why do we need homeopathy?
Phul Nayme
<kwa...@burtcom.com> wrote:
>There are trace elements of lots of things in the water we drink.
>
>So why bother with homeopathic remedies?
My question has always been: Sea water has passed through the "water
cycle" countless times throughout history -- falling as rain, flowing
in rivers, being consumed (and pissed out) by people and animals, even
being used as the diluent in homeopathic remedies, etc. So your
typical bucketful of sea water has probably been in contact with just
about every substance on the planet at one time or another.
If this "memory effect" is at all real, and ultra-diluted "solutions"
are at all effective, plain old sea water should be a universal
homeopathic remedy able to treat any malady whatsoever.
Is sea water a universal (and "effective") homeopathic remedy? If
not, why not?
Peter Corona
life? Why not use something that's inexpensive? Why not use something
that's easy to study and test for yourself? Why not use something that
works? These are the questions to ask and they're not only applicable
to Homeopathy but other alternative approaches to health.
It's important in a world of questions that one seek answers but the
best answers are the ones that produce results that are practical and
useful.
That's what it's all about. I have said it before:
I use Homeopathy because I have found that it works, not only for me
but my family and friends who employ it. It's as simple as that. If
you want answers and alternatives, you should look into it. Whether
you do or not doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever. I have been
there and done that. I am on to the next thing.
Pete
Tim Worstall
Seawater is hoplessly ineffective at curing anything other than human
life. Drinking it in any volume kills you. Salt content of the oceans
is about 3 % ( this varies of course )and this leads to vomiting,
dehydration and death.So no it is not ' effective ' . But then neither
is homeopathy, unless it is as a relatively non dangerous way for
fools to lose their money.About the only good thing you can say about
homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
treatment.
Peter Corona
> homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> treatment.
I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
for 6 years. The last 3 years have had the most profound effect on me
because I have seen its tremendous effects on my son, who is now
3-years old. He has put this placebo argument to rest for me.
Those who are interested in treating their immune systems sensitively
will find out about it as sure as the sun will rise. Not all the
criticism in the world could shut the door on the effect homeopathy
has had in my and my family's life.
Pete
Malum Regnat
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.01100...@posting.google.com...
His same argument could be applied also to all fresh water in the world
since it too has been through the cycle many times and should all contain
the 'memory' of all the elements it's been in contact with. So a big glass
of tap water should cure anything you have, including cancer.
Lou Minatti™
>
> > About the only good thing you can say about
> > homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> > you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> > treatment.
>
> I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> for 6 years.
Have your next of kin get back to us if you get appendicitis.
--
Some people think I am Bryant Gumbel. Seriously.
http://www.watchingyou.com/hatebryant.html
George Black
"Ray Murphy" <rect...@au.chariot.box.net> wrote in message
news:B7E53B47.1926%rect...@au.chariot.box.net...
> in article 1ad78182.0110...@posting.google.com, this fucking
kook
> named Peter Corona at diame...@usa.net wrote on 10/6/01 8:11 PM:
>
> >> About the only good thing you can say about
> >> homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> >> you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> >> treatment.
> >
> > I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> > I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> > most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> > for 6 years. The last 3 years have had the most profound effect on me
> > because I have seen its tremendous effects on my son, who is now
> > 3-years old.
>
>
> What did he have that was so abnormal that changed for the better?
That it was his son??
Cher
Phul Nayme <em...@address.here> wrote in message
news:3bbf129e....@netnews.att.net...
Sea water contains over seventy=seven elements. Sea plants absorb all these
elements.
Brown seaweeds have been consumed by people in the Pacific for years as
treatment for and prevention of various disorders and illness.
A quick nutrient breakdown of one brown seaweed will show it contains the
following;
glyconutrients (galactose, mannose, xylose)...seventeen amino acids
including glycoproteins....a wide range of essential and nonessential fatty
acids....as well as essential minerals and vitamins....a variety of
polyphenols (antioxidant compounds that protect the body from dangerous free
radicals). It also possess fucans and fucoidan with immune-stimulant
properties, which also raise HGF for better overall health,... Organic
iodine which supports normal metabolism and optimal thyroid function and
laminarin which is an anticlotting and anticancer compound.
So.....with that in mind one can see that ocean water can play a major role
in achieving and maintaining optimal health.
Peter Corona
> since it too has been through the cycle many times and should all contain
> the 'memory' of all the elements it's been in contact with. So a big glass
> of tap water should cure anything you have, including cancer.
What a manufacture! You're an artist!
Pete
Matt Kriebel
Ray Murphy <rect...@au.chariot.box.net> wrote:
> in article 1ad78182.0110...@posting.google.com, this fucking kook
> named Peter Corona at diame...@usa.net wrote on 10/6/01 8:11 PM:
>
> >> About the only good thing you can say about
> >> homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> >> you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> >> treatment.
> >
> > I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> > I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> > most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> > for 6 years. The last 3 years have had the most profound effect on me
> > because I have seen its tremendous effects on my son, who is now
> > 3-years old.
>
> What "tremendous effects" did it have on your son?
It used to be his daughter!
--
Matt Kriebel * Oooops!
mkr...@cruzio.com *
*********************************************************************
Now 90% closer to 80% of the world's kooks!
Malum Regnat
Peter Corona
by the apparent success of someone else doing something else.
The way some writers would have the world is to have this world follow
their line of logic and inquiry, submitting to their judgments and
conclusions. Alas, such individuals do not have the power to stop
honest, subjective inquiry and thank Heaven for that because it is a
dark world where your ideas, hopes, dreams and goals mean nothing.
In wanting to obtain good health, you have to want responsibility.
Responsibility implies that you accept your role as cause in all
situations that afflict you. The more cause you assume, the more
likely it will be that you will find good health. It means having the
courage to inquire. I don't think that anyone that I have read here
that uses homeopathy requires it of others and note that I do not make
judgements about other approaches that I have not had experience with.
What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
stable and that's just not as stable.
I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it. You might as
well criticize any one that succeeds at anything at all and you
probably do.
Pete
Ray Murphy
Matt Kriebel wrote:
>
> In article <B7E53B47.1926%rect...@au.chariot.box.net>,
> Ray Murphy <rect...@au.chariot.box.net> wrote:
>
> > in article 1ad78182.0110...@posting.google.com, this fucking kook
> > named Peter Corona at diame...@usa.net wrote on 10/6/01 8:11 PM:
> >
> > >> About the only good thing you can say about
> > >> homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> > >> you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> > >> treatment.
> > >
> > > I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> > > I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> > > most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> > > for 6 years. The last 3 years have had the most profound effect on me
> > > because I have seen its tremendous effects on my son, who is now
> > > 3-years old.
> >
> > What "tremendous effects" did it have on your son?
>
> It used to be his daughter!
I'm gonna have to use that homeopathy stuff in my vegetable garden, then!
Ray Murphy
So are the frauds who tout homeopathic remedies as anything more than a placebo.
Ray Murphy
Peter Corona wrote:
>
> What amazes me is that someone could be disappointed and even angered
> by the apparent success of someone else doing something else.
The bad feelings probably come from knowing that the success is being
falsely attributed.
>
> The way some writers would have the world is to have this world follow
> their line of logic and inquiry, submitting to their judgments and
> conclusions.
Yes, logic and rational inquiry. What an imposition.
> Alas, such individuals do not have the power to stop
> honest, subjective inquiry and thank Heaven for that because it is a
> dark world where your ideas, hopes, dreams and goals mean nothing.
And if your homeopathy can't pass the rigors of a double blind test then
it too means nothing.
>
> In wanting to obtain good health, you have to want responsibility.
Yes, and recommending homeopathic medicines that don't do shit is
horrendously irresponsible.
> Responsibility implies that you accept your role as cause in all
> situations that afflict you.
No it doesn't.That's insane. 500 people working in an office building
didn;t cause their own deaths, stupid.
> The more cause you assume, the more
> likely it will be that you will find good health.
Unless you have some genetic deficiency, or are invaded by a virus, or a
bacterium or substance you are allergic to, and have no control over.
>It means having the
> courage to inquire.
Inquiring takes little courage.
> I don't think that anyone that I have read here
> that uses homeopathy requires it of others and note that I do not make
> judgements about other approaches that I have not had experience with.
Then you aren;t very courageous.
> What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
> is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
> if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
> stable and that's just not as stable.
Huh?
>
> I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
> freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
> criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
if those endeavours are fraudulent.
> You might as
> well criticize any one that succeeds at anything at all and you
> probably do.
So?
Karl Johanson
news:3BBFDB...@watchingyou.com...
