This statement, "we take things/procedures that have known and studied and reproducible effects and side-effects and have very well-known and assessible risks" misses the fact that it is impossible to know all the side effects of pharmaceuticals, and that taking them will always carry risk, known or unknown.  Since pharmaceutical companies perform their own safety testing, we should assume that many of the risks are not at all very well known.  Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge, unfortunately.  Perhaps it used to be, I'm not sure.  What I do know is that the scientific system is broken, and using it as the only standard of knowledge gathering just won't cut it anymore.   If so many of us are seeing positive results with CST, we cannot pass it off saying "but science hasn't proven it yet so it's bad".  Science is wrought with conflicts of interest, poor methodology, lack of reproducibility, etc., and is always changing and evolving.  Yes, it is a piece of the puzzle, but we cannot insist on it as the ONLY method of knowledge gathering. 

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome