconditional apology. Shocking !!! I am referring this to the moderators please. Bob. durgesh mankikar <d_mankikar wrote: That just does not justify what your opinion is about the Royalty or whatever. I am sure Prince Charles goes to a reputed Ayurvedic Practitioner, or calls him / her to the palace, and not just somebody from this internet based ayurveda on line, without any training in Ayurveda, but is a loud mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 Ryan I don't understand this either. What does he think he is? What right does he have to insult others? I am the last person to put up with this. Bob. ascendwv wrote: So I take it from your last paragraph you are of the opinion that participants on this forum are quacks? That is interesting. So why do you participate? > That just does not justify what your opinion is about the Royalty > or whatever. I am sure Prince Charles goes to a reputed Ayurvedic > Practitioner, or calls him / her to the palace, and not just > somebody from this internet based ayurveda on line, without any > training in Ayurveda, but is a loud mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 I do not understand your response. Either you are a Vaidya, a patient or an enquiring mind. Discussion of one's physical problems and possible answers is fine. This list can serve and should act as an Educational tool. But, one should seek a proper Vaidya for one's treatment. This forum is supposed to be for discussion about Ayurveda / Ayurvedic treatment, and there are several people, who are Vaidyas, who contribute good articles. There are also several well meaning people, who are not Vaidyas, who respond, who are very loud and dogmatic, but do not have knowledge of Ayurveda. You asked the definition of a Quack. That is the definition, by current acceptable standards. Durgesh Mankikar ,MD Message: 1 Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:07:05 EDT ascendwv Re: Quack definition So I take it from your last paragraph you are of the opinion that participants on this forum are quacks? That is interesting. So why do you participate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.