> Peter Corona wrote:
> >
> > > About the only good thing you can say about
> > > homeopathy is that the solutions are so dilute that they can't harm
> > > you, as long as using them does not stop you from getting proper
> > > treatment.
> >
> > I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> > I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> > most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> > for 6 years.
>
> Have your next of kin get back to us if you get appendicitis.
Hopefully it isn't the 3 year old son that gets appendicitis. . .
Karl Johanson
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
> I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> for 6 years.
Big deal.
I haven't taken any medicine the last 15 years.
Must be because of the great healing effect of Coca Cola.
--
-asbjxrn
JX Brown
"Asbjørn Bjørnstad" <asb...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:5o3d4uo...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no...
Yes, but I imagine that when Pete gets a cold, he can cure it in only seven
days, but yours probably take a full week to go away.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Ray Murphy <ray...@au.chariot.box.net> wrote:
>
>I'm gonna have to use that homeopathy stuff in my vegetable garden, then!
You already are ... can't rain be considered a homeopathetic remedy?
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Peter Corona
Good for you. Do your family or friends take the same approach?
Pete
John C. Randolph
In that case, the thing to do is call the local child protection
authorities. It's tragic when a child succumbs to parental idiocy.
-jcr
Phul Nayme
>In article <3BC12D62...@au.chariot.box.net>,
>Ray Murphy <ray...@au.chariot.box.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'm gonna have to use that homeopathy stuff in my vegetable garden, then!
>
>You already are ... can't rain be considered a homeopathetic remedy?
Like in my previous post asking whether sea water is the ultimate
universal homeopathic remedy, if the believers are correct (that water
has a "memory effect" and that infinite dilutions are "heap 'might
powerful stuff"), ordinary rainwater is a universal homeopathic
remedy.
Is rainwater as effective as an "over the counter" homeopathic remedy?
(Skeptics, don't answer that -- I know the answer. I'd like the hear
the reasoning of a homeopathy supporter.) If rainwater is not as
effective as an intentionally-manufactured homeopathic remedy, why
not?
Phul Nayme
The real artists are the ones who can con people into paying large
sums of money for vials of distilled water!
Peter, is rainwater any less effective than an intentionally
manufactured homeopathic remedy? If so, why?
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
What approach?
I'm simply lucky enough to have good health. If it was needed I
would certainly go for any medicine reccomended by a doctor, but for
the last 15 years, broken/fractured bones is the only reason I have
visited one. And they don't really give you medicines for that.
If you call that an approach, I guess you can say that they do.
--
-asbjxrn
Peter Corona
> falsely attributed.
there was no one else in this house when the homeopathic remedies were
administered. Your testimony, in every way, regarding what happened
here in this house, with the individuals involved, related to the
homeopathic treatments that were given, is invalid. Your viewpoint has
not bearing whatsoever as you were not a witness.
> > The way some writers would have the world is to have this world follow
> > their line of logic and inquiry, submitting to their judgments and
> > conclusions.
>
> Yes, logic and rational inquiry. What an imposition.
Is it logical to testify as to that which you have not experienced?
You have imposed on yourself.
> > Alas, such individuals do not have the power to stop
> > honest, subjective inquiry and thank Heaven for that because it is a
> > dark world where your ideas, hopes, dreams and goals mean nothing.
>
> And if your homeopathy can't pass the rigors of a double blind test then
> it too means nothing.
Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
other people observe?
> > In wanting to obtain good health, you have to want responsibility.
>
> Yes, and recommending homeopathic medicines that don't do shit is
> horrendously irresponsible.
it is not irresponsible to help people
> > Responsibility implies that you accept your role as cause in all
> > situations that afflict you.
>
> No it doesn't.That's insane. 500 people working in an office building
> didn;t cause their own deaths, stupid.
Watch it, Mister. I lost people there. I worked there. Stay on the
topic and use some of that logic that you purport to having.
> > The more cause you assume, the more
> > likely it will be that you will find good health.
>
> Unless you have some genetic deficiency, or are invaded by a virus, or a
> bacterium or substance you are allergic to, and have no control over.
All the more reason to inquire as to your genetic origin, talking to
practitioners that care to interview you for longer than five minutes
and interested in what you have observed and sensed - with all of your
senses.
> >It means having the
> > courage to inquire.
>
> Inquiring takes little courage.
On the contrary! You could use some!
> > I don't think that anyone that I have read here
> > that uses homeopathy requires it of others and note that I do not make
> > judgements about other approaches that I have not had experience with.
>
> Then you aren;t very courageous.
It isn't courageous to question? Where were you born?
> > What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
> > is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
> > if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
> > stable and that's just not as stable.
>
> Huh?
Read a good book.
> > I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
> > freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
> > criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
>
> We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
> if those endeavours are fraudulent.
Who is we? What about you? What do you know? Ask yourself that and
might see that the world around is different than you think.
> > You might as
> > well criticize any one that succeeds at anything at all and you
> > probably do.
> So?
My point exactly!
Pete
Cher
Peter Corona <diame...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1ad78182.01100...@posting.google.com...
Very well said!
Peter Corona
Do I detect a grain of consideration on this board? It must be a new day.
Pete
Lorrill Buyens
ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
Yes - we're concerned that your family might suffer from the
non-effect of your non-working, unscientific homeopathy rubbish.
(An' it's a newsgroup, not a board.)
--
Lorrill Buyens
"A load of steaming horse shit could indeed keep a human afloat, for
a tall enough and broad enough load of steaming horse shit."
- Timothy McDaniel, defining waste-product dynamics in AFU
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lorrill Buyens
ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>> > Alas, such individuals do not have the power to stop
>> > honest, subjective inquiry and thank Heaven for that because it is a
>> > dark world where your ideas, hopes, dreams and goals mean nothing.
>>
>> And if your homeopathy can't pass the rigors of a double blind test then
>> it too means nothing.
>
>Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
>yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
>other people observe?
People have done tests. Homeopathy has never been scientifically
proven to work.
>> > In wanting to obtain good health, you have to want responsibility.
>>
>> Yes, and recommending homeopathic medicines that don't do shit is
>> horrendously irresponsible.
>
>it is not irresponsible to help people
Homeopathy has never been proven to help anyone. (`Cept the
quacks who peddle it, o' course...)
>> >It means having the
>> > courage to inquire.
>>
>> Inquiring takes little courage.
>
>On the contrary! You could use some!
If it's been scientifically proven that toads don't cause warts, for
example, then it isn't necessary for people to go out an' lick `em
for themselves.
>> > What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
>> > is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
>> > if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
>> > stable and that's just not as stable.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>Read a good book.
We have: _Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science_, _Flim-Flam!_,
an' many others which prove or suggest that homeopathy has about
as much scientific validity as spontaneous generation.
>> > I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
>> > freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
>> > criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
>>
>> We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
>> if those endeavours are fraudulent.
>
>Who is we?
Sci.skeptic.
>What about you? What do you know?
That like does not cause like. That the fluorine in your tap water
has much more effect than any homeopathic "remedy" ever did.
That if homeopathy worked, modern medicine would still be using
it today.
Peter Corona
> On 8 Oct 2001 18:59:17 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
That's an opening that is indicative. Let me guess what's coming.
snip
> >Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
> >yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
> >other people observe?
>
> People have done tests. Homeopathy has never been scientifically
> proven to work.
That is inconsistent with my observation and therefore has no bearing
on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
matter to you.
> >> > In wanting to obtain good health, you have to want responsibility.
> >>
> >> Yes, and recommending homeopathic medicines that don't do shit is
> >> horrendously irresponsible.
> >
> >it is not irresponsible to help people
>
> Homeopathy has never been proven to help anyone. (`Cept the
> quacks who peddle it, o' course...)
Again, that is inconsistent with my observation and therefore has no
bearing on what I have seen and proven for myself...
> >> >It means having the
> >> > courage to inquire.
> >>
> >> Inquiring takes little courage.
> >
> >On the contrary! You could use some!
>
> If it's been scientifically proven that toads don't cause warts, for
> example, then it isn't necessary for people to go out an' lick `em
> for themselves.
And what if someone did get warts when they did like the toad, you
would probably say to that person that a. It was not a toad that you
licked., b. You thought you licked a toad but it was a frog.
> >> > What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
> >> > is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
> >> > if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
> >> > stable and that's just not as stable.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> >Read a good book.
>
> We have: _Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science_, _Flim-Flam!_,
> an' many others which prove or suggest that homeopathy has about
> as much scientific validity as spontaneous generation.
The book you need is on "How to Converse Respectfully and
Intelligiently so that You'll have more Friends than Enemies".
> >> > I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
> >> > freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
> >> > criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
> >>
> >> We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
> >> if those endeavours are fraudulent.
> >
> >Who is we?
>
> Sci.skeptic.
