User talk:RichardRuhling

January 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Ellen G. White appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu: You say, not broadly supported by scholarship. Sorry you feel that way. I have 3 degrees in science and became board-certified in Internal Medicine before teaching Health Science at Loma Lina University, founded by Ellen White. We were funded $40 million by NIH to learn why SDAs lived ~7 years longer. I am not a fringe but enjoying great health at 75, thanks to the author, and I'm sorry you are so focused on some narrow policies that will miss the truth of this author's greatness, but i will not waste my time further. The sources i quoted were not SDA. but authorities in their field. I'm surprised you thought I represented a fringe group. Richard Ruhling, MD, MPH


 * "Drugs do not cure disease" is the paragon of quackery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should review Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine where disease after disease is said to have "Etiology Unknown" If they don't know the cause, how can the drug be the cure? And if it cured it, why do people need to go back each month for another prescription. You are on the fringe of understanding medical issues. Ellen White acknowledged drugs relieve symptoms, but she was right that they do not cure.
 * Please revise your opinions and what you allow. PS: You may check the Directory of Medical Specialists--
 * I am board-certified in Internal Medicine.


 * I did not say that you have to agree with me. What I say is that you certainly should know by now that the vast majority of MDs regard such claim as the paragon of quackery. It's WP:FRINGE, it's pseudoscience, it's quackery in the reality-based community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are citing MD's who make money by prescribing. Talk to them after they retire as I am. The Dean of the School of Public Health where I taught was Chairman of the Pharmacology Dept in Loma Linda's Medical School before he took his Doctor of Public Health at Harvard. (PhD in Pharmacology from Stanford) and he gave me this quote-- "In the widest sense of the word, every drug is by definition a poison. Pharmacology and toxicology are one, and the art of medicine is to use these poisons beneficially." Drill's Textbook of Pharmacology in Medicine, Chapter 5, Mechanisms of Drug Action.
 * My former wife died from Cipro--took it for urinary infection--wiped out her platelets (bone marrow) and she died of a stroke. I went through US Senate offices with medical literature until one senator said, You are wasting your time--they own us--speaking of donations to their re-election campaign by drug companies.
 * Obamacare largely written by drug companies...The drug ads should be clear--buyer beware!


 * Well, there is a way to know how scientists see it, see . You are desiring to run all drugs effectiveness studies through the shredder. It does not work like that inside Wikipedia! See the note to conspiracy theorists from User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV.
 * Now a easy one: penicillin cured many people from syphilis. True or false? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * One drug salesman admitted that the body's immune mechanism is the key, and the antibiotic may shift it battle from losing to winning, like from 49% to 51%. I would agree that penicillin, if one was not allergic to it, did not have the back side effects that 2nd generation antibiotics had.
 * To cite a majority of doctors does not prove the case because throughout history, the majority have been wrong. My father (an MD) gifted me a book as when I was a child, Great Men in Medicine, and nearly all had to stand up to the majority of their peers who opposed them. Yes, I'm on the fringe in regard to percentage who see it as I do, but there is excellent science on my side, and more--the Bible has an excellent track record for prophecy--for example, the description of the papacy as the harlot of Revelation 17 was given 2000 years ago, but it has numerous clues that only fit the church of Rome (seven hills, etc). So what's the point? The next chapter includes a call to come out of false religions and systems like medicine today "for by her sorceries [the Greek word is pharmakeia] were all nations deceived." Rev 18:23. Every nation practicing western medicine is on the brink of bankruptcy for huge costs at the end of life, hoping to extend life a little more. The Bible teaches that the way to life is narrow--maybe you would call it fringe but there are sound principles behind it.


 * This is an encyclopedia, i.e. a repository of established human knowledge, in this case mainstream scientific knowledge. It is not an internet forum for soapboxing bleeding edge medical insights, see WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You can pride yourself on the great science you think you uphold, but the sad fact is that drug companies do NOT do long-term research. They don't want to know what the long-term results are. I got this from the former chairman of the pharmacology dept at LLU who had his PhD in pharmacology from Stanford University. That's why the Physician's Desk Reference is filled with 3500 pages of fine print on Adverse Drug Reactions Drug Interactions, Pregnancy Warnings and Carcinogenesis--a nightmare of liability except the Supreme Courthas given them a free pass so those corporations are unaccountable for their damages, can't be sued. This is not just internet talk...

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ellen G. White have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)