Janet,

I also happen to agree with you that one should be cautious of another's
potentially selfish motives when anything is promoted.  I believe, however,
that this same priciple is not applied with the same enthusiasm and
thoroughness to more conventional treatments, via which many factions of the
current medical establishment stand to profit, and may I say profit well.  I
think the profit margin on natural products, while in some cases
substantial, in no way compares to that of, say, pharmaceutical companies.
It's diificult to patent an herb or a vitamin, for example, so the profits
from such products will never compare to those from drugs.

Also, in my business of aerospace, it is considered unethical to use gifts,
in any form, to sway the decision of a potential customer.  From what I've
seen and read, both doctors and pharmaceutical companies have vested
interests in drug studies.  Also, doctors are bombarded with free
promotional samples and literature, promoting various drugs, and this same
sort of behavior in my line of business is STRICTLY  prohibited.  It even
got so strict for a while that say, if coffee and doughnuts were being
provided by my company during a meeting, and any government customers were
present, they would either charge the government employees for their coffee
and snack and not charge any of our employees, or to make it easier,
sometimes they'd avoid serving any refreshments altogether.  No one wanted
to be accused of bribing the customer, even if it were just a cup of coffee.
I think things have relaxed a bit more recently, cuz it was getting kinda
extreme and ridiculous, butt one still has to be careful.

In alot of other areas of business, not just medical, these practices of
gifts and other giveaways are common, and it may not necessarily be wrong
altogether, but it does mean that one should be just as critical of the
motives behind alot of new conventional advancements.  One reason I think so
many researchers have jumped on the genetic link to disease bandwagon, or
also the biotech industry, is bottom line, money, period.  Like I've said
before, in a poem or two in fact,

**************************I AM NOT THE PROBLEMI am not the problemAltho' the problem is mineShould toxins be implicatedIn accelerating natural decline.It is true that our environmentWas never totally benign,But that's a weak argumentFor arrogantly altering it intended design.Pesticides and other toxins created by manHave not long existed on earthCompared with the variety of lifeTo which the creator gave birth.Life was here firstBefore these substances were created.Their benefits it seemsHave been much overrated.Their true worth has yet to be provenAnd comes at great costWill no one protest'Till all life is lost?I am eternalA mirror of the DivineWhile admittedly not perfectNeither 'deficient' as some would define.As far as I'm concernedI am as I was meant to beMy genetic make-upRepresenting the idea of diversity.Altho' my genes may be the factorMaking me, vs some others, susceptibleTo say that I'm the one needing fixingIs completely indefensible.The argument not only

Wendy Tebay
-----------------------------
OUTPACING  EVOLUTIONCreation vs. Evolution,Now they are in conflict again.Does it never end?No, I am not talking of the historical, still-ongoing battle,Between God's creation of the world in seven days,and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.Evolution spanning centuries, if not longer.Actually in one sense it could be considered a logical extensionOf the above.Man (and I quote this reference purposely),Was supposedly given dominion over the earthAnd its many inhabitants.To this end he continues to dominate,By virtue of his mindAnd his ability to create.What God created was out of Love,Often what Man creates is out of Ignorance.Both we and our 'dominions' evolved physically,In a world that until recently consisted of natural elements.Some of these, granted, are toxic,But we all evolved together,As the complex fabric of life was woven.Spiders and Snakes,Both creatures of God,Both feared by ManBecause of their deadly venoms.Man's venom is worse.It does not belong to a living
"P" IS FOR "PESTICIDE"P is for Pesticide.Now what does that mean?Don't go away,It remains to be seen.E is for Earth,Once beautiful and pristine,Teeming with LifeAbove, Below, and Between.S is for SoilOr is it Soul?Providing the foundationFrom which life springs.T is for TerraAnother term for Earth,While Terra-Form represents Man's needFor control o'er her Worth.I is for InhabitAs Gaia evolved over timeTo accomodate all variety of Life,Not simply One kind.C is for ChemicalBoth natural and not.Some serve to create and sustain Life,Others do Not.I is for IndustryA creator of Wealth,Using and Transforming Earth's resourcesWith little regard for her Health.D is for DiseaseNatural phenomena become man-made disaster
Former diseases of aging now striking
Ever younger and fasterE is for EndIs our time near?Not as long as we fight forWhat we hold dear.P-E-S-T-I-C-I-D-EThe name gives it away.Anti-life is its sole purpose,Over all which it is sprayed.L-I-F-E for ALL Life,Now that is my battle cry.So fight it I mustLest I lie down and die.Since that is no optionFor One born Wild and Free,This Child of Earth will not be defeatedBy One such as Thee.
-------------------------
 Everything comes down to money eventually, even our survival as a species
and our ability prevent disease.   I see very little discussion regarding
attacking some of the possible triggers of Pd, especially inthe younger
victims.  The chemical industry is simply too big and too entrenched to take
on easily (again, money).  We instead focus on it after the fact (money
again in treatment and research).   If self-interest and monetary gain were
deciding factors here, I think alot more  than snake-oil treatments would
have to be cut from the list as discussion topics and alot of others instead
be added.

Wendy Tebay