That makes a world of a difference to me.
> >What about you? What do you know?
> That like does not cause like. That the fluorine in your tap water
> has much more effect than any homeopathic "remedy" ever did.
> That if homeopathy worked, modern medicine would still be using
> it today.
According to my observation, I disagree.
If modern medicine worked in all cases, Homeopathy would not still
exist.
Pete
Eric Hocking
> If modern medicine worked in all cases, Homeopathy would not still
> exist.
If homeopathy had worked there would have been no need for "modern"
medicine.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
Phul Nayme
wrote:
>ils...@aol.com5554 (Ilsa Nein) wrote in message news:<20011012103033...@mb-cl.aol.com>...
>> As long as there are desperate people, there will be quackery.
>And as long as there are ineffective treatments for diseases, there
>will be the need for their alternatives.
Which pretty well explains why modern medicine evolved after millennia
of superstition and quackery.
Michael Painter
> buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote in message
news:<3bc33be0....@news.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > On 8 Oct 2001 18:59:17 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
>
> > ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>
> That's an opening that is indicative. Let me guess what's coming.
>
> snip
>
> > >Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
> > >yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
> > >other people observe?
> >
> > People have done tests. Homeopathy has never been scientifically
> > proven to work.
>
> That is inconsistent with my observation and therefore has no bearing
> on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
> matter to you.
>
meaningless, except to you.
Do a double blind study with 10,000 people and show significant results and
you may get noticed.
Tell us you drank some water and it has no meaning.
Homeopathy is one area where such studies are insanely simple and cheap to
do. Just don't shake one batch.
Carole
Phul Nayme <em...@address.here> wrote in message
news:3bc78eda....@netnews.att.net...
incidence of asthma, or diabetes, or dementia and a lot of other things.
To top it off, pharmaceutical companies aren't in business to cure diseases
but to make money.
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
George Black
"Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:9q9m31$lsf$1...@news.eisa.net.au...
Hey, I take it that you weren't around in the 1040-50 era.
People used to die from influenza, measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever
ect.
Nowadays thanks to modern medications and treatments these former fatal
diseases are now minor infections.
And asthma was a death sentence back then.
And there was no cure for diabetes.
Thanks for your claims but I'm glad to be living now!
Peter Corona
> It used to be his daughter!
Mr. Kriebel,
Can you inform me as to the meaning of this?
Pete
Peter Corona
And why alternative medicine is pursued today, in the very wake of
conventional medicine.
Pete
Lorrill Buyens
ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote in message news:<3bc33be0....@news.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>> On 8 Oct 2001 18:59:17 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
>> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>
>That's an opening that is indicative.
Of what, that the bog-standard "<foo> said <bar>" gets boring after
awhile?
>> >Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
>> >yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
>> >other people observe?
>>
>> People have done tests. Homeopathy has never been scientifically
>> proven to work.
>
>That is inconsistent with my observation and therefore has no bearing
>on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
>matter to you.
Unless your observations include peer-reviewed scientific tests, they
have no relation to reality.
>> >> > What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
>> >> > is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
>> >> > if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
>> >> > stable and that's just not as stable.
>> >>
>> >> Huh?
>> >
>> >Read a good book.
>>
>> We have: _Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science_, _Flim-Flam!_,
>> an' many others which prove or suggest that homeopathy has about
>> as much scientific validity as spontaneous generation.
>
>The book you need is on "How to Converse Respectfully and
>Intelligiently so that You'll have more Friends than Enemies".
Why would I wanna be friends with someone who thinks fancy
preparations that amount to little more than tap water have a
medical effect?
>> >> > I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
>> >> > freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
>> >> > criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
>> >>
>> >> We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
>> >> if those endeavours are fraudulent.
>> >
>> >Who is we?
>>
>> Sci.skeptic.
>
>That makes a world of a difference to me.
You *did* ask who "we" was.
(followups set: sci.skeptic)
Matt Kriebel
diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona) wrote:
Its a joke son, rent a sense of humor.
--
Matt Kriebel * Oooops!
mkr...@cruzio.com *
*********************************************************************
Now 90% closer to 80% of the world's kooks!
Peter Corona
> >on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
> >matter to you.
>
> Unless your observations include peer-reviewed scientific tests, they
> have no relation to reality.
I found your definition of the word reality in the fixation dictionary.
> >> >> > What I criticize is what I have seen AND experienced first hand. This
> >> >> > is subjectivity. Make a decision - better hope it's first-hand because
> >> >> > if it isn't, the certainty you gain from it and rest on will be as
> >> >> > stable and that's just not as stable.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh?
> >> >
> >> >Read a good book.
> >>
> >> We have: _Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science_, _Flim-Flam!_,
> >> an' many others which prove or suggest that homeopathy has about
> >> as much scientific validity as spontaneous generation.
> >
> >The book you need is on "How to Converse Respectfully and
> >Intelligiently so that You'll have more Friends than Enemies".
>
> Why would I wanna be friends with someone who thinks fancy
> preparations that amount to little more than tap water have a
> medical effect?
The feeling's mutual.
> >> >> > I am respectful of ANY general line of inquiry and submit to your
> >> >> > freedoms as related to them. Feel free not to use homeopathy but don't
> >> >> > criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in it.
> >> >>
> >> >> We'll criticize people for succeeding at their endeavors in homeopathy
> >> >> if those endeavours are fraudulent.
> >> >
> >> >Who is we?
> >>
> >> Sci.skeptic.
> >
> >That makes a world of a difference to me.
>
> You *did* ask who "we" was.
>
> (followups set: sci.skeptic)
Again, it did make a world of a difference to me.
Pete
Kris Brys
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> schreef in bericht
news:9qa38j$ok0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
modern medicine can't cure influenza either. Influenza is a virus and if you
can tell me which medicine can cure a man of a virus I'll be surprised.
Indeed many people survive influenza and do you know why? Because these days
we have warm houses lower air humidity, the ability to stay at home when we
are sick, good hygiene and so on.
And when you are talking about the spanish flue epidemy be sure it can
return. And when it does modern medicine will have a hell of a job to keep
death rate low because some viruses are leathal. Ebola, aids, hepatitis C
etc are all much more aggressive viruses than the good-fellows-influenza of
these days.
> Nowadays thanks to modern medications and treatments these former fatal
> diseases are now minor infections.
Which medications are you talking about? Antibiotics? They don't have
anything to do with measles, influenza, Scarlet fever... bacause these are
virus induced conditions.
Kris
Kris Brys
"Lorrill Buyens" <buy...@interlacken.com> schreef in bericht
news:3bc79323...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 12 Oct 2001 05:58:38 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>
> >buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote in message
news:<3bc33be0....@news.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> >> On 8 Oct 2001 18:59:17 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
> >> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
> >
> >That's an opening that is indicative.
>
> Of what, that the bog-standard "<foo> said <bar>" gets boring after
> awhile?
>
> >> >Put it to the test then. Do the work then. Demonstrate it for
> >> >yourself. Satisfy your own curiousity or are you not curious about
> >> >other people observe?
> >>
> >> People have done tests. Homeopathy has never been scientifically
> >> proven to work.
> >
> >That is inconsistent with my observation and therefore has no bearing
> >on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
> >matter to you.
>
> Unless your observations include peer-reviewed scientific tests, they
> have no relation to reality.
Did someone proved that God exists? Did someone proved that Bin Laden is a
male specimen? Did someone proved that America is the west and Azia the
east?
Kris
taipe...@hotmail.com
>Did someone proved that God exists? Did someone proved that Bin Laden is a
>male specimen? Did someone proved that America is the west and Azia the
>east?
Hey, isn't Azia east of the East Pole?
Just checking. . .
Germán
Malum Regnat
| On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:04:56 GMT, "Kris Brys" <kris...@pandora.be>
wrote:
|
|
| >Did someone proved that God exists? Did someone proved that Bin Laden is
a
| >male specimen? Did someone proved that America is the west and Azia the
| >east?
Depends on where you are standing.
Lorrill Buyens
ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>Matt Kriebel <mkriebNOS...@cruzio.com> wrote in message news:<mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT-3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
<Foghorn Leghorn>
That's a joke, son. (Boy's duller than a sack o' wet mice...)
</Foghorn Leghorn>
George Black
"Kris Brys" <kris...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:Jwcy7.104669$6x5.22...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> Dear George,
>
> modern medicine can't cure influenza either. Influenza is a virus and if
you
> can tell me which medicine can cure a man of a virus I'll be surprised.
> Indeed many people survive influenza and do you know why? Because these
days
> we have warm houses lower air humidity, the ability to stay at home when
we
> are sick, good hygiene and so on.
So when I get an innoculation against influenza every year it's not really
happening eh?
geez
> And when you are talking about the spanish flue epidemy be sure it can
> return. And when it does modern medicine will have a hell of a job to keep
> death rate low because some viruses are leathal. Ebola, aids, hepatitis C
> etc are all much more aggressive viruses than the good-fellows-influenza
of
> these days.
> > Nowadays thanks to modern medications and treatments these former fatal
> > diseases are now minor infections.
> Which medications are you talking about? Antibiotics? They don't have
> anything to do with measles, influenza, Scarlet fever... bacause these are
> virus induced conditions.
Why have the death rates for these diseases fallen to -almost- zero??
D. C. Sessions
>> Nowadays thanks to modern medications and treatments these former fatal
>> diseases are now minor infections.
> Which medications are you talking about? Antibiotics? They don't have
> anything to do with measles, influenza, Scarlet fever... bacause these are
> virus induced conditions.
Measles deaths (pre-antibiotics) were primarily from secondary bacterial
infection (pneumonia) and were drastically reduced by antibiotics.
Scarlet fever is streptococcus -- a bacteria -- and treatable with antibiotics.
Influenza deaths, like measles, are usually from secondary pneumonia and
antibiotics make a big difference there, too.
Of course, measles is pretty well gone in the USA mainly due to vaccination.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Peter Corona
> On 13 Oct 2001 13:57:58 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>
> >Matt Kriebel <mkriebNOS...@cruzio.com> wrote in message news:<mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT-3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> It used to be his daughter!
> >
> >Mr. Kriebel,
> >
> >Can you inform me as to the meaning of this?
>
> <Foghorn Leghorn>
> That's a joke, son. (Boy's duller than a sack o' wet mice...)
> </Foghorn Leghorn>
Your humor is evidence of the sack of wet mice you refer to.
Pete
Peter Corona
> diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona) writes:
>
> > asb...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no (Asbj?n Bj?nstad) wrote in message news:<5o3d4uo...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no>...
snip...
> > > I haven't taken any medicine the last 15 years.
> > > Must be because of the great healing effect of Coca Cola.
> >
> > Good for you. Do your family or friends take the same approach?
>
> What approach?
> I'm simply lucky enough to have good health. If it was needed I
> would certainly go for any medicine reccomended by a doctor, but for
> the last 15 years, broken/fractured bones is the only reason I have
> visited one. And they don't really give you medicines for that.
>
> If you call that an approach, I guess you can say that they do.
That's good.
Pete
Peter Corona
> "Asbjørn Bjørnstad" <asb...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:5o3d4uo...@fjorir.ifi.uio.no...
> > diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona) writes:
> >
> > > I can say much more than one good thing about homeopathy. Not only do
> > > I love the principle that less can be more but it turns out to be the
> > > most 'proper' treatment I have ever received. I have used it SOLELY
> > > for 6 years.
> >
> > I haven't taken any medicine the last 15 years.
> > Must be because of the great healing effect of Coca Cola.
> > -asbjxrn
>
> Yes, but I imagine that when Pete gets a cold, he can cure it in only seven
> days, but yours probably take a full week to go away.
Actually, it takes about 48 hours, if that and that's when I get them.
It's one of the reasons why I use it. That others use it or not is of
no consequence to me whatsoever.
Pete
JX Brown
When I get a cold it generally lasts about two days too. I take nothing for
the cold: no zin, no vitamin C, no hcold remedies of any sort. You don't
need them, because the cold goes away on its own.
Peter Corona
That was not true in my case, many years ago. My colds would last two
weeks or more at the change of season, like clockwork. It sounds like
you are robust or perhaps have a good rest regimen. Whatever it is,
you are more fortunate than many people I know.
Pete
yama
But you said the "sack of wet mice" referred to the testicle pouch
slapping against your chin.
Peter Corona
Evidence of your brain.
Pete
Kris Brys
>
> "Kris Brys" <kris...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:Jwcy7.104669$6x5.22...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > Dear George,
> >
> > modern medicine can't cure influenza either. Influenza is a virus and if
> you
> > can tell me which medicine can cure a man of a virus I'll be surprised.
> > Indeed many people survive influenza and do you know why? Because these
> days
> > we have warm houses lower air humidity, the ability to stay at home when
> we
> > are sick, good hygiene and so on.
>
>
> So when I get an innoculation against influenza every year it's not really
> happening eh?
> geez
vaccination is a preventive medicine, you can't cure it. Vacination is
effective in 50%.
> > And when you are talking about the spanish flue epidemy be sure it can
> > return. And when it does modern medicine will have a hell of a job to
keep
> > death rate low because some viruses are leathal. Ebola, aids, hepatitis
C
> > etc are all much more aggressive viruses than the good-fellows-influenza
> of
> > these days.
> > > Nowadays thanks to modern medications and treatments these former
fatal
> > > diseases are now minor infections.
> > Which medications are you talking about? Antibiotics? They don't have
> > anything to do with measles, influenza, Scarlet fever... bacause these
are
> > virus induced conditions.
>
> Why have the death rates for these diseases fallen to -almost- zero??
>
>
Indeed many people survive influenza and do you know why? Because these
days we have warm houses lower air humidity, the ability to stay at home
when
we are sick, good hygiene and so on.
I don't say that AB is a bad thing. I know people use it too often. We
should only use the right AB in the right case and only when someone is
already infected. It has no use to take AB when you have influenza without
complications. I do take AB when I have surinfection but this is not often.
And when I do, I make sure I give my body the time to repair and I give my
'good bacterial colony' a good place to live after those AB almost killed
them all.
Kris
George Black
>
> "George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> schreef in bericht
> news:9qdod5$a47$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "Kris Brys" <kris...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:Jwcy7.104669$6x5.22...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >
> > > Dear George,
> > >
> > > modern medicine can't cure influenza either. Influenza is a virus and
if
> > you
> > > can tell me which medicine can cure a man of a virus I'll be
surprised.
> > > Indeed many people survive influenza and do you know why? Because
these
> > days
> > > we have warm houses lower air humidity, the ability to stay at home
when
> > we
> > > are sick, good hygiene and so on.
> >
> >
> > So when I get an innoculation against influenza every year it's not
really
> > happening eh?
> > geez
>
> vaccination is a preventive medicine, you can't cure it. Vacination is
> effective in 50%.
Bullshit!!!!!
You of course have evidence of this '50%'?
Well I'll go with innoculations.
The warm and clean IS a factor but having the antibodies to combat such
disease and infection is the safest way to go.
> Kris
>
>
Kris Brys
> You of course have evidence of this '50%'?
When you know so much and you have evidence that homeopathy doen't work, so
why are you angry?
Live fast, die young but at least leave a good looking corpse...
Peter Corona
... and incidentaly, your vulgarity is unnecessary and very unbecoming
of this board.
Pete
George Black
because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from ailments
that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to reverse
all the benifits.
Of course I'm angry!
fred & michele
appropriately is the goal. If doctors over-prescribe them, if patients
incessantly demand them (& remember, in this day & age, patients are
*consumers*), if there is lots of misinformation bandied about with regard
to their use one can only expect there will be problems down the road.
Michele
George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9qinaj$r0h$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Matt Kriebel
> > > But you said the "sack of wet mice" referred to the testicle pouch
> > > slapping against your chin.
> >
> > Evidence of your brain.
> >
> > Pete
>
>
> ... and incidentaly, your vulgarity is unnecessary and very unbecoming
> of this board.
What board?
Heather Fucklear
You just called yourself vulgar, you stupid pigfucker.
Justus Verhagen
In times of deprivation it may be quite smart ; )
Peter Corona
You illustrate your character much more clearly than I ever could.
Pete
Heather Fucklear
Give yourself a homeopathic enema, blurt it into a frosty mug, and
gargle with it.
Carole
> > why are you angry?
>
> because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from
ailments
> that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
> So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to reverse
> all the benifits.
> Of course I'm angry!
>
>
is ok sometimes.
A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am not.
However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu. Flu
is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a certain
level of toxicity in their body.
Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best body
and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
Carole
Lorrill Buyens <buy...@interlacken.com> wrote in message
news:3bc79323...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 12 Oct 2001 05:58:38 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>
> >
> >on what I have seen and proven for myself but of course, that does not
> >matter to you.
>
> Unless your observations include peer-reviewed scientific tests, they
> have no relation to reality.
>
And even it they do include peer-reviewed data it still doesn't prove they
have any basis in reality.
See article <20010309190058...@ng-cc1.aol.com>,
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
"OPINION - Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
> >
> >The book you need is on "How to Converse Respectfully and
> >Intelligiently so that You'll have more Friends than Enemies".
>
> Why would I wanna be friends with someone who thinks fancy
> preparations that amount to little more than tap water have a
> medical effect?
>
Because they do?
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
Michael Painter
"Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:9qla5j$ohi$1...@news.eisa.net.au...
>
> George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:9qinaj$r0h$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > so
> > > why are you angry?
> >
> > because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from
> ailments
> > that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
> > So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to
reverse
> > all the benifits.
> > Of course I'm angry!
> >
> >
> I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine. Modern
medicine
> is ok sometimes.
> A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am not.
> However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu.
Flu
> is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a certain
> level of toxicity in their body.
of it. The seccond best way is a flu shot.
Exactly what "toxitity" are you speaking of?
How is it demonstrated?
> Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best
body
> and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
>
Prior to modern medicine the probability of a child living to age five was
about 50 percent.
Children started out with few natural defenses and only the lucky ones
developed what was needed to survive.
In all of nature it's the young, the old and the allergic who die when
something new comes along.
George Black
> news:9qinaj$r0h$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > so
> > > why are you angry?
> >
> > because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from
> ailments
> > that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
> > So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to
reverse
> > all the benifits.
> > Of course I'm angry!
> >
> >
> I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine. Modern
medicine
> is ok sometimes.
> A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am not.
> However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu.
Flu
> is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a certain
> level of toxicity in their body.
> Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best
body
> and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
I suppose you can explain polio attacking children with that scenario
> I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
> because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
> more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
>
You are living in lala land.
If the alternative methods worked they would not be alternatives
Matt Kriebel
"Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:9qinaj$r0h$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > so
> > > why are you angry?
> >
> > because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from
> ailments
> > that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
> > So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to reverse
> > all the benifits.
> > Of course I'm angry!
> >
> >
> I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine. Modern medicine
> is ok sometimes.
Sometimes is a lot better than never.
> A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am not.
Good for you.
> However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu. Flu
> is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a certain
> level of toxicity in their body.
That's an oversimplification bordering on bringin back the "Four Humors"
or health.
> Illness if a cumulative process.
Wrong. Illness can be from any number of sources. You can have a strong
constitution and be felled by a virus, you can be weak and unhealthy but
not get sick due to lack of exposure to viral/bacterial elements.
>You start off as a child with the best body
> and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
Incorrect, children are possible the worst carriers of virii and
bacteria. It comes from being a kid.
> I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
> because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
> more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
I am angry because a lot of woo-woo treatments are present as
life-saving when they are little better than snake-oil.
Jack Dominey
<hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best body
>and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
Ah. That explains why measles, mumps, diptheria, chicken pox,
Coxsackie virus, et cetera are so much more common among adults than
children.
>I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
>because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
>more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
Since you did post this to sci.skeptic as well as m.h.a., you should
be prepared to provide some evidence that:
1) You or the originators of these alternative treatments understand
"the root of the problem" better than conventional medical
practitioners;
2) The treatments in question are effective;
3) Effective treatments are being suppressed.
Vague references to undefined processes like 'restoring the body's
natural healing abilities' won't cut it.
-
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
Seppo Pietikäinen
>George Black <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:9qinaj$r0h$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>>so
>>
>>>why are you angry?
>>>
>>because I was born in the 1940's and saw a lot of children die from
>>
>ailments
>
>>that, thanks to innoculation, are today, simply minor infections.
>>So many deaths of so many people and we now have fools who want to reverse
>>all the benifits.
>>Of course I'm angry!
>>
>>
>I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine. Modern medicine
>is ok sometimes.
>A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am not.
>However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu. Flu
>is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a certain
>level of toxicity in their body.
>
Silly me. I always thought that influenza viruses (virii?) might be
the guilty party!
>
>Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best body
>and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
>
Yeah. Same apparently occurs with ignorance and superstition. Some
people
just seem to accumulate the stuff.
>
>
>I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
>because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
>more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
>
Unbelievable! Some evil, suppressing people shun witch doctors, too.
>
>
>Carole
>http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
>
>
>
>
>
Seppo P.
Carole
Michael Painter <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Hgrz7.73658$WW.35...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine. Modern
> medicine
> > is ok sometimes.
> > A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination but I personally am
not.
> > However, having a flu injection is not the ideal way to prevent the flu.
> Flu
> > is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a
certain
> > level of toxicity in their body.
> The ideal way to avoid the flu is to stay completely away from all sources
> of it. The seccond best way is a flu shot.
> Exactly what "toxitity" are you speaking of?
> How is it demonstrated?
>
Calcium deficiency is a good test of TOXICITY. Have a look at your heels and
see if they are calloused and cracked or if when you walk in the dirt
barefooted, your heels become ingrained with dirt.
This is calcium fluoride deficiency which indicates calcium deficiency.
Calcium sulphate is the blood purifier and cleanser and gets rid of
accumulations of non-functional organic matter in the blood and tissues.
This matter becomes a breeding ground for bacteria which produce toxins.
Of course you can't just take calcium without taking magnesium to keep it in
balance. You also need the other eight cell salts being potassium, sodium,
silica and iron. This is to keep the system in balance and they all have an
essential role to play in keeping the body free of toxins in one way or
another.
>
> > Illness if a cumulative process. You start off as a child with the best
> body
> > and least toxins possible and the buildup process begins from there.
> >
>
> Prior to modern medicine the probability of a child living to age five was
> about 50 percent.
> Children started out with few natural defenses and only the lucky ones
> developed what was needed to survive.
>
> In all of nature it's the young, the old and the allergic who die when
> something new comes along.
>
>
What I meant by a baby having the best health it will ever have it that in
iridology, the irises can never get any better than they are at birth. Some
people are born with genetically weak constitutions. There are 6 levels of
density in the iris ranging from:
1. silken which is names because it has very dense fibres and is the
strongest,
2. Hard wood
3. muslin
4. medium wood
5. burlap
6. very soft wood because it has more open fibres and represents a weaker
basic constitution.
Often density is referred to just by the numbers i.e., density 1, density 3
etc.
Also some people are born with lesions or other defects in the iris. You can
do a lot of damage to your body over the years but there is the chance to
reverse this damage as long as it is not irreversible, but you can only go
back to what you were born with and no better, although this is pretty good
for most people.
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
>
pz
"Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> Michael Painter <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Hgrz7.73658$WW.35...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
>
> > > I don't want to reverse all the benefits of modern medicine.
> > > Modern
> > medicine
> > > is ok sometimes. A lot of alternative people are anti-vaccination
> > > but I personally am not. However, having a flu injection is not
> > > the ideal way to prevent the flu.
> > Flu
> > > is a disease which only strikes certain people who have reached a
> > > certain level of toxicity in their body.
> > The ideal way to avoid the flu is to stay completely away from all
> > sources of it. The seccond best way is a flu shot. Exactly what
> > "toxitity" are you speaking of? How is it demonstrated?
> >
> Calcium deficiency is a good test of TOXICITY. Have a look at your
> heels and see if they are calloused and cracked or if when you walk
> in the dirt barefooted, your heels become ingrained with dirt. This
> is calcium fluoride deficiency which indicates calcium deficiency.
No, your heels get dirty because you are barefoot and walking in dirt.
> Calcium sulphate is the blood purifier and cleanser and gets rid of
> accumulations of non-functional organic matter in the blood and
> tissues. This matter becomes a breeding ground for bacteria which
> produce toxins. Of course you can't just take calcium without taking
> magnesium to keep it in balance. You also need the other eight cell
> salts being potassium, sodium, silica and iron. This is to keep the
> system in balance and they all have an essential role to play in
> keeping the body free of toxins in one way or another.
Calcium *is* an essential ion, and you won't get anyone to argue with
that count. However, you are imposing all these specific and
quasi-magical properties on it. Calcium is not a "blood purifier",
whatever that means. Calcium is actually a great ion for promoting
'stickiness' between cells and proteins -- for instance, I can modulate
the adhesiveness of tissues in culture by changing the calcium
concentration.
Dear god. First homeopathy, then astrology, and now iridology. Is there
any quackery to which you have *not* succombed?
--
pz
Michael Painter
homeopathic pills?
If I or anybody else walks in dirt long enough the feet *will* become
callosed and *will* crack and *will* get dirty and no amount of Calcium or
any other salt will prevent this.
Showers usually solve the latter problem until well into the summer.
Oddly enough if, when winter comes and I don't walk in the dirt a lot
they go away and so does the dirt.
One hint: Dirt absorbs water.
Same thing happens to the fingers of people that play stringed instruments
or write a lot.
Is there supposed to be some relationship between the sentences of the above
paragraph?
I get the brilliance of something being reversed if it's not irreversible
but why would I want to go back to the way I'm born, especially wrt my eyes?
They are bad enough now but at birth I couldn't really see anything - and
neither can anybody else.
fred & michele
doesn't make any difference what NG it's posted on. There won't be any
evidence, explanations of "the root of the problem", or proof of any
"conspiracy" by evil scientists, doctors, & researchers.
Just so you won't be waiting for stuff that will never appear. ;)
Michele
Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:shktstsuja9n00ih7...@4ax.com...
fred & michele
sacrificial rites.
Michele
pz <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:myers-3FFD0D....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
Lorrill Buyens
<hub...@austarmetro.com.au> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra
cheese, but got this instead:
>Lorrill Buyens <buy...@interlacken.com> wrote in message
>news:3bc79323...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 12 Oct 2001 05:58:38 -0700, diame...@usa.net (Peter Corona)
>> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra cheese, but got this instead:
>> >The book you need is on "How to Converse Respectfully and
>> >Intelligiently so that You'll have more Friends than Enemies".
>>
>> Why would I wanna be friends with someone who thinks fancy
>> preparations that amount to little more than tap water have a
>> medical effect?
>>
>Because they do?
Prove it.
--
Lorrill Buyens
"A load of steaming horse shit could indeed keep a human afloat, for
a tall enough and broad enough load of steaming horse shit."
- Timothy McDaniel, defining waste-product dynamics in AFU
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Jack Dominey
<heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Gee Jack, you must not have been reading Carole's stuff before this. It
>doesn't make any difference what NG it's posted on. There won't be any
>evidence, explanations of "the root of the problem", or proof of any
>"conspiracy" by evil scientists, doctors, & researchers.
>
>Just so you won't be waiting for stuff that will never appear. ;)
<snip>
Oh, I wasn't holding my breath or anything. And it's not from
familiarity with Carole, just with people who make similar posts. I
simply thought her post shouldn't go without a calm and
straightforward challenge. I leave it to the experts to provide the
appropriate peals of derisive laughter.
Lorrill Buyens
<heal...@concentric.net> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra
cheese, but got this instead:
>Hopefully she hasn't heard anything about crystals, voodoo, or infant
>sacrificial rites.
Voodoo, or voudoun [sp], to give it its proper name, is every bit as
much a legitimate religion as Christianity, Judaism, or any other
faith. And please stop top-posting.
--
Carole
news:shktstsuja9n00ih7...@4ax.com...
> <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> >I am angry but not for the same reason as you. The reason I am angry is
> >because alternative treatments are suppressed and these are treatments go
> >more to the root of the problem than conventional treatments.
>
> Since you did post this to sci.skeptic as well as m.h.a., you should
> be prepared to provide some evidence that:
I didn't realise this was being posted to sci.skeptic - it must have been
done by the person who created the original post.
>
> 1) You or the originators of these alternative treatments understand
> "the root of the problem" better than conventional medical
> practitioners;
It is widely known in alternative medicine that there are cures other than
pharmaceutical drugs.
The root of the problem is toxemia caused by deficiencies.
I've been into cell salts for a long time and have treated a good range of
conditions with them including - watery eyes, runny nose, coating on the
tongue, bad breath, tinea, headlice, toothache, asthma, housedust allergies,
painful and knotted back neck and shoulder muscles etc.
"Every disease which afflicts the human race is due to a lack of one or more
of these inorganic workers (cell salts). Every pain or unpleasant sensation
indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and
strength can be maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied
with these call-salts."
> 2) The treatments in question are effective;
Treatments are effective and lead to overall health improvement which
pharmaceutical drugs don't do. Each occurrence of the condition such as
housedust allergy attack, comes back with less severity and less frequency
and eventually disappears.
>
> 3) Effective treatments are being suppressed.
>
Well of course they are being suppressed. What sort of medicine prescribes
drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies? And it is
demonstratable and predictable. You have a list of symptoms and associated
remedies. For example, the following extract is from The Biochemic Handbook
by JB Chapman MD and Edward L Perry MD. The book is available from
www.amazon.com for $US2.95. There are symptoms and associated remedies under
many headings from circulatory, respiratory, digestion, ears and so on.
MENTAL STATES
Anxious about future: Calc.Phos. (Calcium phosphate)
Backwardness: Kali Phos. (Potassium phosphate)
Brain-fag, from overwork: Kali Phos.
Children:
Crossness of: Kali Phos.
Crying and screaming: Kali Phos.
Ill-tempered: Kali Phos.
Peevish and fretful: Calc.Phos.
Screaming of, at night, during sleep: Kali Phos., Nat. Phos. (sodium
phosphate)
Somnambulism in: Kali Phos.
Depressed spirits: Kali Phos., Calc. Phos., Nat.Mur. (homeopathic sodium
chloride)
Desires solitude: Calc. Phos.
Despondent moods: Nat.Mur., Nat.Sulph., Silica
Discouraged, feels: Nat.Sulph.
Dizziness: Ferr.Phos.(iron phosphate), Kali Phos.
Fainting:
Of nervous sensitive persons: Kali Phos.
Tendency to: Kali Phos.
Fits of crying: Kali Phos.
Fits of laughing: Kali Phos.
Grasping at imaginary objects: Kali Phos.
Home-sickness: Kali Phos.
Hopeless, with dejected spirits: Nat.Mur.
Illusions, mental: Mag.Phos., Kali Phos.
Impatience and nervousness: Kali Phos.
Irritability: Kali Phos., Nat.Phos.
Irritation, due to biliousness: Nat.Sulph. (sodium sulphate)
Melancholy: Nat.Mur., Kali Phos.
Memory, poor: Calc.Phos., Kali Phos., Mag. Phos.
Mind, wanders from one subject to another: Calc.Phos.
Moods, anxious: Kali Phos.
Moods, gloomy: Kali Phos.
Overstrain, from mental employment: Kali Phos.
Sensitiveness: Kali Phos.
Shyness: Kali Phos.
Sleeplessness: Kali Phos.
Sleepiness: Nat.Mur.
Stupor: Nat.Mur.
Thought, cannot concentrate: Calc.Phos.
Thought, difficulty of: Silica.
Weeps easily: Nat.Mur.
How many mental illnesses are due to nutritional deficiencies?
Of course there are many contributing factors to mental illness including
unresolved personal problems, drugs, poisons and head injury but cell salt
deficiencies can result in altered moods.
> Vague references to undefined processes like 'restoring the body's
> natural healing abilities' won't cut it.
I wouldn't dream of it.
> -
> Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
And Jack, I'm happy, that you're happy.
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
fred & michele
<"And please stop top-posting.">
I'm glad to know who to turn to for the "proper way" to post a message.
Yeah.....;)
My mention of voodoo *was* incorrect, as you pointed out. I stand by the
other two.
Michele
Carole
> "Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Dear god. First homeopathy, then astrology, and now iridology. Is there
> --
> pz
Let me think. I believe in UFOs. Yes, I have one .. I don't think the earth
is hollow and I don't believe in ear candling.
Obviously, you are one of those types who think nothing is true unless it
can be proved scientifically.
So you don't believe in god because you can't prove that scientifically. And
you wouldn't believe in an afterlife, or that people have a spirit or a
soul.
What else? You sound like good company for Michele who, if I were her, I
would killfile myself.
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
pz
"Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> pz <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-3FFD0D....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > In article <9qmoek$j54$1...@news.eisa.net.au>,
> > "Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear god. First homeopathy, then astrology, and now iridology. Is there
> > any quackery to which you have *not* succombed.
> > --
> > pz
>
> Let me think. I believe in UFOs.
Yikes.
> Yes, I have one .. I don't think the earth
> is hollow and I don't believe in ear candling.
OK, there is a very faint, dim and distant whisper of hope for you.
>
> Obviously, you are one of those types who think nothing is true unless it
> can be proved scientifically.
Obviously not, since I don't believe you can prove things
scientifically. I do believe you can find good scientific evidence to
counter bizarre beliefs like homeopathy, astrology, and iridology,
however.
> So you don't believe in god because you can't prove that scientifically. And
> you wouldn't believe in an afterlife, or that people have a spirit or a
> soul.
That's true, that I don't believe in those things. It's not because they
can't be proven scientifically, though -- it's because the believers
can't come up with any credible evidence for them.
> What else? You sound like good company for Michele who, if I were her, I
> would killfile myself.
Well, gosh, if you're trying to fix me up on a date, I have to apologize
-- I'm happily married.
--
pz
fred & michele
Oh Heavens!! Carole has displayed so much of her gulliblity & inability to
grasp *any* facts about human anatomy & physiology & its pathologies in the
past that I thought there was simply nothing more that she could post to top
it. Then she goes & brings out her passionate belief in the benefits of the
holy trilogy of astrology, iridology, & cell salts which certainly makes her
second to none when it comes to those without a clue.
Incidentally, Carole *might* kill file herself if she was me, but she
wouldn't understand why she was doing it -- just like she doesn't "get it"
when people kill file her. Pity.
Michele
B Kildow
>
> pz <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-3FFD0D....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > In article <9qmoek$j54$1...@news.eisa.net.au>,
> > "Carole" <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear god. First homeopathy, then astrology, and now iridology. Is there
> > any quackery to which you have *not* succombed.
> > --
> > pz
>
> Let me think. I believe in UFOs. Yes, I have one .. I don't think the earth
> is hollow and I don't believe in ear candling.
>
But why don't you believe in ear candling? Evidently, the proof that
works for you is...whatever works for you. Have you tried it? If not,
have you read any of those countless reports from folks that swear it
works? Why don't you believe them? If you don't believe them, do you
think you could stretch to see the correlation between your lack of
belief in ear candling and why many people (if not most, I would hope)
in sci.skeptic don't "believe" in reports of homeopathy? And believe is
in quotes since I would hope that any sort of medical treatment would be
a matter of "knowledge" and not "belief." Two entirely different
matters.
BK
George Black
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:9qvi3p$c...@dispatch.concentric.net...
is, by dint of her posting levels, impossible!
Lorrill Buyens
<hub...@austarmetro.com.au> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra
cheese, but got this instead:
>Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
>news:shktstsuja9n00ih7...@4ax.com...
>> In sci.skeptic, <9qla5j$ohi$1...@news.eisa.net.au>, "Carole"
>> <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>"Every disease which afflicts the human race is due to a lack of one or more
>of these inorganic workers (cell salts). Every pain or unpleasant sensation
>indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and
>strength can be maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied
>with these call-salts."
Then having sex drains these "cell salts" of yours away? Do they go
to the partner when someone gets syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.? If so,
does this mean that the person who *gave* the other person the
VD in question sddenly becomes healthy again?
>> 2) The treatments in question are effective;
>
>Treatments are effective and lead to overall health improvement which
>pharmaceutical drugs don't do. Each occurrence of the condition such as
>housedust allergy attack, comes back with less severity and less frequency
>and eventually disappears.
Your say-so is not evidence. Kindly provide some peer-reviewed,
independently-reproducible clinical evidence that homeopathy/UT/etc.
*work*.
>> 3) Effective treatments are being suppressed.
>>
>Well of course they are being suppressed. What sort of medicine prescribes
>drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies? And it is
>demonstratable and predictable. You have a list of symptoms and associated
>remedies. For example, the following extract is from The Biochemic Handbook
>by JB Chapman MD and Edward L Perry MD. The book is available from
>www.amazon.com for $US2.95. There are symptoms and associated remedies under
>many headings from circulatory, respiratory, digestion, ears and so on.
>
>MENTAL STATES
<highly-dubious list snipped>
At least 90% of the "states" listed are not mental illnesses at all.
*Everyone* becomes ill-tempered from time to time. *All* children
scream and cry at one time or another. I myself cry easily, and, as
my over-ample figure can demonstrate, I am *definitely* not suffering
from any *lack* of nutritional substances. These authors of yours are
*obviously* trying to make people believe that perfectly-normal mental
states are really diseases of some sort. They prob'ly get a kickback
from the "nutritional supplement" companies or something...
>How many mental illnesses are due to nutritional deficiencies?
>Of course there are many contributing factors to mental illness including
>unresolved personal problems, drugs, poisons and head injury but cell salt
>deficiencies can result in altered moods.
My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.) He
started taking his only (non-medical) drugs, tobacco and marijuana,
*after* he developed schizophrenia. Nor has he suffered any head
injuries or eaten any poisons. His major personal problem, before
*and* after the onset of his condition, was his inability to keep from
teasing me.
Nutri Person
prescribes
> >drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies?
I have had pharm drugs given to me where
doing diet modification medicine would have
been the correct medical procedure.
> *Everyone* becomes ill-tempered from time to time. *All* children
> scream and cry at one time or another. I myself cry easily, and, as
> my over-ample figure can demonstrate, I am *definitely* not suffering
> from any *lack* of nutritional substances.
And many mis-behaving kids are placed on the
pharm drug Ritalin.
These authors of yours are
> *obviously* trying to make people believe that perfectly-normal mental
> states are really diseases of some sort. They prob'ly get a kickback
> from the "nutritional supplement" companies or something...
>
> >How many mental illnesses are due to nutritional deficiencies?
> >Of course there are many contributing factors to mental illness including
> >unresolved personal problems, drugs, poisons and head injury but cell
salt
> >deficiencies can result in altered moods.
>
> My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.)
There are M.D.s who practicing nutritional
medicine who feel schizophrenia results from
a nicanin (sp?) viramin deficiency.
Those type doctors prescribe vitamin C and
the B vitamin nicanin to help this mental health
condition.
See www.doctoryourself.com .
Peter Bowditch
>> My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
>than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.)
>
> There are M.D.s who practicing nutritional
> medicine who feel schizophrenia results from
> a nicanin (sp?) viramin deficiency.
They are mistaken.
> Those type doctors prescribe vitamin C and
> the B vitamin nicanin to help this mental health
> condition.
They are mistaken.
> See www.doctoryourself.com .
Where a person with a PhD from a pretend university calls himself
"Doctor" in the hope that gulls will think it means "medical doctor".
Considering its source (Greenwich "University"), it doesn't even mean
"Doctor of Philosophy".
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Happy Dog
> > >Well of course they are being suppressed. What sort of medicine
> prescribes drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies?
>
> I have had pharm drugs given to me where
> doing diet modification medicine would have
> been the correct medical procedure.
What ones for what condition?
>
> > *Everyone* becomes ill-tempered from time to time. *All* children
> > scream and cry at one time or another. I myself cry easily, and, as
> > my over-ample figure can demonstrate, I am *definitely* not suffering
> > from any *lack* of nutritional substances.
>
> And many mis-behaving kids are placed on the
> pharm drug Ritalin.
And, for many, it helps. If you disagree, explain why.
> > My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
> than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.)
>
> There are M.D.s who practicing nutritional
> medicine who feel schizophrenia results from
> a nicanin (sp?) viramin deficiency.
Based on what evidence? What research? Are you claiming that this terrible
disease could be cured by, say, eating more avocados?
>
> Those type doctors prescribe vitamin C and
> the B vitamin nicanin to help this mental health
> condition.
>
> See www.doctoryourself.com .
Uh oh.
erf
Jack Dominey
<hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
>news:shktstsuja9n00ih7...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> Since you did post this to sci.skeptic as well as m.h.a., you should
>> be prepared to provide some evidence that:
>I didn't realise this was being posted to sci.skeptic - it must have been
>done by the person who created the original post.
It's good practice to look at the newsgroups list when you post in an
existing thread.
>> 1) You or the originators of these alternative treatments understand
>> "the root of the problem" better than conventional medical
>> practitioners;
>It is widely known in alternative medicine that there are cures other than
>pharmaceutical drugs.
>The root of the problem is toxemia caused by deficiencies.
This isn't evidence. It's a claim.
>I've been into cell salts for a long time and have treated a good range of
>conditions with them including - watery eyes, runny nose, coating on the
>tongue, bad breath, tinea, headlice, toothache, asthma, housedust allergies,
>painful and knotted back neck and shoulder muscles etc.
This is anecdotal. As medical evidence, it's roughly on a par with
someone claiming they have bad thoughts caused by the CIA.
>"Every disease which afflicts the human race is due to a lack of one or more
>of these inorganic workers (cell salts). Every pain or unpleasant sensation
>indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and
>strength can be maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied
>with these call-salts."
Ooooh. An unattributed quote. And one with grossly exaggerated
claims, too! "Every pain or unpleasant sensation"? Do tell. You get
your salts all balanced and then enjoy a big plate of salmonella- or
campylobacter-tainted casserole. Then tell me if you experience any
pain or unpleasant sensations.
>> 2) The treatments in question are effective;
>
>Treatments are effective and lead to overall health improvement which
>pharmaceutical drugs don't do. Each occurrence of the condition such as
>housedust allergy attack, comes back with less severity and less frequency
>and eventually disappears.
Repeating, or even elaborating the same claim isn't evidence.
>> 3) Effective treatments are being suppressed.
>Well of course they are being suppressed.
So you can easily show the evidence, right?
>What sort of medicine prescribes
>drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies? And it is
>demonstratable and predictable. You have a list of symptoms and associated
>remedies.
How was this list developed? Who ran the tests? Who reviewed them?
>For example, the following extract is from The Biochemic Handbook
>by JB Chapman MD and Edward L Perry MD. The book is available from
>www.amazon.com for $US2.95. There are symptoms and associated remedies under
>many headings from circulatory, respiratory, digestion, ears and so on.
>
>MENTAL STATES
>Anxious about future: Calc.Phos. (Calcium phosphate)
<snip of list>
What a bizarre list. Was this even written in the 20th century?
<snip>
>> Vague references to undefined processes like 'restoring the body's
>> natural healing abilities' won't cut it.
>I wouldn't dream of it.
Do you really think "toxemia caused by deficiencies" and "lack of some
inorganic constituent" are any better? Ouch.
-
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
taipe...@hotmail.com
>In sci.skeptic, <9qsnbh$tnj$1...@news.eisa.net.au>, "Carole"
><hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>
how the evidence, right?
>
>>What sort of medicine prescribes
>>drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies? And it is
>>demonstratable and predictable. You have a list of symptoms and associated
>>remedies.
>
>How was this list developed? Who ran the tests? Who reviewed them?
>
>>For example, the following extract is from The Biochemic Handbook
>>by JB Chapman MD and Edward L Perry MD. The book is available from
>>www.amazon.com for $US2.95. There are symptoms and associated remedies under
>>many headings from circulatory, respiratory, digestion, ears and so on.
>>
>>MENTAL STATES
>>Anxious about future: Calc.Phos. (Calcium phosphate)
><snip of list>
>
>What a bizarre list. Was this even written in the 20th century?
>
Do you notice a particular strain in Carole's plaint? It goes along the old , tired "medicine only treats the symptoms, not the causes."
Then, as part of her 'proof', she gives only a list of, yeah, symptoms. No system, no discernible theory, only a lovely example of
stamp collecting instead of science. Grow up, Carole. You're not open minded, you're credulous.
Germán
Richard Herring
> Well of course they are being suppressed. What sort of medicine prescribes
> drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies?
What sort of nutritional deficency is filled by sodium chloride?
In homeopathic doses, no less?
[...]
> MENTAL STATES
> Anxious about future: Calc.Phos. (Calcium phosphate)
> Backwardness: Kali Phos. (Potassium phosphate)
> Brain-fag, from overwork: Kali Phos.
"Brain-fag" ? !
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
B Kildow
>
> In sci.skeptic, <9qsnbh$tnj$1...@news.eisa.net.au>, "Carole"
> <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
> >news:shktstsuja9n00ih7...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
> >> Since you did post this to sci.skeptic as well as m.h.a., you should
> >> be prepared to provide some evidence that:
>
> >I didn't realise this was being posted to sci.skeptic - it must have been
> >done by the person who created the original post.
>
> It's good practice to look at the newsgroups list when you post in an
> existing thread.
<snippage for length only>
> >MENTAL STATES
> >Anxious about future: Calc.Phos. (Calcium phosphate)
> <snip of list>
>
> What a bizarre list. Was this even written in the 20th century?
>
> <snip>
Yes, it could be. For example, this last Saturday night on "Lifeline:
Las Vegas" on the Discovery Channel, I learned (from a chiropractor,
what else?) that a showgirl's sore toe was caused by "her liver not
producing enough bile" and *that* was caused by "eating popcorn, chips,
nuts, caffeine and chocolate." She'd had a bag of popcorn two days
before the exam, so...there you go! Foot, neck and back pain (which
were her complaints) couldn't possibly have been caused by a) the fact
that she worked in a gym as an aerobics/stationary bike instructor 6
days a week, 2 to 3 classes a day, b) her own personal daily workouts on
top of the instructing, c) working 12 shows a week in high heels and
while wearing a *25 pound* (!) headpiece in the show. Nope, just that
darned old liver bile thing. I was waiting for him to mention the other
bodily "humors", but I guess that part got cut. Personally, if I tried
to work that girl's schedule, I'd be dead. Or at least wishing I was.
BK <Old quackery never dies. It just waits a while and pops up again as
a new, "alternative" medicine.>
Michael Jameson
> > >Well of course they are being suppressed. What sort of medicine
> prescribes
> > >drugs to treat demonstratable nutritional deficiencies?
>
> I have had pharm drugs given to me where
> doing diet modification medicine would have
> been the correct medical procedure.
I don't doubt it. There are some lousy doctors, lazy doctors, those who want to
shuffle people through as quickly as possible, those who like to prescribe
because the pharmaceutical company has good freebies or holds conferences in
great places...
> > *Everyone* becomes ill-tempered from time to time. *All* children
> > scream and cry at one time or another. I myself cry easily, and, as
> > my over-ample figure can demonstrate, I am *definitely* not suffering
> > from any *lack* of nutritional substances.
>
> And many mis-behaving kids are placed on the
> pharm drug Ritalin.
Some benefit. Others don't. I think this drug is over-prescribed but do not
think it has no place.
> These authors of yours are
> > *obviously* trying to make people believe that perfectly-normal mental
> > states are really diseases of some sort. They prob'ly get a kickback
> > from the "nutritional supplement" companies or something...
> >
> > >How many mental illnesses are due to nutritional deficiencies?
> > >Of course there are many contributing factors to mental illness including
> > >unresolved personal problems, drugs, poisons and head injury but cell
> salt
> > >deficiencies can result in altered moods.
> >
> > My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
> than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.)
>
> There are M.D.s who practicing nutritional
> medicine who feel schizophrenia results from
> a nicanin (sp?) viramin deficiency.
I think you might mean niacin.
> Those type doctors prescribe vitamin C and
> the B vitamin nicanin to help this mental health
> condition.
...with what sort of success?
> See www.doctoryourself.com .
Dr Saul can only call himself 'Doctor' because he has a PhD from a place called
Greenwich University. The link he provides for a website is no longer operative
but it is now at http://university.edu.nf. They are based on Norfolk Island, an
Australian territory. Norfolk Island has less than 1500 inhabitants and
Greenwich University is a 'distance education' institution. It was found by a
government investigation that Greenwich University did not meet Australian
standards for a university.
More on Greenwich University at -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0006/29/features/features1.html
http://distancelearn.about.com/library/weekly/aa122600a.htm
http://www.nteu.org.au/whatsnew/newmediarel/mr13decc00.html
Mick.
--
"You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS Eliot).
Carole
> second to none when it comes to those without a clue.
>
BTW How's your neurotic cat going?
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
Carole
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:44:32 +1000, "Carole"
> <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra
> cheese, but got this instead:
>
> >
> independently-reproducible clinical evidence that homeopathy/UT/etc.
> *work*.
There are many scientifically proven benefits for cell salts - calcium,
potassium, magnesium, sodium, silica and iron. The cell salts theory just
takes these benefits a bit further.
> >MENTAL STATES
>
> <highly-dubious list snipped>
>
> At least 90% of the "states" listed are not mental illnesses at all.
> *Everyone* becomes ill-tempered from time to time. *All* children
> scream and cry at one time or another. I myself cry easily, and, as
> my over-ample figure can demonstrate, I am *definitely* not suffering
> from any *lack* of nutritional substances. These authors of yours are
> *obviously* trying to make people believe that perfectly-normal mental
> states are really diseases of some sort. They prob'ly get a kickback
> from the "nutritional supplement" companies or something...
I realise that these mental states aren't diseases. However, it is just a
matter of degree.
>
> >How many mental illnesses are due to nutritional deficiencies?
> >Of course there are many contributing factors to mental illness including
> >unresolved personal problems, drugs, poisons and head injury but cell
salt
> >deficiencies can result in altered moods.
>
> My half-brother, who has schizophrenia, is not any more ill-nourished
> than myself. (Which is a testament to the home he lives at.) He
> started taking his only (non-medical) drugs, tobacco and marijuana,
> *after* he developed schizophrenia. Nor has he suffered any head
> injuries or eaten any poisons. His major personal problem, before
> *and* after the onset of his condition, was his inability to keep from
> teasing me.
All that shows is that different people have different nutritional
requirements.
>
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca
Michael Painter
>
> Lorrill Buyens <buy...@interlacken.com> wrote in message
> news:3bd270a1....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:44:32 +1000, "Carole"
> > <hub...@austarmetro.com.au> ordered a sci.skeptic pizza with extra
> > cheese, but got this instead:
> >
> > >> 2) The treatments in question are effective;
> > >
> > Your say-so is not evidence. Kindly provide some peer-reviewed,
> > independently-reproducible clinical evidence that homeopathy/UT/etc.
> > *work*.
>
> There are many scientifically proven benefits for cell salts - calcium,
> potassium, magnesium, sodium, silica and iron. The cell salts theory just
> takes these benefits a bit further.
>
It's not a theory. It's a vague idea with no backing from science.
Peer reviewed lit would change my mind.